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.”
It the Liberals were in power then the CBC possibly would be a ‘state broadcaster’, now Radio Canada could be regarded as the ‘state broadcaster’ for Quebec. TVO probably gets a pass because it is provincial and for most people outside the Toronto area it does not even register.
Of course no-one has the guts to defund the CBC.
It would be bloody hard to do, even under a Conservative majority.
Call CBC what it is:
Liberal Television Network …….. on the taxpayer’s dime!
Doesn’t matter who is governing Canada the CBC could be rightfully called the Propaganda Wing of the Lieberal party
Well if you base it on the assertion that “63% of the country didn’t vote conservative” then it’s a “State Broadcaster”.
They speak for the 63%.
They also did speak for the “37%” when Chretien had a majority so if not a “State Broadcaster” then what? A left wing, govt propaganda machine? It can’t be both ways!
What they are is an entitled crown corp that has lost it’s ability to do what they were intended to do, inform ALL Canadians in an unbiased, responsible, credible manner but almost 40% of Canadians still pay for them to exist. No thanks!
I think the question at stake is what it should be referred to in QMI news stories, not opinion pieces.Though you could make arguments one way or another, the news is supposed to provide a non-editorialized designation.
I think that the bigger picture here is that there are many forms of media that are subsidized or funded in Canada, including films, art, newspapers, magazines, and television. The CBC is merely the largest and most obscene example of it.
We’re not all going to agree on the merits of state-subsidized media, but I don’t think we can call all media that is subsidized by the state as “state media.”
No it would not be bloody hard.They could just do it.
Just cut off the funding and let them fight with the other
Television and Radio outlets.Who could stop them if they
had a majority.
And 74 % did not vote Liberal..86% did not vote NDP..What is your point BEC
Yes but with those examples, we are not forced to ‘buy’them, Adrian. I can walk by a News stand, I can subscribe to a magazine, I don’t go to the film festival and PAY to see it. I am FORCED to include CBC in my TV package. If I could send them a decisive message that they have toppled over to to the dark side of bias, that would be it. I can’t!
Outside of political circles, and I’m thinking of family and friends and people I’ve known in school or at work, most people see the CBC as a Canadian institution. If it were sold off the political fallout would be quite extensive. I’m not sure whether it would be devastating, but I don’t think it would be as simple as you indicate.
That’s true. But then, the power to change that really resides with the CRTC right? I mean, they get a “must-carry” licence.
Pure sarcasm Bert..pure sarcasm!
NO doubt! How many Canadians understand that tho? I agree, that’s the next battle but this is now and in our face and we have no choice. With the others we do.
Call CBC what it is:
Liberal Television Network …….. on the taxpayer’s dime
I agree with Vern…..they won’t let us see their expense acct.’s either, so maybe we should call them “Banana republic propaganda communist TV…perfect label for them. You picked a WRONG time for this subject…after all the false reporting in the last two weeks by CBC, Canadians are LIVID & want them GONE.
How so?
Well, I don’t know if I picked a wrong time per se. I’m not advocating for the benefit of the CBC. I’m referring to the news semantics of Lilley and McGregor.
Hockey Night in Canada would be snapped up by one of the cable companies, the only thing worth watching on Liberal TV, the hard assets should be sold off and the pink slips issued, there are many things more worthy of that $1.1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars Per Year.
Perhaps we could simply refer to it as the state-funded broadcaster.
That seems the most reasonable proposal to me.
Everyone knows exacly what is meant by State run media. It means far left ideologically driven media. And that is precisely what the CBC is.
To argue that it should not be referred to as State run because of technical semantics, is ridiculous.
The left doesn’t like it because it is a pitch perfect description of the CBC.
If the CBC was actually unbiased conservatives would not call it State run media. There would be no reason to.
They might still question why we need to pay over a billion a year for a service that the private broadcasters supply though.
And that is really at the heart of the question. If the CBC were to be as ideologically to the right as they currently are to the left, one can imagine the outcry from the left.
