3 ms·

Except it's not. They're trying to redefine what the point of journalism is. They want to add interpretation as a goal. If you read deeper into the article, you

Except it's not. They're trying to redefine what the point of journalism is. They want to add interpretation as a goal. If you read deeper into the article, you see this: "There's a limit to how much you can put yourself in, but when you begin to think in terms of your place in society, what your relative privilege is, what social orders have benefited you and where they have not benefited you, I think this is where you're thinking about a news story. [It] shouldn't just be about a news story as an event, but how it's an intersection of systems and structures." To me, this isn't what the news is about. This is option and interpretation. News should report facts, not try to apply social theory to interpret them for me. I'm not quote mining like you suggest. The context of the article does not make it any better. Further: "It's been a very interesting few weeks on social media. And especially on Twitter, where you have Indigenous journalists and Black journalists talking about what's happened to them in the newsroom. Those kinds of narratives really illustrate the ways in which journalism is absolutely a work of interpretation, and recognizing journalism as contributing to a social order is a first step in seeing it as a tool that might do good in the world." This is even more alarming. They're essentially saying the news is by its nature an interpretation of events and can't be otherwise. This is false. There are plenty of news sources which report short, concise segments of information without interpretation (ie: Reuters).

switchbak 5y ago
That pretty much sums up what's happened to the CBC as of late. A far left activist organization, pretending to deliver news, funded by the state. It's a real shame, given that the CBC used to be quite a respectable organization, and would work hard to represent perspectives from all over Canada (given the constraints of the time). I'm ostensibly in the group they're pandering to, but I just can't tolerate the obvious agenda setting. I can't imagine what the more conservative Canadians must think about it. Rex Murphy (a former CBC reporter) doesn't have much good to say about his old organization.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  >A far left activist organization If you think the CBC is "far left," then you don't actually know what "far left" really is. CBC is, at most, left of center. I'm open to having my mind changed if you can provide, for example, an instance of the CBC advocating workers seizing the means of production.
  - trutannus 5y ago
    I won't be able to find a specific example, but there has been a lot of air-time given to interviews about disrupting, quitting, and publicly shaming your workplace if you don't ideologically align with them. For example, there's a segment called Battle Tactics for your Sexist Workplace which CBC airs some Sundays. There was a segment on how to properly "go public" about why you quit, which is arguably a career limiting move dressed up as virtuous political posturing. They don't produce the segment, but they give it air time which does imply some agreement with the content. I disagree that they're center-left, or far-left, but they definitely ride the outermost left boundary of the Overton Window, and sometimes spill a little over.
    - p_j_w 5y ago
      >There was a segment on how to properly "go public" about why you quit, which is arguably a career limiting move dressed up as virtuous political posturing. If someone quits because their workplace is sexist, perhaps the motivation in going public is to warn people. You framing this as not being anything but virtue signaling (without using the actual phrase) and use it as an indisputable fact to back your point up strikes me as being the same sort of thing that people on the right claim the media engages in.
      - trutannus 5y ago
        I don't think you're being honest here in the way you're construing my point. It looks like you've re-framed it, made stuff up to make me fit the form of a right-wing malcontent. Can you point to where I said this was an indisputable fact? If you can't, then that's likely because I said the opposite, which you can see in the line you yourself quoted me on: "which is arguably a career limiting move dressed up as virtuous political posturing." Basically, all this says is that "I think publicly denouncing your employer for political, social, or other reasons might not make you look good in future job applications", and that someone telling you to do so on a highly political podcast might be motivated by more than just warning everyone about a bad boss. When you remove the stuff I didn't say, my point is less easily shoehorned into the right wing perspective you want it to be. It's pretty clear here that this is an opinion, not a retelling of fact. If you don't think this podcast is a little on the hard-line left side, and you don't think encouraging people to publicly quit is a risky move, that's fine. You could argue for that like I argued for this.

switchbak 5y ago

That pretty much sums up what's happened to the CBC as of late. A far left activist organization, pretending to deliver news, funded by the state. It's a real shame, given that the CBC used to be quite a respectable organization, and would work hard to represent perspectives from all over Canada (given the constraints of the time). I'm ostensibly in the group they're pandering to, but I just can't tolerate the obvious agenda setting. I can't imagine what the more conservative Canadians must think about it. Rex Murphy (a former CBC reporter) doesn't have much good to say about his old organization.

p_j_w 5y ago
>A far left activist organization If you think the CBC is "far left," then you don't actually know what "far left" really is. CBC is, at most, left of center. I'm open to having my mind changed if you can provide, for example, an instance of the CBC advocating workers seizing the means of production.
- trutannus 5y ago
  I won't be able to find a specific example, but there has been a lot of air-time given to interviews about disrupting, quitting, and publicly shaming your workplace if you don't ideologically align with them. For example, there's a segment called Battle Tactics for your Sexist Workplace which CBC airs some Sundays. There was a segment on how to properly "go public" about why you quit, which is arguably a career limiting move dressed up as virtuous political posturing. They don't produce the segment, but they give it air time which does imply some agreement with the content. I disagree that they're center-left, or far-left, but they definitely ride the outermost left boundary of the Overton Window, and sometimes spill a little over.
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    >There was a segment on how to properly "go public" about why you quit, which is arguably a career limiting move dressed up as virtuous political posturing. If someone quits because their workplace is sexist, perhaps the motivation in going public is to warn people. You framing this as not being anything but virtue signaling (without using the actual phrase) and use it as an indisputable fact to back your point up strikes me as being the same sort of thing that people on the right claim the media engages in.
    - trutannus 5y ago
      I don't think you're being honest here in the way you're construing my point. It looks like you've re-framed it, made stuff up to make me fit the form of a right-wing malcontent. Can you point to where I said this was an indisputable fact? If you can't, then that's likely because I said the opposite, which you can see in the line you yourself quoted me on: "which is arguably a career limiting move dressed up as virtuous political posturing." Basically, all this says is that "I think publicly denouncing your employer for political, social, or other reasons might not make you look good in future job applications", and that someone telling you to do so on a highly political podcast might be motivated by more than just warning everyone about a bad boss. When you remove the stuff I didn't say, my point is less easily shoehorned into the right wing perspective you want it to be. It's pretty clear here that this is an opinion, not a retelling of fact. If you don't think this podcast is a little on the hard-line left side, and you don't think encouraging people to publicly quit is a risky move, that's fine. You could argue for that like I argued for this.