6 ms·

(response to post that was just deleted) 'critical to note that she is just recounting of her own perception of herself.' Tara is outlining why she quit a job

(response to post that was just deleted) 'critical to note that she is just recounting of her own perception of herself.' Tara is outlining why she quit a job she couldn't do anymore because the CBC were ignoring important local stories to focus on CRT, identity politics and racialization of everything, biased reporting and click bait. 'People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported. Or why our pop culture radio show’s coverage of the Dave Chappelle Netflix special failed to include any of the legions of fans, or comics, that did not find it offensive. Or why, exactly, taxpayers should be funding articles that scold Canadians for using words such as “brainstorm” and “lame.”' Most journalists know if they get paid they are expected to promote the owner's views - the line between pr and journalism is a fine one - but that they will be promoting wholesome, useful values and information. When the owners lurch too far people leave, both writers and readers/viewers, leaving a weak core. Once you've lied and/or lost your audience's trust it is a very hard road back. It was smart of her to get out while she still had her integrity imo

908B64B197 5y ago
I always considered the idea of CBC to be... extremely weird. Having government approved journalists on government payroll sure sounds like something out of China, Russia or Cuba. Not a western democracy. From the article: > To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others. Here you can see someone "from the top" made that request and that the (taxpayer funded) employees are filling out their request. So much for "journalistic independence". To me that, and that they are using taxpayer money to fund sitcoms and entertainment while it's one of the most profitable businesses on earth, is completely bizarre. I mean Disney and Marvel made billions just last year simply by producing content people want to watch! > Most journalists know if they get paid they are expected to promote the owner's views - the line between pr and journalism is a fine one - but that they will be promoting wholesome, useful values and information. When the owners lurch too far people leave, both writers and readers/viewers, leaving a weak core. At the same time they can push this ultra-liberal agenda because they aren't subjected to market forces. It doesn't matter if more and more people tune out, funding is guaranteed and comes straight from the (captive) taxpayers. Lastly, for an "anti-racist" media, they aired content that was quite racist not that long ago, and refused to edit any of it. [0]. Maybe some races are more equal than other according to these people! [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cbc-apology-story-of-us-1.4065767 https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cbc-apology-story-of-u...
- version_five 5y ago
  I think a lot of what is happening inside the CBC reflects what is happening in Canada's public service generally. The whole institution has gone from traditional "Liberal" left to a bad caricature of the US left (especially because in Canada we don't have many of the same issues).
  - voisin 5y ago
    Examples?
- milderworkacc 5y ago
  Calling the CBC “Government approved journalists on the government payroll” is an extremely misleading description of what is an overwhelmingly common situation in English speaking democracies. Canada has the CBC, the UK the BBC, Australia the ABC and NZ TVNZ and associated entities. None of these are Pravda, they’re all arms-length, independently run organisations. I’m sure they’re all far from perfect (I’m happy to share my opinions on the non-CBC ones in an appropriate thread) but what media organisation is?
  - reallyagain 5y ago
    You're running straight into an established Canadian conservative talking point. It's pushed relentlessly by private news organisations who would reap financial benefit from the CBC being defunded. These organizations also happen to be the major news and opinion source for many conservative people in this country, so there's a convenient feedback loop in place. I'm sure this is not dissimilar to the other countries listed. I agree with the majority of the linked substack in this thread, I think that the quality of CBC journalism is on a pretty clear downward trend, and I think that ignoring widespread societal issues to focus on the ultra-niche "darling of Twitter" social issues is journalistic malpractice at best. That being said, the comparison of the CBC to Chinese state-run news broadcasting (while extremely common from conservative opinion makers in this country) is, I'm sorry, a completely childish take.
    - 5y ago
zacmps 5y ago
This is not at all how journalism works. Journalism requires editorial freedom, who pays the bills should have literally no impact on reporting; this is true even when with meta coverage of the publication or owner in question. Anything else is not journalism.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > Journalism requires editorial freedom, who pays the bills should have literally no impact on reporting And yet we all know that's not what really happens.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  'In journalism, a hack writer is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Kind of … more and more journalism outfits are going towards non-profit status. That usually involves some sort of ideological position: National Review is neoconservative, Jacobite is far left, n+1 is progressive. That’s not really what we usually mean by news, but that’s the mode being adopted by many news outlets.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > That’s not really what we usually mean by news, but that’s the mode being adopted by many news outlets. National Review was founded in 1955, and is the only one of the examples you cite that even pretends to have a journalistic component (though its overtly mainly commentary); Jacobin is overtly commentary, not news; n+1 is a literary, rather than journalistic, outlet. That's not really good examples of a novel trend in journalism.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      I didn’t give any examples of for-profits that converted to non-profits. My examples are expository, not argumentative.