If it were to be completely balanced, you would really have a hard time justifying the expense, as it really would not be adding anything to the existing mix.
The only reason it is funded is because no one would pay to watch leftist propaganda (even leftists), and few people actually do.
But CBC is given credibility not because of their stellar track record and unwavering dedication to journalistic ethics, it gets much of its credibility because of its size and scope.
Take away the funding and you have nothing more than a boutique organization pandering to the veiws of the far left.
I for one am sick of funding a vanity “news” organization.
And what is the CRTC
but a repository for Trudeaupian liberal hacks intent on preserving one sided monopolies.
But dear friends, is more than media bias. It’s contempt for the Canadian people.
In order to create the perception that the minority are the majority and the majority are bad, racist, homophobic, mysoginistic, francophobic, religious,
conservative, from Alberta etc.
This is really all about how the establishment left/mainstream media kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people and collude to shape the news in favor of one political ideology.
Adrein I think Mr. McGregor has gone off the deep end.
Everybody and I mean EVERYBODY I know refers to the CBC in a negative Pravda like way.
I think it shows Mr. McGregor’s one sided bias that he could be that myopic to the widely held consensus.
The CBC is a relic from 1950s small parochial and repressive Canada.
It has outlived ANY usefulness as a purveyor of balanced news information that Canadians can rely on .
Right on the money Ward!
I think that despite what the perception of the CBC is, we’re talking about the reporting of the news and journalistic principles. Even if an arguable majority of people consider the CBC to be what you believe it to be, the idea of reporting the news is to be fair, impartial and accurate. It isn’t impartial or accurate to describe the CBC as “state broadcaster”, even if a large portion of people believe that to be the truth.
Well, the problem with what you say begins with the word “everyone knows”. It isn’t true that everyone knows “state broadcaster” refers to the left-wing media since, as a few people indicated before, the logical inference of the term is that the broadcaster is a propaganda arm of the state, in this case a Conservative government.
That’s what they call democracy… the people decide.
Not a biased minority of self-proclaimed elitists.
The CBC is a cheer leading ‘state broadcaster’
when the LPOC is in power; and a proxy arm
of the opposition establishment left
when the Conservatives are in power.
The CBC are NOT impartial or 100% accurate
and not to believed or relied upon.
The CBC is a cheer leading ‘state broadcaster’
when the LPOC is in power; and a proxy arm
of the opposition establishment left
when the Conservatives are in power.
The CBC is a state broadcaster by definition. Its mandate goes beyond news and is prescribed by the Broadcasting Act, and includes promoting the Canadian state. See objectives outlined in Act:
(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;
(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should
(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
(iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,
(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,
(vi) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada;
Bias at the CBC aside, it’s clearly not in the same game, let alone the same league as what we think of when we think of “state broadcaster”. Overreaching discredits the person doing it.
Calling the CBC is like using a term like “Lieberal party”. It announces to others that what you say ought not to be taken seriously because you’re letting your passions get the best of you.
You’re confusing Torontoians with Canadians.
The CBC is a Toronto institution. Period.
They’re there to propagate the interests of Toronto. Period.
As an Albertan, I know when someone hates my guts.
Or am I mistaken? Do they lie and spit in our faces because they
love us?
I’ve never gotten the impression from most ordinary Canadians that the publicly-funded CBC is a “state broadcaster.” I think most people are fairly uninterested, considering it an essential part of Canadiana, like the postal service.
Interestingly, if one of your mandates is to “promote” the state, why is it that you often are speaking negatively about the state and the current government???
Of course CBC is a state broadcaster. It is owned by the state and acts as the propaganda arm of the state. Please note that the state and the government are not synonymous.
Perhaps we can diffuse this argument by referring to the CBC,
as a Liberal Broadcaster, instead of a State Broadcaster.
