Some of the bought & paid for media

[daftandbarmy]

CTV cut most of its foreign corps. It now uses CNN’s and other US media for its coverage I believe.

So journalists in Montreal or Toronto using reporting from foreign reporters rather than their own reporters.

And the quality shows...

 

[The Bread Guy]

CTV cut most of its foreign corps. It now uses CNN’s and other US media for its coverage I believe.

So journalists in Montreal or Toronto using reporting from foreign reporters rather than their own reporters.

CBC's & Global's foreign bureaus aren't what they used to be, either. Another symptom: reporting on country x, y or z being done by someone in country a, b or c. Like some Gaza coverage I see/hear from reporters based in London.

Closer to home, though, it's one thing to have foreign eyes looking at a foreign situation for a Canadian network, but quite another to have fewer eyes available to look at events in Canada for Canadians.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Bingo - which is a question to also ask when seeing Canadian newsrooms shrinking and shutting down.

Be better.

Again I shed no tears. Mostly because I am not asking that question.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

CBC's & Global's foreign bureaus aren't what they used to be, either. Another symptom: reporting on country x, y or z being done by someone in country a, b or c. Like some Gaza coverage I see/hear from reporters based in London.

Closer to home, though, it's one thing to have foreign eyes looking at a foreign situation for a Canadian network, but quite another to have fewer eyes available to look at events in Canada for Canadians.

For events in the ME, Ukraine, I get them hours/days on the web, before the MSM reports on them, using pretty much the same source material. For other international stuff, I go to some trusted SME's, as much will never be reported in the MSM here. (like Burma, Ed Nash is quite good) But without all the inane chatter from talking heads that know little. For Canada, the Canadian MSM do a better job. For local I check in with the online version of our two local papers, they struggle with a small staff and also use a few local online sources, but add enough content that I would otherwise miss.

 

[FJAG]

Should we expect US Broadcasters to cover other countries ?

They should but it's not realistic to expect that. CBC's reporting of the competition by Canadian athletes was adequate and better, IMHO. It was the panel that bored me. You do need panel discussions but they should advance the narrative of the competition or give relevant background on the sport and the athletes. Again, IMHO, this was poorly done. Maybe it was the panelists themselves or the directors, editors or research staff that failed but, all in all, it was weak. We pay enough for the CBC, and there should be good advertising revenue, that they can devote some good funding to this once every four years. We shouldn't need to rely on anyone else.

Bingo - which is a question to also ask when seeing Canadian newsrooms shrinking and shutting down.

Double Bingo. You're talking to a guy who grew up to watching Walter Cronkite do the news. Later on, I used to religiously watch the 11:00 o'clock news. Remember Mike Duffy? Now I absolutely despise the "entertainment" and "opinion" trash that has taken hold such as that which permeates Fox. For the last ten years or more I just scan various diverse news sites on the internet - yes, even Fox. I have better things to do than wait for the TV reports. I'm betting that I'm not alone in that and that the surveys have noticed our absence, adjusted ad revenue accordingly and thereby caused the shrinkage of the newsrooms.

 

[Halifax Tar]

They should but it's not realistic to expect that.

Why ? Why would we expect them to do that ?

Its a genuine question, because I truly don't understand that position.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If there is a profitable market for Canadian produced news, someone will fill it.

CTV is my only Canadian news station. Not by choice. I only get local news and then it's only Mon-Fri.

 

[FJAG]

Why ? Why would we expect them to do that ?

Its a genuine question, because I truly don't understand that position.

Because, IMHO, something like the Olympics is about the coming together of the athletes of the world and there should be a focus on all of them; even the ones that aren't the superstars.

One obviously can't get away from the fact that any given broadcaster will spend the majority of their time covering athletes from their own country and there will always be a difference of opinion as to what is the right ratio. One of my pet peeves is that a broadcaster will probably run the same item on a given athlete of theirs several times during the day when some of that time could be given to others from elsewhere.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Because, IMHO, something like the Olympics is about the coming together of the athletes of the world and there should be a focus on all of them; even the ones that aren't the superstars.

