4 ms·

That CBC is funded by the government is true according to the article itself: > CBC/Radio-Canada is publicly funded through a parliamentary appropriation that

That CBC is funded by the government is true according to the article itself: > CBC/Radio-Canada is publicly funded through a parliamentary appropriation that is voted upon by all Members of Parliament. Its editorial independence is protected in law in the Broadcasting Act. The "funded by government" tag, taken by face value, simply asserts that funding is provided by the government. Which is true, repeating myself: the article itself states this. It is not the tag "state affiliated media", which - unsurprisingly at least to me - is defined as: [...] outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. I do like this tag - to see directly if some media is funded by a government, whichever it is, because it could explain biases and lead me to research other, potentially conflicting but unrelated media outlets which are not funded by the same government. I can't grasp what's wrong about that.

Bran_son 3y ago
> That CBC is funded by the government is true according to the article itself It's called the "celebration parallax" - https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/ https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-g... If you celebrate it, it's good and true. If you criticize it, it's a false conspiracy theory. Keep an eye out for it, it appears frequently.
- joebiden2 3y ago
  Yeah, it's one of the repeating patterns in media at the time.
jbeales 3y ago
Unfortunately, that "government-funded media" tag implies a lack of editorial independence: > Government-funded media is defined as outlets where the government provides some or all of the outlet’s funding and may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content. [https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/government-media-labels https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/government-me...] Yes, it says "may have" and not "has" but the implication is there, which is what the CBC & others are pushing back on. Twitter also has a "publicly-funded media" label which, in spirit, is probably more applicable, but the way the definition has been written, (I suspect it was written exclusively for the BBC), it doesn't apply to the CBC: > Publicly-funded media refers to media organizations that receive funding from license fees, individual contributions, public financing, and commercial financing. Twitter should remove "may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content" from the government-funded media label and call it a day.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kelipso 3y ago
  They can call themselves editorially independent all they want but they know where their paychecks are coming from. It feels entirely like a thou doth protest too much situation.
  - jbeales 3y ago
    > It feels entirely like a thou doth protest too much situation. I can't disagree here. Of the labels described on the Twitter help page, "government-funded" fits the best. The CBC isn't funded by license fees of donations!
- joebiden2 3y ago
  If something is funded by a government and employs folks, they will feel obligated to agree to some official government position. Even in germany this is observable. Insofar I simply don't share your view, but this is fair to me. I can agree with your last sentence, it would probably be better this way.
  - vintermann 3y ago
    I agree, but two points: 1. It's not unique to government, this is exactly how, say, Rupert Murdoch or Jeff Bezos exercise their media power as well. 2. The sense of loyalty comes before the paycheck. You don't get to make decisions in the first place unless the people who appointed you are very confident that you see things their way.
    - joebiden2 3y ago
      Also agree. There should be tags for "Amazon Affiliated" or "Murdoch Affiliated", but there should even more be a tag for "Independent Journalist". The latter are, unfortunately, mostly in jails today, be it in Russia, in China or even in the US.
vintermann 3y ago
> Its editorial independence is protected in law in the Broadcasting Act. In other words, "We're independent because we are supposed to be!". How much is that assertion worth? Who gets to police them if they don't live up to it? It's not as if it's necessary to go threatening the editor to get a compliant press. Not when you appoint the leadership. Nobody who doesn't already agree and take completely for granted that CBC is independent, will get within a mile of making decisions for it. That's how it is for other government broadcasters as well - as well as corporate ones, for that matter.

Bran_son 3y ago

> That CBC is funded by the government is true according to the article itself It's called the "celebration parallax" - https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/ https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-g... If you celebrate it, it's good and true. If you criticize it, it's a false conspiracy theory. Keep an eye out for it, it appears frequently.

joebiden2 3y ago
Yeah, it's one of the repeating patterns in media at the time.

jbeales 3y ago

Unfortunately, that "government-funded media" tag implies a lack of editorial independence: > Government-funded media is defined as outlets where the government provides some or all of the outlet’s funding and may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content. [https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/government-media-labels https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/government-me...] Yes, it says "may have" and not "has" but the implication is there, which is what the CBC & others are pushing back on. Twitter also has a "publicly-funded media" label which, in spirit, is probably more applicable, but the way the definition has been written, (I suspect it was written exclusively for the BBC), it doesn't apply to the CBC: > Publicly-funded media refers to media organizations that receive funding from license fees, individual contributions, public financing, and commercial financing. Twitter should remove "may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content" from the government-funded media label and call it a day.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kelipso 3y ago
They can call themselves editorially independent all they want but they know where their paychecks are coming from. It feels entirely like a thou doth protest too much situation.
- jbeales 3y ago
  > It feels entirely like a thou doth protest too much situation. I can't disagree here. Of the labels described on the Twitter help page, "government-funded" fits the best. The CBC isn't funded by license fees of donations!
joebiden2 3y ago
If something is funded by a government and employs folks, they will feel obligated to agree to some official government position. Even in germany this is observable. Insofar I simply don't share your view, but this is fair to me. I can agree with your last sentence, it would probably be better this way.
- vintermann 3y ago
  I agree, but two points: 1. It's not unique to government, this is exactly how, say, Rupert Murdoch or Jeff Bezos exercise their media power as well. 2. The sense of loyalty comes before the paycheck. You don't get to make decisions in the first place unless the people who appointed you are very confident that you see things their way.
  - joebiden2 3y ago
    Also agree. There should be tags for "Amazon Affiliated" or "Murdoch Affiliated", but there should even more be a tag for "Independent Journalist". The latter are, unfortunately, mostly in jails today, be it in Russia, in China or even in the US.

vintermann 3y ago

> Its editorial independence is protected in law in the Broadcasting Act. In other words, "We're independent because we are supposed to be!". How much is that assertion worth? Who gets to police them if they don't live up to it? It's not as if it's necessary to go threatening the editor to get a compliant press. Not when you appoint the leadership. Nobody who doesn't already agree and take completely for granted that CBC is independent, will get within a mile of making decisions for it. That's how it is for other government broadcasters as well - as well as corporate ones, for that matter.