CBC is Toxic Filth, Only Fit For Cultist M0-rons

[WestCanMan]

Michael, you don't see a problem with CBC's slant on the J Kimmel/D Trump story, so then you must find an article like this about the Access Hollywood tapes to be pretty legit too, right?

 

 

ACCESS HOLLYWOOD SCANDAL

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday that Donald Trump should be immediately removed from the Republican ticket. He joined his wife Michelle in calling out the GOP candidate for a comment that he made to Billy Bush in private a decade ago, which was caught on tape by Access Hollywood.

Ten years ago, in a comment that Trump made in private which was caught on tape by Access Hollywood, Trump was heard saying "I grab 'em by the pu**y", and he wasn't just talking about Justin Trudeau either.

Obama has repeatedly urged the GOP to remove candidates that he dislikes or that have been critical of ⁠him, and has pressed the IRS, FBI and other government agencies to investigate and discriminate against conservatives and conservative-oriented groups.

 

No comment, Michael? You don't see any slant there? You don't see a departure from objectivity? 

[Nefarious Banana]

Listen to any program on private radio . . . . talk shows, info shows etc., etc . . .  Usually one producer, a sound man, and away we go . . . 

CBC puts on yet another sluff program and then has the gall to list all nine producers and all the deadbeat hanger-on people involved in the fascinating ex-pose of knitting needle colors or something equally stupid.

Defund by 2/3 the black hole that is CBC . . . 

[Nefarious Banana]

19 hours ago, herbie said:

Course not. Delude yourself that anyone who's not a bigot is anti-white. Lie to yourself if it makes you feel better.You need to.

It's why you hate CBC, they won't give you a sgow to 'balance' normal Canadians with your disgusting opinions

See your psychiatrist yet again . . . your meds need another adjustment upwards.

[herbie]

27 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Defund by 2/3 the black hole that is CBC .

So being totally unable to exlain rationally why ypu feel that way, the simplest solution is to NOT LISTEN YO IT.

And f-ck off trying to make it so everyone else can't.

[Nefarious Banana]

24 minutes ago, herbie said:

So being totally unable to exlain rationally why ypu feel that way, the simplest solution is to NOT LISTEN YO IT.

And f-ck off trying to make it so everyone else can't.

Just keep on being a 'herbie' . . . 

Guessing you're unemploy (ed -able) and that it isn't your tax $$ paying for the extra 7 producers on any of their fascinating in-depth ex-pose shows ?

You do know what a 'herbie' is . . . 

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 

If you read that article, would that cover the Access Hollywood comments story adequately and fairly? Is that what you needed to know about it, MH? Did you learn enough about Trump, Obama, and the comment? 

 

I see what you're doing, but I don't see a huge impact from the different approaches. 

I also don't think the word filth is appropriate.  What you're talking about is a kind of psyops, that I think is overrated in terms of effect.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Michael, you don't see a problem with CBC's slant on the J Kimmel/D Trump story, so then you must find an article like this about the Access Hollywood tapes to be pretty legit too, right?

 

 

ACCESS HOLLYWOOD SCANDAL

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday that Donald Trump should be immediately removed from the Republican ticket. He joined his wife Michelle in calling out the GOP candidate for a comment that he made to Billy Bush in private a decade ago, which was caught on tape by Access Hollywood.

Ten years ago, in a comment that Trump made in private which was caught on tape by Access Hollywood, Trump was heard saying "I grab 'em by the pu**y", and he wasn't just talking about Justin Trudeau either.

Obama has repeatedly urged the GOP to remove candidates that he dislikes or that have been critical of ⁠him, and has pressed the IRS, FBI and other government agencies to investigate and discriminate against conservatives and conservative-oriented groups.

 

No comment, Michael? You don't see any slant there? You don't see a departure from objectivity? 

Well the Justin Trudeau joke is bad, and the last paragraph is irrelevant but other than that it just seems like news to me. 

Other than that it seems okay to me.

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I see what you're doing, but I don't see a huge impact from the different approaches. 

Well, FYI, the difference in the effect that those writing styles have on readers is quite dramatic, and the effect of writing like that day after day, for years on end, is enough to completely control the minds of people like eyeball and Flyer.

Quote

I also don't think the word filth is appropriate.  What you're talking about is a kind of psyops, that I think is overrated in terms of effect.

