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

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. 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.

2. 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.

1. Decades of stale failed content, even in comparison to other public broadcasters internationally, with no hint of improvement.  The Harper government effected a minor change that lasted a short while.

2. Then create CBC Plus, a new thing, and allow the first one to die off.

The thing is - there HAVE been hints of greatness and some aspects of what they do are better than others.

They did this thing called CBC3 about a dozen years ago - cheap, cheerful, young and fun.  It was amazing.  The execs saw the success and said "Let's turn this into Spotify" and it was lost.  Culture reboot needed.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

TBH I blame our universities and colleges.

that's probably not without merit.

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

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

Well it probably would. The english version anyway.  They get 70 percent from gov't and 30 percent from ad sales - but the ad sales are only so high because they bought the viewership with the 70.

So once that's gone and they can't afford the shows, the ad revenues dry up too and you're left with practically nothing.

They would have to compete just like any other station and even the established ones are fighting for money these days.

The good news is the death of the cbc would probably help the other news media - suddenly about 500 million dollars or more in advertising money would be freed up and looking for a place to call home.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. What do you mean, what kind of change, a political change at the Federal Level. At least will be doing something towards addressing the problem. 

2. While "destruction" and "reform" may be antonyms, they are not mutually exclusive. In some cases, reform requires breaking down existing structures and rebuilding them from the ground up. This can be done in a deliberate and thoughtful manner that minimizes harm and maximizes the potential for positive change.

3. Why are you dismissing my opinion like a King on a Throne? 

1. What kind of change ?  An election ?  Did you see a major change when Harper was PM ?
2. Poilievre isn't proposing that, though.  I prefer R. Buckminster Fuller's plan - build something better and let the worse thing die.
3. I have too much respect for you, and too little time to indulge opinions that I feel need to be rejected outright.  At one point I was going to work for the CBC, in management, and I got an insider to explain the environment to me.  It sounded like the worst political mess I could imagine.  This has happened, to my mind, because the ultimate managers are politicians figuratively and literally.  No offense.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Decades of stale failed content, even in comparison to other public broadcasters internationally, with no hint of improvement.  The Harper government effected a minor change that lasted a short while.

Yeah it's just too big a mess to fix.

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Then create CBC Plus, a new thing, and allow the first one to die off.

Well that's up to the cbc.  They can go that route and try to make it as a private provider.

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thing is - there HAVE been hints of greatness and some aspects of what they do are better than others.

Nothing that justifies using public money to fund a partisan news agency.

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They did this thing called CBC3 about a dozen years ago - cheap, cheerful, young and fun.  It was amazing.  The execs saw the success and said "Let's turn this into Spotify" and it was lost.  Culture reboot needed.

 

Nothing helps 'reboot' a culture like making it earn it's own supper. If they wish to continue it then they will have to create a model that actually appeals to enough people that they can generate revenues and keep going,

I doubt they will to be honest - i dont' think these people have the SLIGHTEST idea what canadians actually want or care about, but they certainly can try.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many years ago (2004), the CBC hosted a typical, multi-topic "Forums" area like  other media outlets.   The forum became more and more heavily moderated to the point that members would use word misspellings and other tricks to beat the filters and enforced political correctness of the day (now far worse).

The forum was eventually shut down for several reasons that I suspect were related to the increasing political rancor and online conflict(s), "hate speech", etc.   Another member here relayed a specific story as it happened, and being a CBC Forums member, I watched in real time as the forum area collapsed, playing with <img> tags to beat the heavy moderation/filters [e.g. Popeye the Sailor Man]. 

His 2014 post describing the incident is linked here:

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/23434-moderating-mapleafwebs-moderation/?do=findComment&comment=960010

 

[WestCanMan]

CBC's comedy section is worth keeping I guess. 

We have them to thank for all the SCTV guys like John Candy and Catherine O'Hara. It'd be sad to think of a world where none of those guys ever made it to the big stage.

Schitt's Creek was a very relevant comedy, even if the title was off-putting.

Just For Laughs is funny. The Trailer Park Boys are like our Marvel superheroes. Mr Dee was pretty funny. 

They just shouldn't be allowed to do news or drama. They're so bad that that stuff that it isn't funny. 

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. The idealism at the CBC has reached such levels that it needs to be challenged, and a new government could bring in fresh perspectives that could do just that.

2.  I think it's important to shake things up and try something new to address the problem of idealism at the CBC.

3. I am realistic about the current situation at the CBC and who is electable. PP is the only candidate who has shown a willingness to challenge the CBC's idealism and echo-chamber thinking. 

