CBC Bias: Installment 3,469

Today the CBC published an account of its decision in the Krista Erickson case, the reporter who slipped a note with questions to ask to a member of the inquiry looking into the airbus scandal. I submitted comment at the reader comments forum below the article. In the event they choose not to publish it, I have copied it here:

"CBC can be as biased as they want once they have been privatized. Until then, and as long as I have no choice but to surrender part of my hard earned tax dollars to support it, I would like to see an occasional program that shows a bias of equal dimensions toward the other end of the spectrum.

Until CBC employs personalities whose spin is as far to the right as that produced by people like Anna Maria Tremonte, George Stroumboulopoulas and Michael Enright is to the left, I consider their use of my money to be extremely abusive.

Mind you, I probably still wouldn't return to being a regular viewer/listener. There is just so much other stuff out there that is so much better."

The article is worth a read as it clearly shows that CBC does not get it. These passages in particular caught my attention:

"Our audiences want us to bring them "inside knowledge." As their delegates in the press gallery, we get a front-row seat at a drama they can only watch from a distance.

What's more, I am convinced that the Canadian public is sophisticated enough to realize it is well served by the intense and proper competition for news scoops that exists at every parliamentary, legislative and municipal bureau across the country. That competitive spirit sustains the press in its watchdog function and it is a spirit I hope to encourage at every possible occasion."

First of all, this statement may be seen as a perfect description of the mainstream media's fixation with the sensational. Rather than presenting the whole story, they assume the viewer/reader wants only the most salacious tidbits. That's wrong, in my opinion, and that's why so many of us have turned them off. We want the facts. We want the whole story and we can clearly see that they are pandering, rather than reporting.

But more importantly, what the heck does he mean by "sophisticated enough"? If we disagree with this supposedly exalted purpose of the media, does that mean we aren't "sophisticated enough"? Liberal bias, anyone? Nah. Impossible.

And then there's this one:

"But our role at the CBC is different from the private media whose obligation is, ultimately, only to their shareholders."

"Only to their shareholders"???? What do you think my tax dollar are? At least a shareholder can cash in his shares if he's disgusted with what the company is giving him. WHY CAN'T I DO THAT!!!!!!!

Nope. They just don't get it. Perhaps they aren't sophisticated enough.