Twitter puts 'government-funded media' tag on CBC account (and they are NOT happy)

[CdnFox]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cbc-government-funded-media-twitter-1.6812591

 

Quote

 

Twitter has put a "government-funded media" label on CBC's account in what is the latest move by the social media company to stamp public broadcasters with designations.

"Government-funded media is defined as outlets where the government provides some or all of the outlet's funding and may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content," according to Twitter.

National Public Radio in the U.S. announced earlier this month that it is leaving the platform after Twitter labelled its account as "state-affiliated media," saying that doing so undermines their credibility by "falsely implying that we are not editorially independent."

U.S. public broadcaster PBS followed suit, also leaving Twitter after it received the "government-funded" stamp.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre recently called on Twitter CEO Elon Musk to add a "government-funded" label to accounts that promote "news-related" content from CBC.

Reacting to the label being implemented on Sunday, Poilievre tweeted that the CBC has been "officially exposed" as "Trudeau propaganda, not news."

 

they are not happy about this.  Frankly - i don't see why it's that big a deal, they are gov't funded with 3/4 of their money coming from the gov't, it doesn't say gov't controlled or the like, and it's entirely true. And it is worth noting that they do have a financial tether to the gov't, and whether the gov't has pull or not with them that relationship may very well colour their stories. Especially when one of the gov't contenders is running no de funding them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thank you for this update...it is not surprising at all given the CBC's long history as Canada's  "state broadcaster" and designated Crown Corporation.  We have had this "independent" CBC discussion in the past...

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/20667-cbc-cuts-650-jobs-and-wants-to-advertise-now/page/3/#comment-956427

 

[ExFlyer]

CBC is government funded. It always has been

Having said that, is twitter tagging all media that gets any form of government support. That means any media in any country in the world that gets even a pittance of government money?

In my mind, that would be a very long list.

The UK partially funds most of it's media as well as media across the globe.

https://declassifieduk.org/uk-spends-over-80m-on-media-in-20-countries-around-russia/

https://cmds.ceu.edu/article/2021-09-28/funding-journalism-britain-commercial-logic-beats-public-interest

As does the US

https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/us-agency-for-global-media?fy=2023

Edited April 17, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Dougie93]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Thank you for this update...it is not surprising at all given the CBC's long history as Canada's  "state broadcaster" and designated Crown Corporation.  We have had this "independent" CBC discussion in the past...

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/20667-cbc-cuts-650-jobs-and-wants-to-advertise-now/page/3/#comment-956427

 

America is simply starting to notice the difference between the CBC having been a public broadcaster

vs. the CBC now being the state propaganda arm of one party and political view

[Dougie93]

31 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I would like to know about NPR's funding from the government. Is it true that they receive only 1%, or is this claim made by <-- left-wing media to criticize Musk? Alternatively, do they receive additional funding through state sources?

 

"Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors and annual grants from the publicly funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of its member stations are owned by non-profit organizations, including public school districts, colleges, and universities."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR

[Dougie93]

I don't find PBS & NPR to be like the CBC has become

the CBC is literally just a PR shop for the Liberals now

they rush to Justin Trudeau's defence reflexively as if they were on his staff

whereas I don't find PBS & NPR to be particularly sympathetic to the Democrats

[Guest]

Just now, Contrarian said:

PBS is golden.

• For anyone in Canada, as a suggestion, get yourself a VPN

Or a television!

Love PBS.  Frontline, American Experience, Antiques Roadshow, etc.  Great stuff.

Don't listen to NPR as much as I did when I was working, but loved that too.

[Dougie93]

the Liberals are just vastly more entrenched in Canada as the ruling elite, the Laurentian elite

the Democrats in America do not have that sort of power

because America is simply not elitist by nature the way Canada is

the Democrats were the dominant party for forty years in Congress, FDR New Dealers

but since 1980, I think it could be argued that the Republicans have been the dominant party in America

[CdnFox]

You can't really compare someone who gets 5 percent of their revenues to someone who gets 70 percent.