 

[The Bread Guy]

For events in the ME, Ukraine, I get them hours/days on the web, before the MSM reports on them, using pretty much the same source material. For other international stuff, I go to some trusted SME's, as much will never be reported in the MSM here. (like Burma, Ed Nash is quite good)

Same here for international news.

For local I check in with the online version of our two local papers, they struggle with a small staff and also use a few local online sources, but add enough content that I would otherwise miss.

That's the issue - more below.

If there is a profitable market for Canadian produced news, someone will fill it.

In the bigger centres (especially like the "red triangle" where 1/2 of Canada lives in southern/SW Ontario), no problem. How about the Lethbridge's, Oromocto's, Kenora's of the world, though? Or should people there just move to where the news is? Don't know how to make covering courts, city hall & school board in small centres profitable.

One man's meh break dancer could be another's Eddie "The Eagle" or Jamaican bobsled team.

 

[dimsum]

They should but it's not realistic to expect that. CBC's reporting of the competition by Canadian athletes was adequate and better, IMHO. It was the panel that bored me. You do need panel discussions but they should advance the narrative of the competition or give relevant background on the sport and the athletes. Again, IMHO, this was poorly done. Maybe it was the panelists themselves or the directors, editors or research staff that failed but, all in all, it was weak. We pay enough for the CBC, and there should be good advertising revenue, that they can devote some good funding to this once every four years. We shouldn't need to rely on anyone else.

Double Bingo. You're talking to a guy who grew up to watching Walter Cronkite do the news. Later on, I used to religiously watch the 11:00 o'clock news. Remember Mike Duffy? Now I absolutely despise the "entertainment" and "opinion" trash that has taken hold such as that which permeates Fox. For the last ten years or more I just scan various diverse news sites on the internet - yes, even Fox. I have better things to do than wait for the TV reports. I'm betting that I'm not alone in that and that the surveys have noticed our absence, adjusted ad revenue accordingly and thereby caused the shrinkage of the newsrooms.

The CBC shouldn’t even need ads. The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp, not the American one) has zero ads in any of its TV/radio/digital platforms, YouTube excepted (and that’s a YT thing, not an ABC thing).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Because, IMHO, something like the Olympics is about the coming together of the athletes of the world and there should be a focus on all of them; even the ones that aren't the superstars.

One obviously can't get away from the fact that any given broadcaster will spend the majority of their time covering athletes from their own country and there will always be a difference of opinion as to what is the right ratio. One of my pet peeves is that a broadcaster will probably run the same item on a given athlete of theirs several times during the day when some of that time could be given to others from elsewhere.

Thanks, I appreciate you expanding on that.

 

[RangerRay]

When I was a kid watching the Olympics, I found the CBC coverage more interesting than American coverage because while the focus was always on Team Canada, they would also show important events even if no Canadians were playing and also talked about other notable foreign athletes. The American coverage was extremely jingoistic and wouldn’t mention the world record holder from Botswana in the event that beat pants off the Yanks. Instead, they would be completely baffled at how the Botswanan beat their athletes.

CBC news coverage still sucks though. It’s just getting worse with time.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Terrifying...


Is the CBC is a biased broadcasting institution?
Absolutely!

I worked there for years and was amazed at the editorial decisions that were made. We once tried to get someone to describe verbally on CBC radio what the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were (as it was very newsworthy after the attacks) and were told to kill it. Didn’t want to offend anyone by offering a truthful description of the cause of a terrorist attack.

Edit 2024:

Here's a story that reflects CBC and their approach to indigenous issues:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/indigenous-names-birth-certificate-1.6796151

The story is about an indigenous person's struggle to get their child's name spelled in their dialect on a birth certificate. They were “fighting” (i.e. filed a document request) for 13 months. The reporter shoehorns in some quasi-religous story and noted the parents don't consider it respectful or a win as “it should have been done ages ago.”

The story was filed in BC, which has a huge, multi-cultural population. The reporter completely misses the fact that this wasn't targeting indigenous person's - no one who speaks Chinese, Russian, Hebrew, Urdu, Thai, Greek, or any language that's not using the roman alphabet can use that language on their birth certificate or passport.

