Travis Dhanraj accuses CBC of bias, lack of diversity of opinion, in scathing resignation letter.

[Army Guy]

there are more i took the first bunch off goggle....you should be able to do your own research on something that is known across the country...

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbc-news-canadian-broadcasting/

https://aml.ca/the-bias-in-media-bias-charts/

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-lets-talk-about-cbc-and-their-very-obvious-bias

https://theinterim.com/issues/society-culture/cbc-and-left-wing-bias/

[TreeBeard]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, I hear mainstream reporting with exaggerated claims on climate change all the time.

Example?  
 

I will caveat this by saying the media often sensationalizes things all the time.  Let’s hear your example of the cbc doing this. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So do I.  But your answer is as vague as people saying “progressives hate Canada”.  There’s never any examples.  Just vague notions that it must be happening. 
 

About a third of Conservative voters in Canada believe in anthropogenic climate change.   These voices are drowned out by conservatives (the majority) who are anti-science. 

https://angusreid.org/environment-climate-change/

 

You’re right.  But they are far from mainstream in liberal politics, unlike conservatives.  

 

Specific groups, councils, and organizations were mentioned. It doesn't get much more specific

If you need an actual name, Derek. Derek hates Canada. Derek's a jerk

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Example?  
 

I will caveat this by saying the media often sensationalizes things all the time.  Let’s hear your example of the cbc doing this. 

Yes, that's what it is - sensationalism.  I wasn't talking about the CBC but generally.  An example would be covering a story where someone makes an untrue claim about climate effects without challenging or fact checking.  I think the President of the Maldives was in the news, for example, saying his country would be underwater in seven years.

Such extreme claims are not given the same rigourous test of truth as if you had a hayseed on the news saying it was volcanic activity or somesuch.

And, for the record, I don't think that these mainstream examples are anything like the outright lies, especially those that are planted intentionally and/or funded, that we see from climate deniers.  But it is a thing.

[TreeBeard]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I wasn't talking about the CBC but generally.

Well yeah.  The CBC doesn’t do that nearly as much.  But mainstream media is owned by very rich right wingers.  So to say that they are an example of the “left wing media” overstating climate change is weird. 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Well yeah.  The CBC doesn’t do that nearly as much.  But mainstream media is owned by very rich right wingers.  So to say that they are an example of the “left wing media” overstating climate change is weird. 

 

 

I had to scroll back to check... I didn't mention "Left Wing" media, I said 'liberal'.

There may be left-wing media, but there's really no left-wing mass media such as TV, radio, or newspaper networks.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

23 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

About a third of Conservative voters in Canada believe in anthropogenic climate change.   These voices are drowned out by conservatives (the majority) who are anti-science. 

1) stop using climate change as a way to draw attention away from more immediate and pressing concerns

2) Everything you know about "science" would fit in a nutshell and rattle

3) FYI among actual climatologists, there is nowhere near the "97% consensus" that leftists still lie about. So if ACTUAL CLIMATOLOGISTS still don't believe in AGW, how is it "anti-science" to believe them?

4) The money in the field of climatology is in being "yes men". No one is getting gov't grants for research, or getting on the laftist-controlled TV networks, to talk honestly about climate change. 

5) The whole "climate change" narrative is being brought to us by the same liars who say "religion of peace", mostly peaceful protests", "we need to force healthy young people to take the 'vaccines'", etc. FYI the instant that CNN or CBC say anything, the chance of it being true falls to less than 0.5%.

[Michael Hardner]

On 7/8/2025 at 3:51 PM, TreeBeard said:

So do I.  But your answer is as vague as people saying “progressives hate Canada”.  There’s never any examples.  Just vague notions that it must be happening. 
 

 

I've been listening to the CBC in the mornings, as usual, but now trying to find examples of things that favor a liberal, small l. L. Liberal viewpoint 

 

 

In the selection of stories, I see things like the Alberta anti separatist movement, a lot of stories about labour and Trump forever.  Of course these are covered by right-wing media also, a differently. 

 

As for the environment, you have to listen closely but I did hear something interesting... A kind of casual mention that there would be a piece coming up above the Texas floods, and other climate disasters.  Climate scientists would back away from tying. Any specific event to climate change? Because as you know, disasters, natural disasters I mean, happen all the time. We can say that climate change will cause more natural disasters, generally, because that conclusion is supported. But as I said real climate scientist would not and or should not say this particular event was a climate change caused event. 

 

Of course it's a far cry from people saying that volcanoes cause climate change, or that it's a conspiracy theory etc. 

 

But there you have it, from what I can see it's misreporting on the science. Small? Sure, but we're just talking about evidence of bias here.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I've been listening to the CBC in the mornings, as usual, but now trying to find examples of things that favor a liberal, small l. L. Liberal viewpoint 

 

 

In the selection of stories, I see things like the Alberta anti separatist movement, a lot of stories about labour and Trump forever.  Of course these are covered by right-wing media also, a differently. 

 

As for the environment, you have to listen closely but I did hear something interesting... A kind of casual mention that there would be a piece coming up above the Texas floods, and other climate disasters.  Climate scientists would back away from tying. Any specific event to climate change? Because as you know, disasters, natural disasters I mean, happen all the time. We can say that climate change will cause more natural disasters, generally, because that conclusion is supported. But as I said real climate scientist would not and or should not say this particular event was a climate change caused event. 

 

Of course it's a far cry from people saying that volcanoes cause climate change, or that it's a conspiracy theory etc. 

 

But there you have it, from what I can see it's misreporting on the science. Small? Sure, but we're just talking about evidence of bias here.

Seeing a story in the paper tells you nothing unless you are comparing it directly to other similar stories or if you're looking at the lack of stories where there should be some.

If you want a couple of basic examples then look at the cBC reporting of the alleged email that they said Danielle smith sent. They claim the email existed just before the election started, claim she had done something illegal and was covering things up all through the election, and then as soon as the election was over admitted that they had never seen this email and that they had violated basic journalistic integrity by printing the story in the first place. But that didn't come until after they had spent the entire election accusing her of crime and fraud.

The trucker stories, were they claimed without cause or merit based on the most skimpiest of sources that the convoys were being funded first by American Trump supporters and second by Russians, both of which turned out to be completely false. However their retraction of the false story was on page 57 bottom corner and was two lines

Or let's talk about the recent election. CBC News and Radio Canada were aware that Carney had deceived and lied about what happened with his phone call with trump. However the CBC sat on that story and did not bring it up at all. Radio Canada eventually broke it and then CBC admitted that they knew, but they deliberately hit a story that would have been harmful to the liberals. I have never found a similar circumstance with the tories.

There are a million examples if you begin to dig, and if you compare stories from the CBC with more neutral sources you will very frequently find that the language is such that it softens anything negative to the liberals and hardens things to the conservatives

The old joke is when Conservatives do something wrong the CBC reports how terrible what they did wrong is, whereas when a liberal does something wrong the CDC reports how conservatives are pouncing on the liberals for this thing, making the story about the conservatives pouncing rather than the thing.

In fairness we see this in many countries including the states, but it's the CBC. They're not supposed to be playing those kind of games.

Sometimes it's very subtle, sometimes it's not so subtle, sometimes it's all about what they don't report. But it is consistent and obvious to those who know what they're looking for with some writing experience.

There is a reason that the gentleman who just resigned resigned