Personally - i think the 'state funded' nametag should be reserved for those cases where removal of that funding would require the station to shut down a substantal part of it's services.  If PBS for example lost 5 percent of it's revenues it would have to do some belt tightening and maybe make it up with more donations elsewhere, But they'd survive just fine.  If cbc lost 70 percent of it's revenue it's done - close up the shop and turn out the lights, except for perhaps a few podcasts or radio.

[Dougie93]

45 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Or a television!

Love PBS.  Frontline, American Experience, Antiques Roadshow, etc.  Great stuff.

Don't listen to NPR as much as I did when I was working, but loved that too.

even if PBS had a bias against the Republicans

it hasn't had any effect

for forty years, Republicans have won on every single issue, from taxes, to guns, to abortion

the Republicans have been running the table on the Democrats policy wise

I can't think of a single thing the Democrats have won, since 1980

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

can't think of a single thing the Democrats have won, since 1980

High risk subprime mortgages for everyone. They fought for that and won. "Everyone should have a home".  Mind you that lead directly to the crash in 08 which took down teh whole world with it but by god they won it and nobody was taking it away. (Clinton regretted it and tried to undo it with no luck).

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

High risk subprime mortgages for everyone. They fought for that and won. "Everyone should have a home".  Mind you that lead directly to the crash in 08 which took down teh whole world with it but by god they won it and nobody was taking it away. (Clinton regretted it and tried to undo it with no luck).

actually, that was the Republicans too

Newt Gingrich pounded on Bill Clinton relentlessly

until Bill Clinton decided he had to "pivot" and adopt all the Republican policies

even the temporary Assault Weapons Ban backfired massively in the Republicans favour

it was when the Democrats passed the AWB, that Americans decided they had to have AR15s

AR15's were not actually popular at all, until the Democrats tried to ban them

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

I agree, PBS is quality material, real reporters. Frontline, takes it to a whole different level. 

CBC should learn and maybe do a training class there.  ?

CBC problems are management based, period.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

actually, that was the Republicans too

Nope. Brought in by the dems, held in place by the dems till it was too late. Bush tried.

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Newt Gingrich pounded on Bill Clinton relentlessly

until Bill Clinton decided he had to "pivot" and adopt all the Republican policies

This was a democrat move exclusively and the republicans tried to fight it like hell.

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

even the temporary Assault Weapons Ban backfired massively in the Republicans favour

That's true. But that's largely because the dems didn't understand what they were doing at all. "the shoulder thingie that goes up".

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it was when the Democrats passed the AWB, that Americans decided they had to have AR15s

AR15's were not actually popular at all, until the Democrats tried to ban them

A common story . Nothing sells guns like a rumour of a ban.

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I can't think of a single thing the Democrats have won, since 1980

Obama's American Healthcare Act - which the Republicans couldn't undo.

Other than that, nothing much comes to mind.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Obama's American Healthcare Act - which the Republicans couldn't undo.

Other than that, nothing much comes to mind.

but he couldn't get the Public Option passed

so it actually failed as Universal Healthcare

with the Public Option, it would have been the Swiss system, best in the world, Obamacare for the Swiss

but without the Public Option, which forces the private insurance companies to cover basic healthcare

it actually became the worst of both worlds

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

but he couldn't get the Public Option passed

so it actually failed as Universal Healthcare

with the Public Option, it would have been the Swiss system, best in the world, Obamacare for the Swiss

but without the Public Option, which forces the private insurance companies to cover basic healthcare

it actually became the worst of both worlds

I think that the public option died with the Clinton administration.  

I have no opinion on how good or bad it is.   

Your thread speaks to the incorrect meme of the right being on the run, losing etc.  The reason why we have pro-wrestling-grade fake fights like banning drag queens is that the right is running out of things to win on.

The big one will be medicare.   They keep trying to find ways to do that one.