The bigger story is that BC is actively giving rights to one group of people that no others have. It's a massive story as it is legislated discrimination against anyone who is non-indigenous. But the reporter completely missed the big picture.

Also, the person who filed the complaint has a reputation for nuisance suits as well, she kept smudging in her non-smoking apartment and then sued her landlord when everyone complained. That story was also painted as a victory.

Anyhow, the point is that CBC is so drunk on white guilt that they won't ask basic journalistic questions when it comes to indigenous stories. Their bias is very much apparent. And in the current environment it would be career suicide for any journalist or editor to question the story. They would be instantly canceled.

(Edit 2020: Someone in comments said I had no proof of a biased story, so here is a recent one.)

Another example is this story:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/anthony-aust-ottawa-court-documents-1.5841481

The headline blares "

Police raid on Anthony Aust's apartment didn't match tipster information, court documents show"…

Except the police found exactly what the tipster said they would - cash, cutting agents, over 100 grams of fentanyl and heroin, and a replica gun. The reporter obviously doesn't know the Criminal Code because use of a replica weapon during an offence counts as a real weapon. The story exalts the offender and lambasts the police - stating "But there was no gun recovered." and then goes on to describe how the police found drugs and a gun.

This is a typical CBC technique - paint the offender as a victim and try to muster outrage at the police.

(2024) In hindsight I realized the timing of the story coincided with the Breonna Taylor shooting in the US. The CBC was trying to muster outrage as Aust killed himself during a no-knock warrant being served. They like to pretend there are parallels with the US and Canada that just dont exist. Here is their follow-up:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/anthony-aust-2-year-anniversary-1.6610785

I love the quote “One of the only ways we can demand justice for Anthony Aust is if we defund, disarm and dismantle the police.”

Apparently their community is under attack, but they don't mention Aust was a known drug dealer who possessed an illegal handgun.

The CBC also HEAVILY censors their comments section, with no recourse for the user or explanation why. This was particularly heavy handed during COVID where they would pull comments that even had medical journal citations as the source. This means they have employees going through the comments and removing ones that don't align with their stance.

The CBC has a strong hiring policy for “underrepresented” Canadians which means the actual newsrooms look quite different from the Canadian cities they are in. This then results in an echo chamber where certain stories are amplified and repeated. If you have a "Diversity and Inclusion" reporter then of course every story that person produces will be biased.

They are also heavily unionized which plays into the coverage - at one point I was in the CEP (communication energy and paperworkers) the CMG (Canadian Media Guild) the WGC (Writers Guild of Canada) and ACTRA (Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists) all at the same time! My union dues were crazy.

That being said there were only a few crusaders who felt they had to provide “opposite” coverage to the majors. Most of the bias was due to self interest, pure laziness, and reliance on the same sources.

CBC also competes against commercial internet, radio, and tv while using public funds so it’s a peculiar position for commercial tv and radio stations in Canada. Part of the taxes they pay go to a state funded entity that competes with them! This leads to a contrarian attitude against “regular” media. In fact, when I went online recently four of the top five CBC stories were directly sourced from the Associated Press, Canadian Press, Thomson Reuters, and AFP. CBC is getting paid to post freely available stories other newscasts pay for.

Why does everyone hate the CBC?

Answer (1 of 7): The CBC is federally funded, yet is blatantly partisan. It is also a source of propaganda reinforcing Canada’s antiquated ties to the British monarchy. Lately it has been the following the crowd of regressive leftism, blindly championing ‘equality’ (of outcome) and ‘diversity’ a...

www.quora.com

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So what are the choices?
Leave news outlets to their own devices and watch them commit hari kari
Let Canadian online journalism biased narrative continue to confuse and sway the population using taxpayer's own dollars.

When I encounter someone in my personal life, who intentionally lies and exaggerates to try convince me of something contrary to my beliefs, I walk away from those people because they are poisonous and detrimental. Why would I treat a corporation any different.

 

[OldSolduer]

The CBC at one time was a credible source of news but since the "do gooders" and "guilty white liberals" took it over it has gone way downhill.