The CBC's level of dishonestly, coming from an authority figure, while used to gin up hate, is nothing short of filth. That's actually quite an appropriate word there.

CBC "News" is an absolute, massive pile of filth, with no redeeming qualities. 100%.

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well the Justin Trudeau joke is bad

It was actually stellar, you just didn't like it. 

Quote

the last paragraph is irrelevant

Whether or not it's irrelevant is neither here nor there, MH.

FYI CBC puts a lot of things into articles that are irrelevant, and they all serve an extremely important purpose, from an LPoC POV.

For example, when the CBC had no choice but to address the fact that Carney was caught lying about Brookfield, they had to go to great lengths to ensure that their readers still came away with a favourable overall impression of him, otherwise they would have failed the LPoC handlers.

So:

1. they downgraded "was caught lying" to "was accused of lying by Poilievre" in the headline, and
2. they started off the whole article with two paragraphs of irrelevant Carney-fluffing before they addressed the topic.

In the first instance, they took a Poilievre positive and turned it into a negative, by changing him from "a guy who was clever enough to catch Carney lying and prove it to the Canadian people", which is a net-positive, into "a guy who was merely making an unfounded accusation against a political opponent", which is a negative. (and to this day, the CBC calls him "negative", they even say that he should be replaced as leader because of their own 'negative' portrayal of him... they don't portray him as a man who brings highly relevant truths into sharp focus, while the CBC ignores them).

In the second instance, they turned the fact that Carney was caught lying into an opportunity to write a propaganda piece for him, by adding irrelevant details which were highly positive.

 

 

An accurate, concise, and proper article about Brookfield would have:

• stated that Carney was "caught lying" in the headline, because he was clearly caught lying, in no uncertain terms
• laid out all the pertinent, verified facts, in chronological order
• gave Carney a chance to reply to it
• include a quote from Poilievre

CBC would never do such a thing when a LPoC prime ministerial candidate was the subject.

So they managed to turn a very strong negative about Carney into a routine political negative for Poilievre and a slight positive for Carney. Job well done. Billion dollars earned. Canadians were screwed by the unholy alliance of the CBC and LPoC once again. 

And if you think about the way it all went down, above, that BS article (I posted it here back when it happened) required a high level of collusion between the CBC and Carney, because his quote had to align with the way the CBC was laying out the narrative. The CBC couldn't very well go to all that trouble to lay a smackdown on Poilievre and lionize Carney, just to have Carney come out and say "Yeah, I lied about that, I'm sorry." They also couldn't just tell the truth about Carney, and have him lie about the same story again. CBC and Carney had to work together to create a reply by Carney that perfectly matched the false narrative in the article.  

Edited April 29 by WestCanMan

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Well, FYI, the difference in the effect that those writing styles have on readers is quite dramatic, and the effect of writing like that day after day, for years on end, is enough to completely control the minds of people like eyeball and Flyer.

2. The CBC's level of dishonestly, coming from an authority figure, while used to gin up hate, is nothing short of filth. That's actually quite an appropriate word there.

3. CBC "News" is an absolute, massive pile of filth, with no redeeming qualities. 100%.

1. I don't see how.  If you have a cite, go ahead.

2. I think you liked that article that called Justin Trudeau a. P****?  See what you like about the CBC, they don't go that low with name calling.  I think that is maybe because they don't think conservatives are filth.

3. You see people who don't agree with your politics as immoral.  So your opponents are bad people, filthy etc.  I don't agree with your framing.

....

Your other post states that there's collusion between CBC and Carney directly... I think that it fits with your framing of Liberals as being objectively evil.  I don't think any comment I have on your opinion there will lead to interesting or productive discussion.

If you think that they're that bad you should be advocating for banning the Liberal party, jailing them or worse, not discussing topics with people who would consider their points of view.

[herbie]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

they took a Poilievre positive and turned it into a negative

Wow that's SO biased. If you want to blame PP's humiliating defeat on the Canadian people as them all being "biased".
Or maybe in reality they saw many of his party policy 'positives' as negatives. Like for example going into what? a fourth election with no climate plan, let alone an active anti-climate plan? Or worse claiming Conservatives represented working people?

Nice f*cking try. Just like claiming there's any benefit at all to others from the CBC. Like f*ck off again if you think that's a policy 'positive' to keep whining about.

