Is the CBC a Legitimate News Channel

[WestCanMan]

Straight question. Just your own opinion as of this moment. 

[Michael Hardner]

I am 100% behind anyone who says it has problems.  But state sponsored arm's length broadcasters are something that many nations have.

[August1991]

CBC = English-speaking Canada

Radio-Canada = French-speaking Canada

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am 100% behind anyone who says it has problems.  But state sponsored arm's length broadcasters are something that many nations have.

Yeah but Canada's arms are also tied at the hip.

Edited December 30, 2025 by Legato

[John Stone]

CBC is akin to Canada Post ............. money loser but essential to a degree. 

Radio Canada is global ................ soft propaganda ......... def worth the squeeze. 

[eyeball]

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Straight question. Just your own opinion as of this moment.

They have some value, but as with almost any news source, you have to take any politically charged story on the CBC with a grain of salt.

I believe the CBC does their level-best to be fair and accurate all the time. I don't think that they have ever intentionally lied about anything.

Good on you for even contemplating such answers.

I bet Jean Chretien also puts salt on his steak.

[herbie]

That is is such an issue to petty minded lying uber-conservatives makes me want to triple it's funding.
Of all the problems there are to bellyache about, CBC ranks dead last.

Especially when cursed by the spongebrains who think FOX and Rebel are 'news' channels.

[CdnFox]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am 100% behind anyone who says it has problems.  But state sponsored arm's length broadcasters are something that many nations have.

So was slavery, laws banning gays, and forbidding women to vote at one time or another. Sometimes we learn and move on

[CdnFox]

23 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Straight question. Just your own opinion as of this moment. 

I'd probably be somewhere between 1 and 2. Leaning perhaps a little bit towards one. There is no doubt that they're not just a little bias, they very clearly deliberately do things with a bias agenda intentionally. So they're Way Beyond the grain of salt thing. But I think it would be wrong to say they have no validity whatsoever.

I absolutely believe though that if they lost all of their public funding they wouldn't survive for long because despite the fact that the left screams and cries about how valuable they are they wouldn't reach into their own pockets to support it enough.

And I don't see why I should be supporting anything media wise that is specifically biased against my own interests and beliefs with my tax dollars

[Nefarious Banana]

A part of the CBC's bias is omission.  They fail to give some stories they deem as right of center the full disclosure those stories deserve.  This has been going on for decades, but has been very noticible during Trudeau's term.

[herbie]

So you uber-righties seem to think. Like you think you'll save so much as one penny without it and remote viewers ahould do without any tx or radio.

[Politics1990]

love the cbc   tbh

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

A part of the CBC's bias is omission.  They fail to give some stories they deem as right of center the full disclosure those stories deserve.  This has been going on for decades, but has been very noticible during Trudeau's term.

For sure, that's a huge part. There's a lot of stories that either get bottom of page 52 mentioned or no mention at all that are pretty huge stories. Anything that makes the conservatives look bad is front page for a week, anything that makes the liberals look bad winds up in the arts and hobbies section for 5 minutes. Just long enough so they can claim they reported on it even though basically they blew it off

The language is another thing you'll see. Writers aren't stupid and they are quite aware that they have the ability to influence how people perceive the story by the flavor of the words that they use.

And often quoted example is that whenever conservative does something wrong the headline is conservative does something wrong, whereas when a liberal does something wrong the headline is conservatives pounce on liberal mistake. The big story being the conservative pouncing and not the mistake. 

Then there's the overt stuff. Remember during the alberta election when they swore up and down Smith had sent an illegal email and  3rd party conducted an audit and they still swore she sent it, refusing to say who their source was but that he was completely reliable, and then after the election when she won anyway they admitted they'd never seen the letter and they screwed up and it was all bullshit?

 

58 minutes ago, herbie said:

So you uber-righties seem to think. Like you think you'll save so much as one penny without it and remote viewers ahould do without any tx or radio.

yeah, there's this thing called the internet now. 🙄🙄🙄

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Politics1990 said:

love the cbc   tbh

And there's nothing wrong with that. If you prefer a left-leaning slant to your news then that's your decision as a consumer and you can support that.

But I shouldn't have to pay for it. Strip the CBC of every nickel and public property and let them fight it out with the other media companies. If you like the CBC programming then you will find ways to support them economically and they will be fine.

If you're not willing to pay for it though, you'll have to live without it. I shouldn't be paying for it

[Barquentine]

Right-wingers don't trust MSM. They' prefer MDM (Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation).

Gotta love those bots, slanted algorithms, and stupid lies. Q-anon forever!

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Right-wingers don't trust MSM. They' prefer MDM (Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation).

Are you saying that you don't think the CBC is biased?

1. Do you think that the Duffygate scandal and the WE scandal both received the media attention that they deserved, relative to the seriousness of the scandals and the amount of evidence present?
2. Do you think that Pierre Poilievre is a really negative leader of the opposition compared to Trudeau? 

Regarding number 1:

Duffygate was about a $90k reimbursement of what turned out to be a non-scandal. Taxpayers were out zero cents.

WE involved 10,000x as much money, WE made vomit-level/Hitler-Youth worthy Trudeau propaganda targeted at children (I have a video if you want to see it), WE was being solicited by the Trudeau gov't to do events that were funded by taxpayer money while Trudeau's mom received over $500,000 from them for fees and expenses, and our finance minister had to resign because his daughter was making $30k/year there - she never made 1/4 of what Trudeau's mom made there and she worked several times as many hours. 

CBC covered WE for less than 4 months, and completely ignored it during the election coverage later that same year. 

CBC covered Duffygate for 3 full years, from 2012 to 2015, and called the 2015 election "a referendum on Duffygate". 

