There’s a bit of an argument going on between Sun Media’s Brian Lilley and Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen over the proper designation of the state-funded and state-owned CBC. Sun Media refers to the CBC as the “state broadcaster” in news stories, which McGregor said is a loaded term that is associative of the “Soviet-era Tass, a propaganda arm for the government.”

McGregor then did what any curious journalist would do, and punched the term “state broadcaster” into FP infomart, the journalist’s resource tool that scans news archives from across the country. His results turned up five uses of the term between 1996 and 2010 by Toronto Sun writers. But then, suddenly it would seem, following the use of the term by Sun Media executive Kory Teneycke, the reference jumped to 39 times with the majority being used by Brian Lilley.

Not to be outdone, Lilley did a search himself, and came up with other uses of the term from Paul Wells in Maclean’s, Susan Delacourt and Rondi Adamson in the Toronto Star, John Doyle in the Globe, and a Reuters story. Lilley makes the argument that the term has become “accurate and factual” through popular usage in media.

An update on McGregor’s blog acknowledges the sleuthing, and responds that all of Lilley’s examples were used in columns, and did not constitute news reporting, save for the last one. As he writes:

I don’t really take a position on its fairness. I wouldn’t use it in my reporting because it is a loaded term that has connotations that transcend it’s intended meaning. But, others clearly differ.

Indeed. For once, I’m going to take the side of Glen McGregor. Although I don’t like the fact the CBC is owned by the state and subsidized by the state, it is reaching to describe it as the “state broadcaster.” It certainly is a loaded term, and generally shouldn’t be used in news articles that strive for impartiality.

The CBC’s editorial is clearly not reflective of the current ideological underpinnings of the “state” who sponsors it, so not only is the term not impartial, it fails the second criteria for news reporting: accuracy. It isn’t a pulpit that the prime minister can use to speak from, it doesn’t advertise Conservative Party propaganda or views and it can even be said the broadcaster has an editorial directive that pushes to the left of centre.

That’s not to say the CBC is a public broadcaster either. Lilley makes an accurate point when he says a public broadcaster is akin to a PBS channel, that takes donations for broadcasting member-requested content. The CBC broadcasts whatever it feels like, regardless of what the public wants, so although it’s publicly funded it isn’t entirely accurate to refer to it as a public broadcaster.

The problem lies in the distinction of the CBC as being state-owned and state-subsidized versus being independent to broadcast free from state-interference. This is a critical distinction, since McGregor is correct that calling it a state broadcaster is insufficient in and of itself to clarify that for readers.

So what would be a more accurate description of the CBC in Lilley’s articles? Although longer, using the term “state-owned broadcaster” or “state-funded broadcaster” or words to that effect, would properly position the CBC as accurately being owned and funded by the state, without suggesting it’s a mouthpiece for it.

Afterthoughts

From the comments of McGregor’s blog:

• “Denny” writes that it’s more accurate to describe the CBC as being a state broadcaster than it is a not-yet-existent Sun TV “Fox News North.” Good point, although two inaccuracies don’t make an accuracy.
• “William” writes that many newspapers and magazines (including Maclean’s, as Andrew Coyne has admitted) are funded by Ottawa through Heritage Canada. Since all of CBC’s funding doesn’t come from the state, it could be argued that Maclean’s magazine is a “state magazine” under the same criteria.
• “Albert Veldpaus” makes a good point that if CBC is the “state broadcaster”, then logically TVO is also the “state broadcaster”. I’ve often wondered why TVO usually gets a free pass in these discussions.

From the comments of Lilley’s blog:

• “Gabby in QC”, who isn’t known for agreeing with me very often, agrees with me: “In a way, I agree with McGregor the CBC shouldn’t be called the “state broadcaster” for the simple reason it doesn’t present the “state” POV.”

Travel advisory:

IRI warns against Canada travel

IRI’s [Islamic Republic of Iran] Foreign Ministry has warned Iranian nationals against traveling to Canada as the new wave of Islamophobia is sweeping across the North American country.

The ministry issued a statement on Tuesday, cautioning Iranian citizens who plan to visit Canada to take precautionary steps.

The statement warns that the wave of Islamophobia in the Western countries has expanded its reach and is claiming new victims as a number of Muslims, especially Iranian nationals, have been deported under different pretexts, while Ottawa actively hinders Iranian nationals who want to seek justice through the Canadian courts, IRIB reported.

Many Muslims, particularly Iranians, are deprived of their social and political rights…

Via Brian Lilley at the Toronto Sun.  Another headline, from 2007–have things really gone downhill here that fast for Iranians?

Iranians seek refuge in Canada

Predate: Michael Petrou, at his Maclean’s blog, also links to the original story.

Update: What our government says about travelling to Iran:

…
OFFICIAL WARNING: Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against non-essential travel to Iran.

Canadians face some risks in Iran. Iranian authorities are suspicious of foreigners, including Canadians, and any behaviour, such as the use of cameras and cellular phones in public places, is misinterpreted. Canadian travellers can be questioned, arrested, and detained for a long period without apparent reason. Canadians travelling alone or beyond conventional tourist sites are particularly vulnerable to such treatment by Iranian authorities.