 

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

Wow that's SO biased. If you want to blame PP's humiliating defeat on the Canadian people as them all being "biased".
Or maybe in reality they saw many of his party policy 'positives' as negatives. Like for example going into what? a fourth election with no climate plan, let alone an active anti-climate plan? Or worse claiming Conservatives represented working people?

Nice f*cking try. Just like claiming there's any benefit at all to others from the CBC. Like f*ck off again if you think that's a policy 'positive' to keep whining about.

 

Well looky here from you friendly neighborhood Spiderman CBC.

Environmental issues taking a backseat this election, Vote Compass data shows.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-vote-compass-1.7508335

[cougar]

On 4/27/2026 at 7:57 PM, WestCanMan said:

Word on the street is that Jimmy Kimmel's wife can't have an orgasm without thinking about Jimmy getting shot like Charlie Kirk. 

After a comment like that, why are you upset with what Kimmel said about Melania or what CBC wrote?  You are way down below their level !

[WestCanMan]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't see how.  If you have a cite, go ahead.

I don't need a cite to call those guys, and you, cultists.

You're right here, in this thread, proving that you're a cultist. This is your cite.

Quote

2. I think you liked that article that called Justin Trudeau a. P****? 

Follow along. Trump's quote came from a soundbite. 

When he said "I just grab 'em by the p....", he could have just as easily been saying "I' just grab 'im by the p....". It's only with proper context that you can tell that he means "'em", not "'im". 

So when I inititially heard it, I thought that he might have been talking about Justin Trudeau... "I just grab 'im by the pu...".

Quote

See what you like about the CBC, they don't go that low with name calling. 

Au contraire. They go much lower. 

• we both know that I'm not saying Justin actually has a pu..., it's just a funny way of saying how much of a little femmeboy he is
• the CBC slanders people all the time, in a very meaningful and harmful way, and they are not joking about it. FYI that's far worse than just mentioning that Trudeau actually is a little biotch. For the CBC to insinuate that Poilievre was "accusing Carney of being a liar" is a very big deal. They knew that Carney lied. But they chose to make Poilievre look small while they downplayed Carney's lie, and pretended that some stuff was just said. Leave here understanding this, dummy: Carney lied, 100%, and it was improper for CBC to use that scenario to make Poilievre look like a name-caller. 

Quote

I think that is maybe because they don't think conservatives are filth.

They let Trudeau say "the vaxed are very often racists and misogynists, and we, as Canadians, need to ask ourselves if we should tolerate them" and kept that from the public. 

CBC can say whatever the F they want, the fact remains that they are filth. 

Quote

3. You see people who don't agree with your politics as immoral.  So your opponents are bad people, filthy etc.  I don't agree with your framing.

The level their lying and slander makes them filth. 

You just pretended not to notice the difference between the way I framed that story above and the way the CBC frames stories. You know that you were lying, Micheal, but you're shameless. You even pretend to be a conservative to this day, and every single person in this forum knows that you're lying about that as well.

The truth means nothing to you, Mike. Nothing. I think nothing of you. As a person, you have no character or integrity whatsoever. That makes you completely valueless as a human IMO.  

Quote

Your other post states that there's collusion between CBC and Carney directly... I think that it fits with your framing of Liberals as being objectively evil.  I don't think any comment I have on your opinion there will lead to interesting or productive discussion.

There is.

I never thought about it before, but now that I think back on that article, I don't think it's possible for the CBC and Carney to align their stories so precisely without communicating where they were going to draw that line.

In any event, Carney and the CBC are both worthless liars, so if I'm wrong there's no real harm. I guess it's possible that they could predict each lies, but I don't think that makes it "better" somehow.

Quote

If you think that they're that bad you should be advocating for banning the Liberal party, jailing them or worse, not discussing topics with people who would consider their points of view.

I would never advocate for 1-party rule. I'm not like you guys. 

[WestCanMan]

57 minutes ago, herbie said:

Wow that's SO biased.

Stop trying to use 6-letter words, dummy. I don't care if it's just a 4-letter word with a suffix, you look like a pug trying to hump a speeding truck when you do that.

FYI the CBC tried to make Poilievre look like he was name-calling when he actually caught Carney lying and he proved it. 

I know that understanding that is a violation of your order, but it still needed to be said. 

[WestCanMan]

Cougar is too scared to use his words here lol. 

That's because the last time he popped off to me, I pointed out to people that he was actually cheering for 2M-barrel oil tankers to be sunk just to protect the ayatollah's regime. 