[Dougie93]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your thread speaks to the incorrect meme of the right being on the run, losing etc.  The reason why we have pro-wrestling-grade fake fights like banning drag queens is that the right is running out of things to win on.

don't know what you mean

I don't say the right is losing

I say the left is losing so badly, that the danger now is actually the rise of Fascism

my narrative is that we are in a giant worldwide Wiemar Republic which is going to implode

Edited April 17, 2023 by Dougie93

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it doesn't say gov't controlled or the like, and it's entirely true. 

I woulda gone with "it doesn't say gov't controlled or the like, but it should."

[Dougie93]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The big one will be medicare.   They keep trying to find ways to do that one.

Social Security & Medicare will collapse under their own weight at some point

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt, is 3/4 of the debt

the unfunded liabilities are exponential into the future

at some point, it is going to bring the dollar down, there will be hyperinflation

then the federal government will get rid of everything except the national security state

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. In my view, a change in the political establishment is necessary to bring moderation to the current culture of idealism and echo-chamber thinking that exists.

2. One potential solution could be a Conservative winner, one PP, you know him, whose soldiers (team underneath) can bring a culture shock to the CBC. Through this culture shock, moderation may be achieved.

1. What kind of change ?  A new government ?  I don't think that will make much difference absent of other changes.  "Idealism" and "Echo-chamber thinking" ?  I think it's more of a panic that spreads out, within generational bubbles.

2. They aren't proposing a culture change, they're proposing destruction of the English language side.  It's an admission of an inability to reform.  It's kind of mind boggling.

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I woulda gone with "it doesn't say gov't controlled or the like, but it should."

Honestly - i don't think it is.  If that were the case it would be simple - change gov'ts.  I think they ARE independent but they have DECIDED that the prefer one gov't over others and they collude to benefit that gov't at every turn.

And that's a bigger problem, because there's no fixing that. They are WILLFULLY partisan - the only thing you can do at that point is burn it down.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

1. Change in political establishment can bring new ideas and fresh perspectives that are necessary to challenge the bubble of some at the CBC, that are not capable to take on online trolls and they shut down comments in the name of idealism. 
 
2. While destruction of existing structures may seem extreme, it can be a necessary step in the process of reform.

3. How else are you going to break the bubble at the CBC? 

4. Someone said it well, pull the funding for CBC if they complain about "government-funded" agency, let's see how long they will make it to compete. 

1. Asking again - what kind of change ?  Stating again - that 'new ideas' don't come out of the destruction of an institution.

2. Destruction and Reform are antonyms.

3. Here's an analogy.  You stub your toe - how else are you going to feel better other than cutting your foot off.

4. Nonsensical and reactionary.  Post better.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What kind of change ?  A new government ?  I don't think that will make much difference absent of other changes. 

Unfortunately you're right.  Gov't is downstream of culture, not upstream.

 

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. They aren't proposing a culture change, they're proposing destruction of the English language side.  It's an admission of an inability to reform.  It's kind of mind boggling.

it's not at all mindboggling - one throws out rotten fruit and thinks nothing of it. Frankly i think the french services will also find they don't have a lot of extra coin for screwing around.

There is no reasonable ability to reform the cbc. The problems are systemic and pervasive and with the people in the corporation itself. You can't legislate against that. You'd literally have to rebuild it from ground up and why would you bother? There's nothing the cbc provides that the public market doesn't provide just as well or better.

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And that's a bigger problem, because there's no fixing that. They are WILLFULLY partisan

TBH I blame our universities and colleges.

IMO they are terrible institutions where kids learn by rote without ever learning to think for themselves. That's the only reason I can see for so many people being 1) intelligent enough to get through university yet 2) completely unable to understand what it means about the Pfizer jab when covid deaths went up by 30% after 85% of the country vaxed.

Quote

- the only thing you can do at that point is burn it down.

Defunding may not kill the beast entirely but it would feel so good...