Case in point:
Above are screen caps from the CBC article. As of this writing, the CBC article has not been amended to reflect what the bold passages in the article above.
Who is blurring the lines now, CBC?
One might expect some mud-slinging from the CBC against another news and opinion source, especially during an election year. They were paid generously for that sort of thing.
The national state broadcaster has claimed that we blur ethical lines. While we appreciate the attention of the CBC, partisanship is an interesting charge coming from them, a major outlet that continues to take hundreds of millions of your tax dollars while spreading woke social justice messages and left-leaning content on an hourly basis.
The argument is that we exist in a “grey area” between journalism and “pamphleteering.” In their attempt to establish this argument, they dust off Alan Conter, a professor of journalism from Concordia University. Conter claims that transparency is key, and that what we do is “less journalism and more pamphleteering.” What CBC and Conter fail to disclose is that Conter is a former CBC executive producer. Conter is right about one thing: Transparency is key. We wonder why CBC wasn’t transparent about this connection.
This all comes at a time when public confidence in the state-funded broadcaster is at an all-time low. The public sees the slow dance between legacy media like the CBC and the Trudeau government. It’s right there in plain view, under a spotlight. It’s almost romantic.
In November of 2018, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that he would be handing out 600 million dollars to media organizations. Instead of focusing on innovative, independent, new media outlets that would reflect ideological diversity, the Trudeau government had a pre-approved list of “acceptable” organizations.
Recently, MP Tom Kmiec asked the Finance Committee whether or not our organization was eligible for these funds to support journalism in Canada. Of course, there was no clear answer to this question. Would we qualify? We doubt it because the plan seems to have been to shore up support to the old guard of information. This is why the panel tasked with deciding who gets the funds was stacked with left-wing organizations like UNIFOR.
Even if we did qualify, we would reject the funding. Why? Just as we are not beholden to the whims of the Conservative party, we refuse to be duty-bound to the Trudeau government as well. Despite the CBC’s flaccid attempt to paint TPM as conservative activism, we are actually remarkably ideologically diverse, boasting contributors from across the world and all over the political spectrum.
Above are screen caps from the CBC article. As of this writing, the CBC article has not been amended to reflect what the bold passages in the article above.
Who is blurring the lines now, CBC?
One might expect some mud-slinging from the CBC against another news and opinion source, especially during an election year. They were paid generously for that sort of thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment