04.17.2023 08:26 AM

Government-funded™️

30 Comments

  1. Steve T says:

    I wasn’t in favor of Twitter’s tagging of NPR, but to me this CBC thing is different.

    The label being applied to CBC is entirely fair and accurate. They are vastly more government-funded than any other media organization in Canada (and arguably North America). It’s not even a viable business model without the huge taxpayer injection. From what I’ve seen, it is about 70% of the CBC’s total revenue.

    So yes, the Twitter label seems fair in this situation.

    • The Doctor says:

      So where does this end? What about Fox News? What label do we affix to it? Asshole Murdoch-Funded? Known Liars? Please advise.

      • Doc,

        Works for me. But I would add the word dimwit in front of liars.

      • Steve T says:

        I’m hardly a fan of Fox News, but the fact it is populated by right-wing nutters doesn’t matter in this context. Just like a news site run by the Communist Party of Canada, or the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, or any other far-left group wouldn’t matter in this context either.

        I continue to be surprised by the outrage about the CBC labelling. Government-funded is accurate. If CBC and its supporters are so worked up about that accurate label, maybe they need to think about why it bothers them so much. CBC is not the same as other broadcasters in Canada, and being ashamed of (or trying to mask) that fact is quite telling.

        • Curious V says:

          So list all the corporate funders for all media – advertisers have a lot to say about editorial content in most media so list all of them. The CBC is more pragmatic, and balanced precisely because it is a crown corporation – it’s funding model allows for a lot more balanced, and pragmatic coverage.

          • The Doctor says:

            Exactly. Fox – funded in part by batshit crazy My Pillow Guy.

          • Curious V,

            Seriously? You’re not on the same planet as the rest of us if you can write with a straight face that the CBC is more BALANCED and pragmatic…

            The Corporation is finally feeling the heat and that’s why they’re breaking anti-Trudeau and anti-Liberal stories. They fear a future Poilièvre government so playing nice, at least for a while, is their last resort in hopes of maintaining their bloated structure and current budget. End of story.

      • EsterHazyWasALoser says:

        Fox is privately owned. No taxpayers are required to fund it. If you don’t like it, change the channel.

        • Curious V says:

          Fox isn’t a news outlet. It’s infotainment – shouldn’t be considered, or counted on for anything of value with regards to news coverage. It’s pure propaganda.

        • The Doctor says:

          The topic under discussion is not watching Fox vs not watching it. The topic is putting derogatory warning labels on a news organization’s tweets.

          Fox just agreed to pay $750 million US dollars in damages because it blatantly lied its face off about the results of a Presidential Election. CBC has done nothing remotely close to that.

          Yet people on this comment board seem to think that the CBC is the Menace here that people need to be warned about. That is stupid IMO.

          And I agree that the CBC has an obvious editorial bias and I often don’t like it. But it’s a matter of perspective and what the real and greater menace is out there.

      • Curious V says:

        Exactly!!

        • Martin Dixon says:

          Calling it derogatory is your characterization. It is accurate and anyone who just singles out Fox as infotainment and not CNN and MSNBC shows their clear bias.

    • jj says:

      did National Post not receive government funding?

  2. WestGuy says:

    Given that the CBC gets almost all of its revenues directly from the government, how is it not a government funded organization?

  3. Pedant says:

    Can anyone name any right-of-centre person at the CBC? Anyone?

    Why should taxpayers be forced to fund this archaic organization decades past its best-by date that consistently either ignores or denigrates the prevailing views of 40% of the country’s population?

    Defund the CBC and, yes, eliminate ALL SUBSIDIES to media organizations. If they can’t adapt and compete amidst competition from citizens producing their own content in this new media landscape, then the free market dictates that they be replaced by more successful media participants.

