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

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well, i doubt they'll be tagging fox with anything specific then. They're not gov't funded.

Of course not, that's why this is a political statement, not an attempt to inform. 

It's just Elon expressing his own dislike of government, nothing more.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Sure. But they won't. Because at heart they're Liberals too, and generally support what the Liberal party supports.

This is on CBC site this morning. Is it Liberal boosting?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-disney-plus-1.6815024

Lots of negative comments allowed as well.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Of course not, that's why this is a political statement, not an attempt to inform. 

It's just Elon expressing his own dislike of government, nothing more.

I don't see how you can get there logically.  If he was ONLY tagging the cbc then sure -but ALL gov't funded media around the world is being tagged as gov't funded. I mean i suppose you could put 'privately funded' on all the rest or something but how is it political?

This isn't even controversial - the CBC is ABSOLUTELY gov't funded. They're very clear that their 'gov't funded' tag does not mean 'state controlled' or the like, why is the CBC so freaked out about the public realizing they're gov't funded? It's not like it's a secret.

This reminds me of when simple but true things were posted to trigger the left just to show how easily the left is triggered, like when people were putting up those 'it's ok to be white'  signs and lefters were losing their crap about how racist it was to say that. it's outrage over someone saying something that's true and shoudn't be controversial.

[Aristides]

Yes, that’s all he tags because he is just expressing his dislike for government. He doesn’t care about whether anything is factual.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes, that’s all he tags because he is just expressing his dislike for government. He doesn’t care about whether anything is factual.

But he doesn't say they're not factual.

I don't know - If the cbc is so embarrased about being gov't funded they can give the money back.

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But he doesn't say they're not factual.

I don't know - If the cbc is so embarrased about being gov't funded they can give the money back.

It isn't just the CBC, it's all public broadcasters. Maybe you should be a little more critical of everyones motives, not just public broadcasters.

[Moonbox]

31 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes, that’s all he tags because he is just expressing his dislike for government. He doesn’t care about whether anything is factual.

He just likes being an edgelord.  His company wouldn't even exist today without government subsidies, and they'd barely sell any cars without them.  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

It's not that they don't cover stories. It's how they cover them and how much they cover them. They seem to have devoted far less effort to covering the China influence thing, for example, than any of their rivals. And in elections, they clearly have a liberal bias.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tom-mulcair-why-all-the-fuss-about-twitter-s-description-of-cbc-1.6360448

From Tom Mulcair in your article;

Quote

The public pays its taxes and the government funds the CBC from those taxes. The public doesn’t otherwise have anything to do with it or a word to say about it.

You folks know or should know me by now when it comes to doing something about this. Before we can accurately speak to how our institutions are run we need to have more than just what something feels like from a public perspective that is outside the room. There are very few areas of our governance in which meetings between anyone and a government official shouldn't be open to the public. It's not so much a voice we need in the process of our governance as much as we need ears and eyes.

Think body-cams to get a sense of how deep I think we need to penetrate our government to protect our interests from undue insider influence that is self-serving to the point of being inimical to the public's interest.

Without accurate first hand knowledge of what is being discussed we are left with little more than our own biases and the all to often evasive reports from government and institution spokespeople to inform us.  As I said in another post the media isn't responsible for this evasiveness but we blame them for it.  To me that's a cop-out and an indication that we're not taking more responsibility for getting ourselves closer to the truth of what's happening and being done in the public's name. We simply can't leave everything up to trust. We need tangible verification without which we're left to fight amongst ourselves with little more than our feelings.  

Also from Mulcair;

Quote

Both the government and the CBC should use this debate as an opportunity to hit “refresh.”

It's the public that should be hitting refresh.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It isn't just the CBC, it's all public broadcasters. Maybe you should be a little more critical of everyones motives, not just public broadcasters.

Have I suggested i'm NOT critical of other broadcasters?

And again - what's the problem with identifying a broadcaster as public vs private.

I can see places like PBS saying that at 5 percent they're not really gov't funded - that's fair. But 70 percent? C'mon.

You can't have it both ways - either being a public broadcaster is no big deal in which case why do we care if they have that label, or it IS a big deal in which case why shoudln't we tell people?

Like seriously - whats' the harm here? What are they thinking is going to happen as a result of this that's got them so scared? I honestly don't know why this is a fuss.

[cougar]

On 4/16/2023 at 11:15 PM, CdnFox said:

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

 

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.

They serve no other purpose than that of the blinkers on the horse.

Their objective is not to let you see or know what is really happening around you and just steer you plugging along towing the heavy carriage of capitalism forward till you fall dead in your tracks.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, cougar said:

They serve no other purpose than that of the blinkers on the horse.

Their objective is not to let you see or know what is really happening around you and just steer you plugging along towing the heavy carriage of capitalism forward till you fall dead in your tracks.

perhaps SLIGHTLY overstated... but not by very much if we're being honest.

That does seem to be largely what they do for the libs. They 'flatten' the negative for the libs and the positives for the cpc (and sometimes the ndp if they get in the way).

So - bad stories about libs aren't THAAAAT bad and Positve stories about the CPC aren't THAAAAAAT good and we probably dont need to talk about either of those  any more and stories that make the cpc look bad should be discussed for 3 years minimum and are the worst we've seen since hitler and cancer were discovered.

Blinders on the horse indeed.

Edited April 19, 2023 by CdnFox

[Aristides]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Have I suggested i'm NOT critical of other broadcasters?

And again - what's the problem with identifying a broadcaster as public vs private.

I can see places like PBS saying that at 5 percent they're not really gov't funded - that's fair. But 70 percent? C'mon.

You can't have it both ways - either being a public broadcaster is no big deal in which case why do we care if they have that label, or it IS a big deal in which case why shoudln't we tell people?

Like seriously - whats' the harm here? What are they thinking is going to happen as a result of this that's got them so scared? I honestly don't know why this is a fuss.

You are the one who wants it both ways, you think it is only important to show one broadcaster's source of funding.

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

If the CBC is so embarrassed about being gov't funded they can give the money back.

Doubt that the CBC would be so embarrassed and defensive if their bias wasn't so blatant and fawning . . . .

[CdnFox]

Uh Oh ....  TOM has spoken!

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tom-mulcair-why-all-the-fuss-about-twitter-s-description-of-cbc-1.6360448

Tom Mulcair: Why all the fuss about Twitter's description of CBC?

 

Some interesting quotes:

As someone who represented a different party, the CBC’s treatment of the Liberals is something I’ve witnessed up close. In the run-up to the 2015 campaign, in which I’d be facing off against Stephen Harper and Trudeau, it was frustrating to say the least. Some of our best communications folks cautioned me (correctly) that it was a mug’s game to complain. You can’t beat the house! I’d have to put up and shut up.

Snip

I have searing memories of interventions by a small number of CBC/Radio-Canada reporters during the campaign, several of whom went on to become Liberal staffers.

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

⬆️ Trending via Global News

Ford, Ontario will not pay to regain Twitter verification, premier's office says.

So don't. who cares.