4. I am glad you did not go. 

1.  Idealism ?  I see an overstaffed behemoth with no imagination that is over-peopled with old people with old ideas.  The new government is proposing to dynamite the structure and replace it with nothing as far as I understand.  You seem to be proposing fresh perspectives in the same way that you can expect a new perspective from a firecracker shortly after it is lit.
2. Idealism... okaaaay.  I agree change is needed and if it takes the shape of demolition as I expect then liberals have themselves to thank.
3. Challenge = destroy.
4. I am many things but I am not a whore.

[bush_cheney2004]

Radio-Canada.ca also reported the Twitter story...don't know if the timing was different than for CBC.ca.    Are these different language sites for CBC News managed/moderated in a similar way, or does Quebec / French language content march to a different drummer ?

 

 

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

CBC problems are management based, period.

They should never have sued the tories. And if they were going to do so during an election they shouldn't have put their newsreaders/moderators names on the suit. The Conservative outrage was magnified when she was selected as one of the moderators for the election debate.

[I am Groot]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah it's just too big a mess to fix.

I disagree. All it takes is a hard-nosed attitude. Fire the more openly biased 'faces', and impose a sense of non-partisanship on the news and political affairs department, or whatever they're calling it. Then hire some creative talent that doesn't live in Toronto. Maybe even consider what the people outside Toronto might like to see in the form of entertainment.

Fire anyone who objects to this. Fire anyone who stands in the way. Whether they're bureaucrats, producers or 'talent. Cut back on the number of bureaucrats. Way back. And prioritize local news. I can assure you that CTV sucks at that (and at national news for that matter). In fact, most of Canada's media suck at news. I include Postmedia in that. Their papers are a shadow of what they once were due to cost cutting. Global does a good job of covering local news. Way better than the CBC or CTV. See what they do and imitate it.

 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I disagree. All it takes is a hard-nosed attitude.

It's well past that.

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Fire the more openly biased 'faces', and impose a sense of non-partisanship on the news and political affairs department, or whatever they're calling it.

 

Oh you mean illegally terminate people for their beliefs without sufficient proof that they engaged in partisan activities permanently.  There is ZERO chance of getting away with that and any gov't who tried would find they'd go into the next election with the expensive lawsuits ongoing and be running as the 'mean to the beloved cbc' party.

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Then hire some creative talent that doesn't live in Toronto. Maybe even consider what the people outside Toronto might like to see in the form of entertainment.

You realize toronto largely elects who's gov't. Telling them they can't apply isn't going to go over well.

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Fire anyone who objects to this.

More lawsuits and wrongful dismissals and the people get their jobs back

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

 

Fire anyone who stands in the way.

Dude....  no. Just no. This is not how it works in Canada. You can't  just 'fire' everyone.

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Whether they're bureaucrats, producers or 'talent. Cut back on the number of bureaucrats. Way back. And prioritize local news. I can assure you that CTV sucks at that (and at national news for that matter). In fact, most of Canada's media suck at news. I include Postmedia in that. Their papers are a shadow of what they once were due to cost cutting. Global does a good job of covering local news. Way better than the CBC or CTV. See what they do and imitate it.

So here's the thing. The cbc actaully iS able to distance itself from the govt' That's WHY they can favour the libs.

So NONE of what you've suggested is possible. THe gov't doesnt' get to hire or fire anyone at the CBC

And even if it did - the libs would just fire the people and hire back the ones they liked next time they got in.

It is beyond saving. All you can do is defund it and let it burn itself to the ground.

[Michael Hardner]

48 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

They should never have sued the tories.  

Agreed.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Oh you mean illegally terminate people for their beliefs without sufficient proof that they engaged in partisan activities permanently.  There is ZERO chance of getting away with that

When an employee is terminated without cause, it means they are being let go, but not for significant workplace misconduct (otherwise known as a termination “for cause“). The reasons behind a termination without cause may include restructuring, cost cutting, realignment, or poor work performance. A company can also let you go simply because they don’t like you. As long as the reason for the termination or lay off is not discriminatory, it is completely legal for the employer to terminate your employment. 

https://stlawyers.ca/law-essentials/termination-without-cause/

 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

When an employee is terminated without cause, it means they are being let go, but not for significant workplace misconduct (otherwise known as a termination “for cause“). The reasons behind a termination without cause may include restructuring, cost cutting, realignment, or poor work performance. A company can also let you go simply because they don’t like you. As long as the reason for the termination or lay off is not discriminatory, it is completely legal for the employer to terminate your employment. 

https://stlawyers.ca/law-essentials/termination-without-cause/

 

As someone who's had to deal with this many times in court, i can tell you that is not exhaustive in the slighetst. Courts have and do demand reinstatement of positions, and/or demand payouts of wages vastly in excess of what the required minimum is by law.