In the end, WE was 10,000x as large, and it was an actual scandal in which Trudeau was using WE to funnel taxpayer money to his own mother, but WE received a small fraction of the CBC time and attention that Duffygate got, and before we really got to the bottom of it Trudeau said "I merely should have recused myself from the decision to choose WE" and the CBC accepted that and just moved on.  

Regarding #2:

All that Trudeau did to look relevant while he was the leader of the opposition was stand in the HoC yelling about Duffygate. That was it. And at CBC they LOVED angry opposition guy. He was "standing up for Canadians and fighting gov't corruption".

Poilievre doesn't do any angry yelling, he has never tilted at windmills the way Trudeau did as opposition leader; he just politely tells inconvenient truths about our gov't and the CBC says that's "being to negative" and then they ask him if he's going to resign, as if that's somehow a legitimate topic. 

Quote

Gotta love those bots, slanted algorithms, and stupid lies. Q-anon forever!

Name some of the fake stories that conservatives got caught up in while we were busy ignoring all the blatant BS on the CBC, Barqy. 

Did we get busted for talking about a BSL4 lab that the MSM was ignoring, while people were getting kicked off of FB and Twitter for talking about it? 

Did we get busted for saying "We have no reason to believe that the jabs will be safe yet, and we have no reason to believe that we shouldn't be researching other options aside from the jabs"? FYI the jabs are neither safe nor effective, and ten thousand dead multi-vaxxers could attest to that if they were still alive. 

Where did CBC come out on the right side of history, Barqy? What "conspiracy theory" blew up in our faces? 

[Legato]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Right-wingers don't trust MSM. They' prefer MDM (Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation).

Gotta love those bots, slanted algorithms, and stupid lies. Q-anon forever!

A typical example of 180° logic.

[WestCanMan]

6 minutes ago, Legato said:

A typical example of 180° logic.

He's pointing to a bogeyman because he has no actual examples of conservatives getting sucked in by disinformation. The last left4rd "disinformation/conspiracy theory" accusation to fall was the one about FBI plants at J6. Turns out there actually were dozens of them there, some of whom were even busted for being agitators, like Ray Epps was. 

"OOOOHHHHH! OOOHHHHH! OOOOHHHHH! ALGORITHMS!!!! BOTS!!!!! Q-ANON!!!!!" - leftards

And TBH, stories of bots, algorithms and even shadow bans/outright bans from the left's TNI co-conspirators at Twitter and FB turned out to be 100% true, so I don't know why he'd even refer to bots and algorithms. 

[User]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Right-wingers don't trust MSM. They' prefer MDM (Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation).

Gotta love those bots, slanted algorithms, and stupid lies. Q-anon forever!

We don't trust the MSM for the same reason folks on the left don't like Fox News. 

There is a clear and obvious bias to the reporting, if not outright dishonesty to how they skew things. At least in America, lets review how they covered for Biden the last 4 years he was clearly no longer with us mentally. One of the greatest scandals in modern political history in America and only AFTER Harris lost, months later, did the MSM start to own up to it. Barely. 

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, User said:

We don't trust the MSM for the same reason folks on the left don't like Fox News. 

There is a clear and obvious bias to the reporting, if not outright dishonesty to how they skew things. At least in America, lets review how they covered for Biden the last 4 years he was clearly no longer with us mentally. One of the greatest scandals in modern political history in America and only AFTER Harris lost, months later, did the MSM start to own up to it. Barely. 

The only reason why the Demmies even ditched Biduhhhh after the debate is because it was seen live by millions of Americans, and as such became a culturally significant event which couldn't be swept under the carpet. 

He had dozens of meltdowns like that before, but none of them were out in front of a live camera with millions of viewers, so they just got omitted from the MSM landscape.

The reason why Biden passed up on the chance to speak for free at the SuperBowl for 90 seconds - literally invaluable advertising -  was because if he had a gaffe show in front of that massive live TV audience the MSM couldn't keep a lid on it, and his political career would be over. The bag and toothpaste tube would both be empty, cats and paste everywhere. 

Biden and his team could never guarantee that he would have a 90-second window of lucidity during that brief period of the SuperBowl. 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Right-wingers don't trust MSM. They' prefer MDM (Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation).

Gotta love those bots, slanted algorithms, and stupid lies. Q-anon forever!

Oh look who brought hatred to the argument instead of reason or logic. Imagine that

Are you trying to claim that there's no bias at the CBC?

[herbie]

Being free from the influence of corporate boardrooms and advertisers, I would say it's far more trustworthy than any other one.

Nor has the CBC 'gone soft on' any govt or openly promoted any political party. That's bullshit promoted by losers.

[User]

7 minutes ago, herbie said:

Being free from the influence of corporate boardrooms and advertisers, I would say it's far more trustworthy than any other one.

Nor has the CBC 'gone soft on' any govt or openly promoted any political party. That's bullshit promoted by losers.

Another ignorant Herbie comment. The CBC gets a significant chunk of its funding from advertising, still, and they still advertise.

So, not only are they still beholden to appeasing them, they also have to appease the government too. Congratulations, they are twice as bad.  

[herbie]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Another ignorant Herbie comment. The CBC gets a significant chunk of its funding from advertising, still, and they still advertise.

Duh simple conclusions of simple minds at work again.

But they're immune to them pulling ads for Nature of Things and Marketplace because Brand X or King Shit doesn't 'like 
them. Ask the Smothers Brothers yesterday or Colbert and Kimmel today.

[User]

7 minutes ago, herbie said:

Duh simple conclusions of simple minds at work again.

But they're immune to them pulling ads for Nature of Things and Marketplace because Brand X or King Shit doesn't 'like 
them. Ask the Smothers Brothers yesterday or Colbert and Kimmel today.

Look how you desperately change the subject when you get called out. LOL