The ability of the Embassy of Canada in Tehran to provide consular assistance to Canadians who are arrested or detained is very limited. In some cases, Iranian authorities have not permitted the embassy to have consular access to detainees. Canadian travellers should therefore register with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.

Dual Nationals

The Government of Iran does not recognize the Canadian citizenship of Canadian-Iranian dual nationals. As a result, Iran does not allow the Embassy of Canada in Tehran to provide consular assistance to an Iranian-Canadian in difficulty.

Numerous cases have been reported of a Canadian or dual-national woman being stranded in Iran or mistreated by her Iranian husband or a male member of her family. Women in difficulty should know that the Embassy of Canada in Tehran cannot intervene in family matters.

See Section 8 of this Travel Report for more information on dual nationality…

Mark
Ottawa

The Mickster’s not playing in the proper jurisdiction according to Brian Lilley of the QMI Agency (I quite agree with the analysis):

Ignatieff in wrong house
Liberal leader sounds like he should be vying for provincial job

Michael Ignatieff travelled 56,000 kilometres across Canada this summer speaking to “the Canadians” and he learned something very important. He wants to be premier.

Sure, if you ask Ignatieff and his supporters they will tell you that he’s in Ottawa to lead the Liberal Party to victory and be the next prime minister of Canada. But listen to his priorities and it becomes clear: Ignatieff wants to run a province near you.

“The government’s priorities are prisons, planes and publicity,” Ignatieff has said. “The priorities of Canadians are education, health care and retirement security.”

Ignatieff has made it clear that his priorities are also education, health care and retirement security which are all fine except that they are mostly the responsibility of the provinces.

Without a doubt, it is the provinces that are responsible for running our schools and health-care systems, leaving Ignatieff with half a priority were he to become prime minister — pensions are a shared jurisdiction…

If the provinces are responsible for health care, let them pay for it and then we know who to hold accountable when the hospital isn’t working properly, or when the wait times are too long. The way things work now, everyone pays for everything and no one is responsible.

How many times have you heard your premier say they wished they could do more but they needed more money from Ottawa?..

Last year the federal government sent $53 billion to the provinces to pay for things the federal government has no business being involved in.

That’s almost 20% of every dollar Ottawa collects sent out the door to the provinces and that figure doesn’t include the huge infrastructure spending.

Here’s the part they never tell you, if the provinces spend the federal dollars on something else, there is very little the feds can do. In the past, money from Ottawa sent to the provinces for healthcare has been used for everything from buying lawn mowers to cutting taxes.

If the feds cut their taxes by 20% across the board, the provinces could decide to either give us all a break or raise their own taxes to pay for what a Nanos poll this week said is the number one priority for Canadians, health care.

Every politician needs to be able to tell voters why we should mark an X next to their name…

Exactly. Three from 2006 at Daimnation!:

Why not let the provinces look after their constitutional responsibilities?

Fixing federalism

You gotta get out of their space

Now if only the Conservatives would propose abolishing the Canada Health Act (much more here from the feds on “medicare”). Surely the Bloc could not object? Fat flipping chance from this government.

Mark
Ottawa

Earlier, some of the story so far. Now, Kate McMillan at her juxtaposin’ best:

Mainstream Journalism: Not Ethical Enough!…

Whilst our brick of a major media journalist, Blatchford of the Globe, reflects on Canadian journalistic ethics without actually using the word–and condemns them utterly:

Canadian media at fault for rush to believe friendly-fire report
The real evidence on the events of Sept. 3, 2006, is there for all to see

A Canadian soldier calls in an airstrike on Sept. 2, 2006, during the first day of Operation Medusa. The Canadian Press…

This mess is not a WikiLeaks problem, nor a Canadian military problem, nor a Canadian government problem. It is a problem with the Canadian media – Ottawa-centric, conspiracy-embracing, unquestioning and unskeptical so long as the information seems damaging to the government, too quick to publish and, of course, absolutely without a shred of accountability. Shame on us.

BZ to Blatch.  And read the Milnet.ca topic thread from which these two comments are excerpted:

1)

Warning – Reading the following will be bad for your blood pressure!

NDP wants proof Taliban killed Canadians
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 | 4:22 PM NT

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/07/28/nl-harris-wikileaks-728.html?ref=rss

The federal NDP is calling on the Canadian government to prove that four Canadian soldiers who died in Afghanistan in 2006 were killed by enemy fire rather than a U.S. bomb…

2)

I was there.  My LAV CASEVACed Bulletmagnet after he was hit by the same shrap that got Mellish and Cushley.  It was a Taliban Spig 9, not friendly fire.

Jack Harris is a tool.

Meanwhile one sometimes wishes our prime minister would emulate the, er, French, robust in national interest.  Good flippin’ luck:

France declares war against al-Qaida

Update: Terry Glavin, amongst other things, does in the Toronto Star’s Jim Travesty in nicely oblique fashion, has at Egregious Eric Margolis (mine: “Good riddance to an awfully rubbishy columnist“), and concludes:

…
There now. I feel much better.

One does, doesn’t one?  Post just grows.

Upperdate: Nice post by Brian Lilley of Sun Media at his Eye on the Hill blog:

CBC is unhinged over WikiLeaks

Mark
Ottawa