4 ms·

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

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.
      - p_j_w 5y ago
        And you've misconstrued what I've said. You used the airing of the segment as an indisputable piece of evidence in defense of GP's point of CBC being nothing more than left wing propaganda, which it is not. The fact that you threw in the bit about going public being virtue signaling merely makes me find you distrustworthy. The fact that you threw in the weasel word "arguably" and conveniently left out an argument that's more compelling than what you said was arguable simply means I question what you've said even more.
        trutannus 5y ago
        For someone who said they're open to having their views challenged, the tenacity with which you respin other's arguments suggests the opposite. I see little to no engagement with the argument's content, a lot of objections to form, and a lot of interpretation. You don't come off as someone who wants to have good faith discussions. Instead you come off as someone who wants to bait people into replying, then go word-for-word through their reply to find any gotcha moment you can to match your spin. In this reply chain for example, you've: - framed me as thinking CBC is far left (a lie) - put words in the mouth of another commenter, - removed critical points from my comment, - simplified my argument to a straw-man, - tried to convert an opinion into a statement of fact by accusing me of just using "weasel words", - inferred my motive, and - accused me of leaving out other arguments. This topic is inherently opinion based. I've been clear that's what I'm offering. Multiple times now you've accused me otherwise. You're free to respectfully disagree with my opinion, but this is neither respectful, nor a discussion of opinion with you at this point. I'm not going to go any further with you down this line of conversation. Have a nice day.

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.
    - p_j_w 5y ago
      And you've misconstrued what I've said. You used the airing of the segment as an indisputable piece of evidence in defense of GP's point of CBC being nothing more than left wing propaganda, which it is not. The fact that you threw in the bit about going public being virtue signaling merely makes me find you distrustworthy. The fact that you threw in the weasel word "arguably" and conveniently left out an argument that's more compelling than what you said was arguable simply means I question what you've said even more.
      - trutannus 5y ago
        For someone who said they're open to having their views challenged, the tenacity with which you respin other's arguments suggests the opposite. I see little to no engagement with the argument's content, a lot of objections to form, and a lot of interpretation. You don't come off as someone who wants to have good faith discussions. Instead you come off as someone who wants to bait people into replying, then go word-for-word through their reply to find any gotcha moment you can to match your spin. In this reply chain for example, you've: - framed me as thinking CBC is far left (a lie) - put words in the mouth of another commenter, - removed critical points from my comment, - simplified my argument to a straw-man, - tried to convert an opinion into a statement of fact by accusing me of just using "weasel words", - inferred my motive, and - accused me of leaving out other arguments. This topic is inherently opinion based. I've been clear that's what I'm offering. Multiple times now you've accused me otherwise. You're free to respectfully disagree with my opinion, but this is neither respectful, nor a discussion of opinion with you at this point. I'm not going to go any further with you down this line of conversation. Have a nice day.