    • Pedant,

      They used to have Rex Murphy. What happened there, I wonder? For every one vote we gain with this, we lose two-three. That’s not the kind of solid basic arithmetic that I can get behind. You see, my objective is for the CPC to actually WIN the next election…

      • Our party has an unfortunate history of going with marginal sidetrack issues, instead of going exclusively with winning issues: you know, inflation, state of the economy, bank health in Canada, health care and federal transfers, the obvious stuff that wins elections. But when we go stupid à la CBC, crypto, anti-vax and other such nonsense, we lose elections. Just ask Harper with his old-stock Canadian bullshit that put the final nail in the CPC coffin in 2015. The trend is supposed to be your friend and right now the CPC is more interested in pushing hot-button issues than strategizing to go with issues that will likely win us power in the next election.

  4. Gilbert says:

    CBC is heavily funded by the government.

  5. Tom B says:

    with the exception of CBC, radio, every single dollar that is sent to CBC is a complete waste of money.

  6. Martin Dixon says:

    1. Nothing wrong with the government funded label. Totally accurate. I don’t really get the uproar. And, personally, I am more than comfortable with my side of the +/- government funded label ledger and have been for years.
    2. If Harper would have defunded at least the “news division” like everyone thought he would, we would not be having this conversation. Let’s hope PP follows through this time if he gets in. Leaders often need to make tough but necessary decisions.
    3. Of course this can’t be compared to Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and all the other silly propaganda outfits down there. Does anyone watch any of those channels other than to find out what their sides’ talking points are(kind of like the CBC)? The difference, of course, and shouldn’t have to be stated since it is a self-evident truth, is that no taxpayer is paying for those channels. You can just turn them off if they bother you.
    3. I an sure Rex is subject to a NDA. It would be great to get his unfiltered views on the CBC with his characteristic wit.

    • The Doctor says:

      But yet you’re not apparently advocating adding Twitter warning labels for the likes of Fox News. Why not? Isn’t the purpose to alert the reader to reliability and veracity issues ?

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Why would I? That isn’t what we are discussing. But that label would also have to be attached to CNN and MSNBC and all the other silly propaganda outfits down there. I would certainly back that initiative. Where do I sign up?

        • The Doctor says:

          That’s my point and I think you and I are essentially aligned on this – if you’re going to start assigning descriptive labels on Twitter to every news organization, that’s where you logically end up.

          Which is why I personally don’t approve of just singling out news organizations that receive some form of government funding. Even though as one of our posters above has noted, where do you even draw the line there? What about subsidies and tax breaks?

          The whole idea is just randomly and capriciously applied trolling IMO.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            Doc, pretend you are a conservative and then watch how questions are framed, etc. They start with an accepted premise all the time. That is what I do with the media in the US and the game is actually entertaining. Right now the coverage of the strike is beyond laughable. It is not just about 13.5% vs 9%. I am paying CLOSE attention because it is impacting my life right now in a big way. The rest of you not so much or people would be calling bullshit on the coverage.

          • The Doctor says:

            Martin, I voted Conservative last election. So please don’t assume that I agree with the CBC’s editorial bias. I am regularly irritated by it. But if the issue is bias here, then the manner in which Twitter has arbitrarily assigned these labels completely misses the mark IMO. By all means, Twitter, assign labels identifying editorial bias. But if you’re going to do that, then you should affix labels such as liberal, progressive, left-wing, socialist, libertarian, conservative, hard-right etc etc. It would open up a huge can of worms potentially, but at least it would have some logic and coherence to it.

            To suggest that “government-funded” necessarily means “liberal bias” is ridiculous – what if the government in question is Hungary or Russia?

          • Martin Dixon says:

            Doc, if you agree it has editorial bias, then shouldn’t something be done about it if it is government funded? Saying that is just government funded doesn’t go far enough, really. It says nothing. It is just a fact. Because you are right, a government funded network could be all over the political spectrum. Methinks that those who protest about the label realize that it is hitting too close to home because we sure know it is not some right wing news outlet.

          • Doc,

            I like your train of thought.

  7. Gilbert says:

    I don’t agree with defunding the CBC, but I want more balanced coverage. At the moment it’s like an NDP/Liberal network.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.