Hey coug... 🥰

[Michael Hardner]

45 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't need a cite to call those guys, and you, cultists.

You're right here, in this thread, proving that you're a cultist. This is your cite.

Follow along. Trump's quote came from a soundbite. 

When he said "I just grab 'em by the p....", he could have just as easily been saying "I' just grab 'im by the p....". It's only with proper context that you can tell that he means "'em", not "'im". 

So when I inititially heard it, I thought that he might have been talking about Justin Trudeau... "I just grab 'im by the pu...".

Au contraire. They go much lower. 

• we both know that I'm not saying Justin actually has a pu..., it's just a funny way of saying how much of a little femmeboy he is
• the CBC slanders people all the time, in a very meaningful and harmful way, and they are not joking about it. FYI that's far worse than just mentioning that Trudeau actually is a little biotch. For the CBC to insinuate that Poilievre was "accusing Carney of being a liar" is a very big deal. They knew that Carney lied. But they chose to make Poilievre look small while they downplayed Carney's lie, and pretended that some stuff was just said. Leave here understanding this, dummy: Carney lied, 100%, and it was improper for CBC to use that scenario to make Poilievre look like a name-caller. 

They let Trudeau say "the vaxed are very often racists and misogynists, and we, as Canadians, need to ask ourselves if we should tolerate them" and kept that from the public. 

CBC can say whatever the F they want, the fact remains that they are filth. 

The level their lying and slander makes them filth. 

You just pretended not to notice the difference between the way I framed that story above and the way the CBC frames stories. You know that you were lying, Micheal, but you're shameless. You even pretend to be a conservative to this day, and every single person in this forum knows that you're lying about that as well.

The truth means nothing to you, Mike. Nothing. I think nothing of you. As a person, you have no character or integrity whatsoever. That makes you completely valueless as a human IMO.  

There is.

I never thought about it before, but now that I think back on that article, I don't think it's possible for the CBC and Carney to align their stories so precisely without communicating where they were going to draw that line.

In any event, Carney and the CBC are both worthless liars, so if I'm wrong there's no real harm. I guess it's possible that they could predict each lies, but I don't think that makes it "better" somehow.

I would never advocate for 1-party rule. I'm not like you guys. 

Ok, sorry you think nothing of me.  Odd to me that you would discuss anything with me if that's the case... let alone exchanging views with someone who has 'no character or integrity' and is 'completely valueless' as a human.

I don't get it.  At all.

At lease you don't seem to want to ban folks you don't agree with, and that's something.

 

Anyway, I don't feel the same about you so have a great day and thanks for your opinions....

[WestCanMan]

On 4/28/2026 at 2:36 PM, herbie said:

I don't even try to hide my contempt for bigots.

That's weird.

Never once have you said a word about the Dems' blatant BS about "white males being the biggest terrorist threat in America."

We don't have metal detectors at the airport to stop whiteys from blowing up planes you m0r0n.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, sorry you think nothing of me.  Odd to me that you would discuss anything with me if that's the case... let alone exchanging views with someone who has 'no character or integrity' and is 'completely valueless' as a human.

I don't get it.  At all.

I'm just here to set the record straight. I'm not your mom and I'm not your therapist. 

Why should I pretend that you have character or integrity if you're just gonna lie to my face?

Do you even have a f'ing clue what CBC is doing to our democracy? FYI it's a farce to say that we even have one right now. We're not even close. 

This isn't "my opinion":

AI Query: "Does a free and balanced media play an important role in democracy?"

Yes, a free and balanced media is crucial to democracy, serving as a "fourth pillar" that informs citizens, facilitates open debate, and holds powerful institutions accountable. It acts as a watchdog to prevent corruption and ensures a pluralistic range of viewpoints, empowering voters to make informed decisions. 

 

Key Roles of Media in Democracy

• Informing the Public: Provides accurate, credible news that enables citizens to participate in public affairs and make informed political choices.
• Watchdog Function: Scrutinizes government actions and institutions, holding elected officials accountable to the public.
• Providing Plurality: Offers a diverse range of perspectives and ideas, which is essential for healthy public discourse and the inclusion of various voices.
• Facilitating Debate: Encourages dialogue, critical thinking, and the free exchange of opinions, fostering a well-informed citizenry.
• Preventing Misinformation: Counteracts the spread of disinformation and ensures that democratic debate is based on facts. 
  Media Freedom Coalition +9

Challenges and Threats

• Media Concentration: Increasing corporate ownership can limit the diversity of viewpoints.
• Disinformation Campaigns: Authoritarian actors and misinformation can undermine democratic vulnerabilities, polarizing the public.
• Lack of Independence: Without editorial independence, media can become a tool for propaganda rather than a source of truth. 

