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.”

…then the lower house of our Parliament is confirmed in its massive mediocrity.  Take a look at this post by David Akin of QMI Agency (Sun Media):

My picks for the year’s top MPs

Might Mr Akin also perchance be currying up a bit of favour, i.e. sources?

Mark
Ottawa

Sun Media has the CBC’s Kady O’Malley a little riled up. Or to put in her own words, “brow-furrow-y”. See, she simply did not like the claim that of 50 Tamil refugees surveyed by the government, 31 of them had successfully obtained refugee status and 22 had returned to Sri Lanka.

Why did that bother her? Well, for a number of professed reasons:

First of all, what exactly is a “secret government survey”? Does that mean a poll? A focus group? A voluntary questionnaire? Were respondents randomly selected from the total Tamil immigrant population – not that I’m sure how, exactly, one would do that — and then weighted so as to be representative of the whole? How was it conducted — and by whom? What was the margin of error?

Perhaps she would prefer a mandatory census question on the issue?

Nevertheless, she soon has her questions answered by Canada Border Services Agency, who confirmed the numbers provided by QMI, but made a few clarifications.

Of the travel patterns of Sri Lankans returning to their homeland after being granted political asylum in Canada, a small review of 50 files was done that revealed the following information:

Number of sponsors not previously deemed Convention Refugees – 19
Number of sponsors formerly deemed Convention Refugees – 31
Within the aforementioned subset of 31 sponsors formerly deemed Convention Refugees who, according to the FC1 applicant, had subsequently returned to Sri Lanka – 22

According to the CBSA email sent to Ms.O’Malley, the review was done based on statements made by applicants during their immigration review, and was not based on a formal entry control. As such the information should be considered anecdotal in nature.

This, Kady O’Malley writes, is what deserves to be called the “context” of the conversation here. It isn’t difficult to extrapolate the purpose of such an article, contrary to the protests from Ms.O’Malley that any such purpose exists beyond the sharing of the information.

The purpose is to discredit Sun Media by trying to make it appear dishonest, hyperbolic, and “emotional”, as she refers to in her concluding paragraph. In other words, she’s casting a large shadow of doubt on any evidence that exists that Tamil refugees return to their homeland after being granted asylum.

The real question, then, is what would be a satisfactory source of evidence for Kady O’Malley. As she indicates in her own blog entry, she’s not even sure how “exactly, one would do that.” But the answer isn’t particularly difficult.

The obvious answer is to increase the sample size from 50 to perhaps 50,000. Let’s find out how many refugees who have been granted permanent residency are actually returning to their homeland. Instead of trying to throw the evidence away like a lawyer, let’s open up the question to a broader analysis.

Let’s answer the painfully obvious question for the CBC journalists in denial. Because as we all know, a government review is purely anecdotal, but detainee documents based on anecdotes is evidence, right?

Flashback

My first encounter with Kady:

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

Egregious Eric Margolis has been demobbed, as it were:

Eric Margolis explains his departure from Sun Media in an online antiwar.com interview, saying his contract runs for another three weeks and then it’s back to New York City.

“My contract has been ended, and I’m too heretical even for this chain that has carried me for 27 years” says Margolis.

After explaining Sun Media’s proposed pro-Harper Fox North platform, he says:

“Heretics like me who question war in Afghanistan…are being shown the door (by Sun Media.)”..

Though Mr Margolis ain’t exactly been very mobilized for a very long time:

The mythical nine-year Afghan war–and the mythical US invasion

Mark
Ottawa