Canadian Broadcasting In Crisis

Does saying "Jeeeezus" and "oh my God" over and over as I scroll through the news count as praying? 

It's not just all the bizarre appointments in the US that will chase out any competent people leaving an empty husk as a gift for Russia - or something like that - but the CBC feels compromised. It's been a bit of a problem here and there for decades, but this latest mess of a "balanced" call-in show on Canada becoming the 51st state with flippin' Kevin O'Leary and David Frum hosting, feels like it's no longer Canadian at all. People are calling them, and the producers Quislings, and I think that word will become more and more commonplace. CBC News reported on the backlash and asks that we pretty please watch the show to make up our own mind. No thanks.

The cartoon above is from a few weeks ago. How much is Musk/Trump already involved in the CBC directly or through PP or Ford? We NEED trusted Canada-wide media now more than ever. Take control of the media to control the country. I'm heartened by the anger this has roused in the public, but the left is now calling to defund the CBC! It feels like this was the plan all along, and we're falling for it. We need a way in to reclaim the CBC, or, alternatively, we need our own grassroots version of The MeidasTouch to take its place. This is vital to keeping our country our own.

Tim Ford spells out problems with the show here, in case it's not obvious:

I will attempt to flesh out why the CBC's broadcast of Cross Country Checkup was so toxic today, since there are some people still expressing confusion or dismay at the criticisms, including my own, leveled at it. 

First and foremost: framing. The question: "What do you think of Trump's comments about Canada becoming the 51st state?" A slavish adherence to so-called "neutrality" is at play here. For starters, these are not "comments." These are threats. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. ANY country's unilateral declaration of annexation is, by its very nature, a threat. The other country's autonomy is dismissed, so it can't be read any other way. This applies anywhere. If S. Korea threatens to annex N. Korea. If India threatens to annex Iran. "Good guys" and "bad guys" alike. By portraying this threat as mere "comments" and leaving this as an open-ended "thought experiment," the CBC shirked its journalistic duty to objective truth. Objectively, Trump is threatening Canada. Period. This would be like asking "what do we think of Putin's comments on annexing Ukraine?"

The second major failure: informing the audience. This is a problem of format; a free-for-all call-in by its very nature is problematic. There is little-to-no vetting and it functions as a soapbox for the terminally online, instead of, as it claims to be, a bellwether of public feelings. A vibes-based discussion is toxic, platforming uninformed opinions on a national scale, including fringes. The CBC defends it on the basis that they allow "all sides to be heard." However, all sides are not equal. A surgeon is more qualified to discuss the cardiovascular system than a barber.This also goes back to an over-adherence to neutrality. If, for instance, we said "Flat earthers think the Earth is flat. What do you think, callers?" We would not present this as a discussion of equals. There is objective truth, and expertise. 

Which leads to the last point of criticism. A lack of expert rebuttal and fact-checking. If there was to be a discussion on Trump's threats, why in the world would we want to hear from snake oil salesmen like Kevin O'Leary, rather than actual foreign policy and constitutional law experts? Journalists have a responsibility to seek expert and informed sources for their stories. Kevin O'Leary has no qualifications to discuss the legal, foreign policy, or historical contexts of this situation. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact. He does not know any of these issues. By instead allowing shysters like O'Leary to present unchecked misinformation, and placing the onus on listeners to "do their own research," the broadcast effectively shirked its journalistic responsibility. It offered about as much value as a Reddit Thread. 

And on that last point, I also have to address the contempt which Hanomansing and Hobson tossed at their critics. Multiple times, they laughed off critics, mainly on BlueSky, which they mentioned by name. Here's my obvious rebuttal: why are people here worth less than people on your show? The answer, of course, is that this is about ego. Hanomansing and Hobson felt slighted that people had the audacity to point out the flaws in their program, and rather than address these issues, they opted to portray the same public they claim to represent as fringe or crazy. It is this final hypocrisy which I think conclusively shows the lie of the program's promise of being a productive discussion. If, indeed, we can agree that it carries no better informative value than an internet message board, how is it worthy to take up air time of our national broadcaster? 

I'm going to wrap it up here, and direct people to this succinct point by Steve Boots. There is no such thing as absolute neutrality in news. Discussions which pretend there is no moral or factual core to issues are without value, literally and metaphorically. The CBC failed here.

Steve Boots said:

It's past time to stop this both sides nonsense. Balance is a myth. We're always making decisions in what we show and what we don't It's why you don't hear communist perspectives on the new. "Balance" excludes them for some reason. We don't need to engage with both sides of an obviously awful claim. I have no more right to his house than the US does to Canada, so why is one easy to dismiss as a ridiculous claim, and one is not? Obviously I'm being sarcastic about the house, but the real question is, is public comment on EVERY idea a good thing? One of the roles of a broadcaster is to make careful decisions about how you frame discussions. The framing is very concerning.

Absolutely.