A free, independent, and professional media landscape is not just desirable but essential for the long-term health and, as outlined by the Parliamentary Assembly, the development of a democratic culture.

 

Be HONEST, Mike. Last chance to salvage a teensy shred of integrity: Is the CBC heavily biased towards the LPoC?

Quote

At lease you don't seem to want to ban folks you don't agree with, and that's something.

I don't come here to sit in an echo chamber. TBH, I came here at first to see if anyone could try to present intelligent leftist viewpoints. Now I know they don't exist.   

And they don't exist because they don't have to exist. With full control of the MSM, Liberals don't have to make sense, they can do whatever they want. 

Quote

Anyway, I don't feel the same about you so have a great day and thanks for your opinions....

👍

[cougar]

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Yes, a free and balanced media is crucial to democracy, serving as a "fourth pillar" that informs citizens, facilitates open debate, and holds powerful institutions accountable. It acts as a watchdog to prevent corruption and ensures a pluralistic range of viewpoints, empowering voters to make informed decisions. 

So what was not balanced in CBC's reporting of Jimmy Kimmel's joke about Melania?

What was "balanced" in your second comment about Kimmel's wife's orgasms?

Jimmy Kimmel is a show host who has accumulated millions of supporters enjoying his humor and free speech.  He is up on TV showing his real face and name and with his job on the line.  He is successful with high approval ratings and makes a living out of what he is doing.

You?  You hide behind an outdated avatar, with your name hidden and spewing garbage.  Your approval rating is in the negative.  Out of 5 viewers, all 5 will downvote you in an instant!  You can't make a cent with your skill or rather the lack of it.

I am waiting for the day when AI will be monitoring the web and all real nonsense will be prevented from seeing the light of day.

Then you and Trump will be typing away with your little fingers and pressing the "submit" button and each time there will be an e-mail sent to you with a "Content Disabled" subject.   A month or two down the road you will get the final message :

"Your Mailbox is 100% Full"   

And this will be the end of you two.🤣

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

So what was not balanced in CBC's reporting of Jimmy Kimmel's joke about Melania?

Jimmy Kimmel showed his true colours after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and he knows about all of the assassination attempts against Trump, and all the calls for violence against Trump from prominent leftists, so his sickening comment about Trump's imminent death can't be considered anything other than 1) a thinly veiled call for extremist violence against Trump or 2) tacit support for another assassination attempt.

If you're being honest, you know that Trump is much closer to dying from an assassin's bullet in the next few days than of old age. 

CBC glossed over that aspect of the story, and then just briefly mentioned that an assassin came into the WH 2 days later, without even mentioning that the guy shot people there, or that his manifesto basically read "at the centre of Jimmy Kimmel's target demographic".

Dude, if a guy came into the WH while Obama was president, shooting at people, and then his alt-right manifesto was made public, the CBC would have been all over that story like ugly on an ape. It wouldn't just be an afterthought.

FYI there were more shots fired by leftist extremists in the WH this weekend than were fired at the capitol on J6th, and CBC didn't blaze by the J6 story, or make it about something that Pelosi did wrong.

 

Edit: Also this...

• CBC: "Trump has repeatedly urged broadcasters to remove comedy or news programs he dislikes or that have been critical of ⁠him, and has pressed regulators to take action to revoke the licences of broadcasters he says treat him unfairly."

That's a total fabrication. Trump's concerns are made to appear as if they were selfish and without merit, but Trump's main attack on the media prior to was regarding their treatment of Charlie Kirk, and he has successfully sued some of those people. 

Quote

What was "balanced" in your second comment about Kimmel's wife's orgasms?

It was the exact same joke genre... "A woman is excited to think about her husband's imminent death."

Kinda hard to call it a joke though... the level of darkness isn't overcome by the amount of humour generated.

Quote

Jimmy Kimmel is a show host who has accumulated millions of supporters enjoying his humor and free speech.  He is up on TV showing his real face and name and with his job on the line.  He is successful with high approval ratings and makes a living out of what he is doing.

