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

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

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

The problem is that this isn't just the cbc. THey've felt the need to note when a source is gov't funded. They're clear that this does not mean the gov't controls it but it's something to keep in mind when looking at stories.

And that's valid. And if tehy tagged pbs for a 5 percent gov't contribution how could they let cbc go with 70 percent?

Honestly the cbc is being babies about this. They are state funded. and twitter is very clear that doesnt' mean that the state controls or even influences a news source tagged as state funded.

Don't want to get called state funded -don't take the state's money.

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

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.

they wouldn't likely know it. THey've basically broken it into public and private.

[blackbird]

Jagmeet Singh is crying because PP criticized the beloved CBC.  No surprise.  The NDP is in favour of state control of everything, like true Commies.

Edited April 18, 2023 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

14 hours 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!!"

It isn't but, since almost all media world wide gets revenue from governments, Twitter should basically say all are government funded or, do they have a percentage of government funding they deem as being tagged?

Also, PP's comments about Twitter being correct except for Radio Canada is as two faced as it gets.

[Nationalist]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

CBC problems are management based, period.

I agree. Now...if we could only get rid of Pixie-Dust...the manager.

[Michael Hardner]

"It is inconceivable that the most powerful means of communication could be used to sell soap, deodorants and brassieres and not ideas"

Joseph Califano in Broadcasting Magazine Oct 1972

With social media, we are much close to the model of communication that was in place at the time the political sphere was 'designed'.  Point-to-point with some thought leaders including anonymous participants.

The problem is that Musk's vehicle deploys too much central control and shaping of the narrative.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I agree. Now...if we could only get rid of Pixie-Dust...the manager.

Trudeau is a CBC manager??

Was Harper before him a CBC manager? He also fed the CBC

[Nationalist]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Trudeau is a CBC manager??

Was Harper before him a CBC manager? He also fed the CBC

Yes and Yes. Now its time for "new management".

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes and Yes. Now its time for "new management".

Well, the hate for CBC is strong.

It all depends on who is on power and, most importantly, if you agree with them or not.

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes and Yes. Now its time for "new management".

 

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The problem is that this isn't just the cbc. THey've felt the need to note when a source is gov't funded. They're clear that this does not mean the gov't controls it but it's something to keep in mind when looking at stories.

And that's valid. And if tehy tagged pbs for a 5 percent gov't contribution how could they let cbc go with 70 percent?

Honestly the cbc is being babies about this. They are state funded. and twitter is very clear that doesnt' mean that the state controls or even influences a news source tagged as state funded.

Don't want to get called state funded -don't take the state's money.

they wouldn't likely know it. THey've basically broken it into public and private.

So knowing that a network receives government funding is more important than a private network is being bankrolled by say the NRA or big pharma?

Could it be possible that a network receiving government funding that has its editorial independence enshrined in law, could be less influenced than one which depends on big buck sponsors?

Of course this is an ideological act. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Aristides

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Well, the hate for CBC is strong.

It all depends on who is on power and, most importantly, if you agree with them or not.

Of course it is. They've shown themselves as governmental stooges.

And incompetent as Hell.

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

So knowing that a network receives government funding is more important than a private network is being bankrolled by say the NRA or big pharma?

Of course this is an ideological act. 

Which negates the news agency's credibility.!

[Legato]

21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Was Harper before him a CBC manager? He also fed the CBC

Yes but on a diet.

 

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Which negates the news agency's credibility.!

Which does? The CBC's editorial independence is guaranteed by the Broadcasting Act.

[Legato]

A few days ago I flipped to the CBC out of curiosity, some sort of talk show. Rosemary Barton and a couple of talking heads.

I wasted 10 minutes listening to them denigrate Pierre Poilievre and praise Trudeau. Nothing outrageous but the bias was evident.

[Nationalist]

45 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Which does? The CBC's editorial independence is guaranteed by the Broadcasting Act.

I think we've already decided the CBC is not independent.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

I think we've already decided the CBC is not independent.

You have. I'm not saying it doesn't have any bias but that doesn't mean it is controlled by government.

So what about US networks where every second add is from a drug company? How about their independence?

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

You have. I'm not saying it doesn't have any bias but that doesn't mean it is controlled by government.

So what about US networks where every second add is from a drug company? How about their independence?

It is, in this case, a thin line. But a line none the less.

Advertising is the means from which private news generates most of its revenue.

The CBC is not private news.

[Aristides]

Just now, Nationalist said:

It is, in this case, a thin line. But a line none the less.

Advertising is the means from which private news generates most of its revenue.

The CBC is not private news.

Yes it is so why do you just assume advertisers don't influence content.

[Aristides]

The Broadcasting Act stipulates that government cannot interfere with CBC editorial independence. There is no such restriction on private broadcasting.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

You have. I'm not saying it doesn't have any bias but that doesn't mean it is controlled by government.

If it does mean that you have to ask why anyone who thinks so isn't more interested in getting better control over the government. If that's a biased question too who is it biased against or for?

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes it is so why do you just assume advertisers don't influence content.

It does. But that's not the question here is it? No.

The CBC is a flake. A Liberal government propaganda machine. Its also a HUGE Canadian media failure.

[Aristides]

18 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It does. But that's not the question here is it? No.

The CBC is a flake. A Liberal government propaganda machine. Its also a HUGE Canadian media failure.

In your opinion.

Control over media is the question. Why do you assume it only comes from government?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

It isn't but, since almost all media world wide gets revenue from governments, Twitter should basically say all are government funded or, do they have a percentage of government funding they deem as being tagged?

 

There is a big difference between 'recieved some gov't funds' and 'govt funded.'  A paper that recieves a few bucks here and there but primarily survives on it's own revenues is not really 'govt' funded' . It's private revenue funded.  If it stopped getting any gov't money it would continue.

Meanwhile an org that's SEVENTY percent gov't funded is funded by the gov't. Period. If that funding goes away so does that org unless it becomes something ENTIRELY different.

In other words - is the org dependent on it's money for survival? If so - gov't funded. I think pbs etc has a case that they shouldn't be called gov't funded - but cbc? no way in hell. That is a gov't funded org.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Aristides said:

In your opinion.

Control over media is the question. Why do you assume it only comes from government?

Doesn't matter - if it doesn't come from the gov't then the market sources pay for it and will sort it out.

But gov't money is taking funds form taxpayers who totally disagree with their practices. And for things that are not gov't services and are provided by the free market already. That is grossly unfair to those people.

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

In your opinion.

Control over media is the question. Why do you assume it only comes from government?

No its not the question. Try reading the OP.