908B64B197 5y ago

I always considered the idea of CBC to be... extremely weird. Having government approved journalists on government payroll sure sounds like something out of China, Russia or Cuba. Not a western democracy. From the article: > To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others. Here you can see someone "from the top" made that request and that the (taxpayer funded) employees are filling out their request. So much for "journalistic independence". To me that, and that they are using taxpayer money to fund sitcoms and entertainment while it's one of the most profitable businesses on earth, is completely bizarre. I mean Disney and Marvel made billions just last year simply by producing content people want to watch! > Most journalists know if they get paid they are expected to promote the owner's views - the line between pr and journalism is a fine one - but that they will be promoting wholesome, useful values and information. When the owners lurch too far people leave, both writers and readers/viewers, leaving a weak core. At the same time they can push this ultra-liberal agenda because they aren't subjected to market forces. It doesn't matter if more and more people tune out, funding is guaranteed and comes straight from the (captive) taxpayers. Lastly, for an "anti-racist" media, they aired content that was quite racist not that long ago, and refused to edit any of it. [0]. Maybe some races are more equal than other according to these people! [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cbc-apology-story-of-us-1.4065767 https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cbc-apology-story-of-u...

version_five 5y ago
I think a lot of what is happening inside the CBC reflects what is happening in Canada's public service generally. The whole institution has gone from traditional "Liberal" left to a bad caricature of the US left (especially because in Canada we don't have many of the same issues).
- voisin 5y ago
  Examples?
milderworkacc 5y ago
Calling the CBC “Government approved journalists on the government payroll” is an extremely misleading description of what is an overwhelmingly common situation in English speaking democracies. Canada has the CBC, the UK the BBC, Australia the ABC and NZ TVNZ and associated entities. None of these are Pravda, they’re all arms-length, independently run organisations. I’m sure they’re all far from perfect (I’m happy to share my opinions on the non-CBC ones in an appropriate thread) but what media organisation is?
- reallyagain 5y ago
  You're running straight into an established Canadian conservative talking point. It's pushed relentlessly by private news organisations who would reap financial benefit from the CBC being defunded. These organizations also happen to be the major news and opinion source for many conservative people in this country, so there's a convenient feedback loop in place. I'm sure this is not dissimilar to the other countries listed. I agree with the majority of the linked substack in this thread, I think that the quality of CBC journalism is on a pretty clear downward trend, and I think that ignoring widespread societal issues to focus on the ultra-niche "darling of Twitter" social issues is journalistic malpractice at best. That being said, the comparison of the CBC to Chinese state-run news broadcasting (while extremely common from conservative opinion makers in this country) is, I'm sorry, a completely childish take.
  - 5y ago

zacmps 5y ago

This is not at all how journalism works. Journalism requires editorial freedom, who pays the bills should have literally no impact on reporting; this is true even when with meta coverage of the publication or owner in question. Anything else is not journalism.

908B64B197 5y ago
> Journalism requires editorial freedom, who pays the bills should have literally no impact on reporting And yet we all know that's not what really happens.
olivermarks 5y ago
'In journalism, a hack writer is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer
pyuser583 5y ago
Kind of … more and more journalism outfits are going towards non-profit status. That usually involves some sort of ideological position: National Review is neoconservative, Jacobite is far left, n+1 is progressive. That’s not really what we usually mean by news, but that’s the mode being adopted by many news outlets.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > That’s not really what we usually mean by news, but that’s the mode being adopted by many news outlets. National Review was founded in 1955, and is the only one of the examples you cite that even pretends to have a journalistic component (though its overtly mainly commentary); Jacobin is overtly commentary, not news; n+1 is a literary, rather than journalistic, outlet. That's not really good examples of a novel trend in journalism.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    I didn’t give any examples of for-profits that converted to non-profits. My examples are expository, not argumentative.