Hitler was popular too, and still has lots of followers.

Mohammed was a pedophile who chopped the heads off of people for refusing to convert to islam, and then he sold their wives and children into r4pe-slavery, and he has 1B followers 1400 years later. What's your point?

Kimmel is a f'ing loser.

Quote

You?  You hide behind an outdated avatar, with your name hidden and spewing garbage.  Your approval rating is in the negative.  Out of 5 viewers, all 5 will downvote you in an instant!  You can't make a cent with your skill or rather the lack of it.

 Where do you see -5? I don't even know what you're talking about...

FYI my skill is my ability to get along with decent people, while exposing disgusting hypocrites like you, who cheer on the sinking of oil tankers to protect the ayatollah.

Do you have any idea how many plastic straws you'd have to dump into the ocean to equal the devastation of a 2M barrel oil-spill?

Quote

I am waiting for the day when AI will be monitoring the web and all real nonsense will be prevented from seeing the light of day.

You had it dude, then Elon went and wrecked it, but you never even knew that, did you?

FYI CBC was in bed with WashPo, NYT, Reuters, AP, FB, Google, Twitter and YouTube, among others, spreading disinformation and banning actual news across the entire planet, like for example ALL talk of the BSL4 lab, and talk about the Hunter laptop (the NYPost was banned from Twitter just for saying things that the FBI knew to be true, while "51 former intelligence officials" were lying about it on FB and Twitter 24/7). 

The reason leftists turned on Elon so harshly was because he ended the social media monopoly that leftists had previously enjoyed. 

YOU, and ALL OF YOUR OPINIONS, are the product of MSM disinformation on a global scale and you can't even name the group that did all of that.  

Quote

Then you and Trump will be typing away with your little fingers and pressing the "submit" button and each time there will be an e-mail sent to you with a "Content Disabled" subject.  

Your dream world is eerily similar to that of hitler, stalin and mohammed.

Edited April 30 by WestCanMan

[Legato]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

 

 

1 hour ago, cougar said:

Jimmy Kimmel is a show host who has accumulated millions of supporters enjoying his humor and free speech.  He is up on TV showing his real face and name and with his job on the line.  He is successful with high approval ratings and makes a living out of what he is doing.

 

Jimmy Kimmel Live! experienced a significant, long-term decline in viewership, with total audiences dropping from nearly 2 million at the start of 2025 to approximately 1.1 million by August 2025. While a September 2025 return after a hiatus briefly spiked to 6.3 million viewers, ratings immediately plummeted to around 2.4 million, reflecting a sharp, rapid decline. 

[cougar]

24 minutes ago, Legato said:

 

Jimmy Kimmel Live! experienced a significant, long-term decline in viewership, with total audiences dropping from nearly 2 million at the start of 2025 to approximately 1.1 million by August 2025. While a September 2025 return after a hiatus briefly spiked to 6.3 million viewers, ratings immediately plummeted to around 2.4 million, reflecting a sharp, rapid decline. 

So based on your own stats it went from 2 mil to 2.4 mil ?   I do not see a decline here.

[Legato]

39 minutes ago, cougar said:

So based on your own stats it went from 2 mil to 2.4 mil ?   I do not see a decline here.

 Before the September 2025 suspension, ratings had been in a steady, years-long decline, averaging roughly 1.1 million total viewers in August 2025.

Suspension and Return: Following controversial comments, Kimmel was briefly suspended; his return on September 23, 2025, drew a massive 6.3–6.5 million viewers, but this surge lasted only one night, with viewership collapsing to ~2.4 million the following night.

Low Retention: By October 1, 2025, viewership fell to 1.7 million, dipping below the pre-suspension average.

Demo Loss: Kimmel has lost a significant portion of the coveted 25-54 demographic, with a 73% drop in that group shortly after his return.

Broader Context: The late-night industry has seen a massive overall decline, with advertising revenue for late-night shows cut in half between 2018 and 2024.

[August1991]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Michael, you don't see a problem with CBC's slant on the J Kimmel/D Trump story, so then you must find an article like this about the Access Hollywood tapes to be pretty legit too, right?

==

CBC's slant?

IMHO, this is an American political issue.

The CBC & Radio-Canada should report like the BBC objectively around the globe - but in both federal official languages.