The issues will be things like how easy it is to get another similar job, if they feel there was any discrimination involved. etc.

But i absolutely promise you that if you fire someone from a position like the cbc and it's considered wrongful dismissal you are NOT getting away with it that easily AND they're union so it gets to be an order of magnitude worse.

I mean that was doug ford's plan too right, with hydro 1. He got in and tried and got slaughered.  it just doesn't work that way.

[blackbird]

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As someone who's had to deal with this many times in court, i can tell you that is not exhaustive in the slighetst. Courts have and do demand reinstatement of positions, and/or demand payouts of wages vastly in excess of what the required minimum is by law.

The issues will be things like how easy it is to get another similar job, if they feel there was any discrimination involved. etc.

But i absolutely promise you that if you fire someone from a position like the cbc and it's considered wrongful dismissal you are NOT getting away with it that easily AND they're union so it gets to be an order of magnitude worse.

I mean that was doug ford's plan too right, with hydro 1. He got in and tried and got slaughered.  it just doesn't work that way.

The Government should be able to downsize the CBC just as any other corporation has to do sometimes.  There are ways to minimize the effect on employees, such as early retirement plans, buyouts, stop hiring and retraining some for other jobs within CBC.

It could also be done gradually by not filling vacancies from outside.  Retrain and transfer people.

Cut the CBC in half, especially in English Canada, over a period of time.  Have a plan and a goal.

Edited April 17, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

I noticed on the CTV that the political pundits, which incidentally were six women and no men all seemed to support pro choice (abortion) when they discussed the American abortion battles.  There is no balance at all on the CBC or CTV.  It is all liberal left wing propaganda.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Government should be able to downsize the CBC just as any other corporation has to do sometimes.

the gov't doesn't own the cbc. It just funds it. It can't do anything at all except cut funding.

[Aristides]

Along with NPR and PBS, the CBC has stopped using Twitter.

[CdnFox]

Welp - the CBC is dropping the hammer apperently

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cbc-says-it-is-pausing-its-use-of-twitter-after-being-labelled-government-funded-media-1.6359113?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3A{{campaignname}}%3Atwitterpost&taid=643da09dac80900001448026&s=09

""Twitter can be a powerful tool for our journalists to communicate with Canadians, but it undermines the accuracy and professionalism of the work they do to allow our independence to be falsely described in this way,""

IT JUST SAYS YOU"RE GOV"T FUNDED!!! YOU GET 70 PERCENT OF YOUR REVENUE FROM THE GOV"T! HOW IS THAT A FALSE DESCRIPTION!!"

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Along with NPR and PBS, the CBC has stopped using Twitter.

The stupid thing is that people will still tweet the cbc stories but now the cbc can't comment on them or highlight the points they like

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 . All you can do is defund it and let it burn itself to the ground.

Find something else to compete with it, and with the same mandate.

How about a local digital news bureau that hires journalism grads, exists to cover local news and Canadian cities, and is promoted through the existing platform?

 

So many ideas that they can embark on, but they have no imagination or vision.

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Welp - the CBC is dropping the hammer apperently

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cbc-says-it-is-pausing-its-use-of-twitter-after-being-labelled-government-funded-media-1.6359113?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3A{{campaignname}}%3Atwitterpost&taid=643da09dac80900001448026&s=09

""Twitter can be a powerful tool for our journalists to communicate with Canadians, but it undermines the accuracy and professionalism of the work they do to allow our independence to be falsely described in this way,""

IT JUST SAYS YOU"RE GOV"T FUNDED!!! YOU GET 70 PERCENT OF YOUR REVENUE FROM THE GOV"T! HOW IS THAT A FALSE DESCRIPTION!!"

If it doesn't matter, why tag it? Twitter is making an ideological statement of its own. 

Disclose the primary funding source of all media on Twitter if you want to really inform people so they can make their own determination of  its validity.

[bush_cheney2004]

CBC.ca is still embedding a link to the Twitter platform in story headers...example:

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ethan-bespflug-fatal-stabbing-arrest-1.6813399

[Zeitgeist]

They should’ve gone with the “State affiliated media” designation owing to the marriage between the NDP-Liberals and the CBC.  I laughed when I read this news in “The Canadian Press”, another state-affiliated media organization.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

So many ideas that they can embark on, but they have no imagination or vision.

Yes, well,  as always the world is full of possibilities and the gov'ts heads are filled with air.