A common argument in favour of defunding the CBC is that its news content exhibits ideological bias. In particular, it has been subject to criticism that it is too progressive and Liberal-friendly, including for instance in its recent coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and Chinese interference in Canadian elections.
However, the assumption of the CBC’s progressive bias has rarely been tested empirically. To remedy this, I conducted an analysis of the CBC’s coverage of an issue that became a sustained national news story this past fall: Saskatchewan’s parental consent policy for children’s gender pronoun changes in schools.
The public debate around Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy involves complexity, competing perspectives, and evolving public opinion. It’s the sort of issue for which the role of the news media is presumably to establish and situate the facts, present the different points of view, and help Canadians work through the nuances. Yet, as my analysis shows, that’s not how the CBC’s reporting handled the issue. […]
Across 38 articles, the CBC quoted more than five times as many critics of Saskatchewan’s policy as supporters (81 critics, 15 supporters, and five neutral). Moreover, supporters were grouped into a small number of articles, with six of the 15 supporters quoted in a single story about competing public rallies. Only 16 percent of the total articles (six of 38) quoted at least one supporter of the policy, compared to 95 percent of articles (36 of 38) that quoted at least one critic of the government’s policy. And support was never presented independent of criticism: all six articles that included a quote from a supporter also included at least one quote from a critic.
The critics quoted by the CBC were also far more likely to be in a position of authority, while supporters were almost entirely laypeople. Of the 59 critics whose opinions were sought out by the CBC, 26 were what I classify as “experts”—lawyers and legal scholars, professors, school board presidents, health professionals, and LGBTQ organizations—and a further six were teachers. The focus on expertise was even higher from those quoted from the public record: of the 22 critics who were quoted from the public record, twenty (91 percent) were experts or organizations representing experts. By contrast, CBC reporters did not seek out a single “expert” to speak in favour of Saskatchewan’s policy. Of the 13 quotes from supporters that were sought by the CBC, nine were from community members or protestors at rallies, while four were from the leaders of three small socially conservative interest groups.
Too complicated. To test CBC bias, just chose a “comment”/”opinion” pro-Turd article and try to pen some lukewarm/polite comment against.
Any sensible person in a position of authority would never be quoted criticizing this policy.
Not only is this bias ingrained…people with big salaries want to keep on side with socials and MSM, but also that “smart” people will always agree with me. Of course they will! But also the bias of “I don’t know anyone who holds a contrary opinion”. Of course you don’t, They would be stupid to express it.
Thanks for this analysis. Suspicions confirmed.
To borrow from Poilievere, the CBC “is just not worth the cost”. Take the CBC’s audience head count and divide that puny number into the massive cost to keep CBC afloat. Then for a comparison take the number of CDN veterans and divide that number into what our government spends on them. Our vets are worth every dime; the CBC is just not worth the cost.
CBC television does not provide a product that is not already being provided by private companies. Other government agencies require these private companies to air “Canadian contect” and news so arguments that we need the CBC for Canadian culture don’t hold up to scrutiny. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why it still exists. The money going to the CBC should be repurposed for debt reduction. Canadians can get their propaganda from other Trudeau funded Canadian television companies.
There seem to be plenty of useless, multibillion dollar slush funds and redundant agencies that should see the same fate.
“Canadians can get their propaganda from other Trudeau funded Canadian television companies.” – It’s true that its leftist private sector clones make it redundant but also imperative that they lose that funding immediately after a change in government that also makes the CBC the shortest lived member of the free press.
One only has to watch Global to hear daily anti Trump “reporting” where lying by omission is what defines the script.
For pure enjoyment could we appoint Ezra Levant president of CBC for a couple years before we gut it and put it out of its misery.
Great idea, it would probably save us a lot on severance when they all quit in a huff!
Yes, I can understand that Stephen Harper didn’t want to take the political risk of shutting down the CBC, but why in God’s name didn’t he appoint Ezra Levant to head the CBC? At that point the Liberals would have shut it down! Ah well.
The term ‘expert’ is applied very loosely. An expert is nothing more than a person in any position of authority that has an opinion on something. And it is an opinion that is no more worthy than any other opinion. The media are in love with experts and pull them out their hat always. Most are no more experts in anything than I am.
When CBC reporting is involved, I consider ‘expert’ to be a euphemism for ‘a**hole’, and CBC to be a mouthpiece for them. So whenever CBC reports what one of these ‘experts’ say, the expert is talking through their ass.
expert: X is unknown, and a spurt is just a drip under pressure.
They did the same thing during the same-sex “marriage” debate. Remember? Remember how when the first polls surrounding the topic came up with something like two-thirds of those polled were *against* SSM?
It didn’t take long for the media propaganda to work it’s magic, didn’t it?
The same is occurring with every single socialist agenda item, including Parental Rights, and of course, Climate Change, the good news is that more and more people are figuring out how wretchedly biased the CBC is, and they’re figuring out for themselves, without the aid of any “experts,” the real cost of renewable energy, and they don’t like what it’s doing to their pocketbooks.
Is it enough, though? Have we reached a tipping point, or do we still have a long way to go?
The CBC is a national disgrace. We all know it’s a government-funded Liberal propaganda outfit. And when I say Liberal I mean Socialist, with LGBT on top. Patronage HQ. The article above nails it, in that a particular viewpoint is always pushed, and not subtly. Many other networks do it such as CTV or Global; often with just one side of an issue being presented. Often their “expert” is some teacher in a university being interviewed, as opposed to a person on the ground or in the industry being discussed. So why do we need the CBC to do that, since other networks are taking government money to push the same agenda? I have satellite radio in the car so on my commute I used to flip between CNN and other US networks and the CBC. Same talking points when talking about US or international politics. Same buzzwords. “Emolument”, “Not exonerated”, etc, etc.
I have to add though, that on the rare occasions where the CBC is open for comments, some of the comments are pure comedy gold.
We must also address the Comments section CBC provides, or rather, fails to provide when they don’t like the way discussion is going. Today CBCs big story is about pro Hamas orotesters being sanctioned. No comments allowed.
it was always “the Harper Regime” and the Trudeau government
id give Pierre the last supper recommendation ..
what thou doest , do quickly
Every single CBC employee should be given monkey pox as their severance package.
That red haired skank from NY should get hers anally from a 300 lb. gay misogynist on steroids.
Yeah, all of Canadian MSM play that game to varying degrees but CBC is the worst. Caught a CTV report (I don’t know how that happened) on the renaming of Dundas Square…they interviewed three street urchins who were absolutely delighted with the new name and it’s on to the next story. Anyone against? Nah…couldn’t find one.
Chow it seems is on their protected species list.
At least in Britain, you can opt out of paying for the BBC by refusing to pay the $200 yearly “TV License”. In Canada, everyone pays for the CBC and their laughably small audience.
the CBC also reported today that Comrade Mayor Chow has announced that Toronotians need to “do their part” to bail out the incompetent city planners who have created a $1.5 billion budget hole, though higher taxes and fees…
but you know she’s all about the “affordability crisis”
CBC should be defunded. If no one has the guts then the new CPC government should create a law that eliminates its news operation forever.
“Advocacy journalism”….it’s not necessarily what they tell you, but what they withhold from you….it’s all about giving you the “correct” information so the “correct” opinions can be formed.
Another give away regarding buas is the total lack of coverage of the NCI hearings and its report. Appalling. They clearly are not interested in serving Canadians.
I don’t need a GD study to tell me that Mother Corpse is biased.
It’s like doing a study to see if water is wet.