Add to that the bonuses oops I mean performance pay their executives received while they laid of staff and cut programming.....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Hoo boy...

Subsidized journalists are praising the government hand that feeds

Some news organizations have begun to bare their teeth and their bias in the fight to retain federal subsidy dollars.

In doing so, they are displaying a willingness to unashamedly defend Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, in order to preserve the funding regime it established for media unable to adapt to the digital age.

Over the past five years, the Liberal government has introduced hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for news organizations approved by a Canada Revenue Agency panel and through the Periodical Fund and Local Journalism Initiative overseen by the Department of Canadian Heritage. There is every reason to believe that in the year ahead, as we move closer to an election, those supports will continue to be enhanced and extended as they have been since they were first introduced five years ago as temporary measures. The prospect of all that loot being ripped like a soother from an infant’s mouth by Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives clearly has the industry on edge and, over the next year, it appears likely we will see an increasing number of outbursts.

This month, Poilievre visited Ontario’s Niagara-on-the-Lake and said some things about media funding that so enraged local newspaper Niagara Now that it decided to pen the longest editorial in its history. Entitled “Poilievre is truly great—at pandering,” it was lauded and amplified by Katie Telford, Trudeau’s chief of staff on X. Criticism of the piece set off an X storm, with attacks launched at The Hub’s own Sean Speer.

It should be noted that Niagara Now is a beneficiary of both the federal government’s “Local Journalism Initiative” which provides full time salaries for news reporters to the tune of $60,000 annually and the Canadian Periodical Fund’s “Special Measures for Journalism” program.

Peter Menzies: Subsidized journalists are praising the government hand that feeds

thehub.ca

 

[QV]

The CBC at one time was a credible source of news but since the "do gooders" and "guilty white liberals" took it over it has gone way downhill.

Add to that the bonuses oops I mean performance pay their executives received while they laid of staff and cut programming.....

I'm not so sure it has always been credible when it comes to politics. Before the internet and social media, what metric was available to vet against a media release that could reach a significant population? Nothing.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Hoo boy...

Subsidized journalists are praising the government hand that feeds

Some news organizations have begun to bare their teeth and their bias in the fight to retain federal subsidy dollars.

In doing so, they are displaying a willingness to unashamedly defend Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, in order to preserve the funding regime it established for media unable to adapt to the digital age.

Over the past five years, the Liberal government has introduced hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for news organizations approved by a Canada Revenue Agency panel and through the Periodical Fund and Local Journalism Initiative overseen by the Department of Canadian Heritage. There is every reason to believe that in the year ahead, as we move closer to an election, those supports will continue to be enhanced and extended as they have been since they were first introduced five years ago as temporary measures. The prospect of all that loot being ripped like a soother from an infant’s mouth by Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives clearly has the industry on edge and, over the next year, it appears likely we will see an increasing number of outbursts.

This month, Poilievre visited Ontario’s Niagara-on-the-Lake and said some things about media funding that so enraged local newspaper Niagara Now that it decided to pen the longest editorial in its history. Entitled “Poilievre is truly great—at pandering,” it was lauded and amplified by Katie Telford, Trudeau’s chief of staff on X. Criticism of the piece set off an X storm, with attacks launched at The Hub’s own Sean Speer.

It should be noted that Niagara Now is a beneficiary of both the federal government’s “Local Journalism Initiative” which provides full time salaries for news reporters to the tune of $60,000 annually and the Canadian Periodical Fund’s “Special Measures for Journalism” program.

Peter Menzies: Subsidized journalists are praising the government hand that feeds

thehub.ca

Why the surprise? Isn't that what a lot of people have been saying for a long time, that this would happen?

A reminder that Postmedia (which includes Sun news outlets) who get big money from Club Fed are happy to criticize Team Red? You'd think THAT would be the most unusual, therefore more newsworthy tidbit to cover

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Maybe if we had to depend on foreign media for our news, people would get the real truth about what is going on in Canada. Even now, their message is often opposite our news agencies, but more accurate and unfiltered.