The question is, what’s the responsible term for the CBC from a journalistic standpoint? I doubt that any journalism school or organization would confer to call it appropriate to refer to the CBC as “state broadcaster.” I could be wrong. Maybe I should ask some people.
Hey! I don’t like the randomly-generated (I assume) avatar that showed up beside my name….
If you would be so kind, Sir, please change it to something cooler.
If you can.
Thanks.
*
The CBC is working to divide Canada .Our grandchildren will take history classes on how the state broadcaster attacked and bullied all in our country until there was no more. The United States will include all but Quebec and Ontario.The natural governing party will keep algonquin park and give the middle finger to all Canadians west.
State Broadcaster works for me.
Here’s the thing that grinds the gears of taxpayers.
Its not that the CBC is, or is not a “state broadcaster”, its that it was created at a time when there was little to no canadian broadcasters around, much less anyone with the wherewithal to fund any kind of national broadcast network in those days.
So it made some sense…then…for the state to sponsor the creation of one so that in the future we would have a canadian broadcaster.
But here we are decades later, where we have Global, CTV, and to some extent CityTV, all of which the CBC with its state sponsorship, is competing unfairly against.
Back when the CBC was created, no one really had an idea what telecommunication would be like now.
Right now we have many venues to communicate and broadcast nationally, not only through radio and TV, but this is done 24/7 worldwide instantaneously.
State sponsorship is unneccessary when otehr broadcasters exist in this country without it.
The CBC was created so that a monopoly of our airwaves would not occur, by allowing the subsidizing of it, we stifle competition and growth of same.
For the sake of the CBC’s continued existence, it needs to be cut off.
Yes I know. But what works for you doesn’t work for everybody. Journalistic standards exist to provide neutral terminology. Columnists are given certain leeway to make characterizations. News organizations generally adhere to language that isn’t inflammatory.
You can sign up with Gravatar and then it puts in any avatar you like. Otherwise the Wavatar default takes over. See Issachar for an example of custom Gravatar.
I agree, Gimbol. Though the CBC does have its uses, such as broadcasting to far-off regions in the North (and Kenora), where apparently there is a shortage of transmissively received signals (though I could be wrong).
(BTW, Gimbol, I remember your brilliant posts from the old, Olaf (Prairie Wrangler) days.)
I think all some Conservative people are asking for, is, to allow the Sun News Network to have the same exposure as the CBC and CTV.
We won’t mind paying for it, but it would be nice if it was at least offered, and available through choice, everywhere.
Kap ‘la !
And the CBC is the “state broadcaster” and its employees are “government journalists”.
The argument that the CBC is not the “state broadcaster” because they don’t propagate on behalf of the Conservative Party is laughable.
The truth is that it’s much, much more insidious than that. They are the propaganda arm of the un-elected bureaucracy and all the corporate welfare shysters who think we were put here on this earth to serve their interests.
Referring to them as “state broadcaster” and “government journalists” is being nice to them. They need to be loathed for the low life liars that they are.
You can sign up with Gravatar and then it puts in any avatar you like. Otherwise the Wavatar default takes over. See Issachar for an example of custom Gravatar.
Thanks for that, Adrian. But it’s no big deal.
But I agree with Gimbol, in that there really isn’t much use for the CBC generally, though I would suggest that it still serves a purpose in the country, such as in places really up North, where not much other TV transmission occurs. They (the CBC) are at their best when showing documentaries about this land and its people.
If the CBC wants to support the Liberals, then that is fine with me, as long as it raises its own funds, instead of an ingrained, perpetual, Canadian taxpayer-funded expense account.
Cheers !
You’re right.
Maybe we should all just take a Chill-Pill.
What’s the name of that one that the State Educators force on to little
boys who act like little boys?
Maybe they have an adult version!
Being comfortably numb just might be the answer to all our problems.
Just think! Ho Hum could be the new Yahoo!
Although I don’t like the idea of the CBC being publicly-funded, I hesitate to ascribe any sort of conspiratorial leftwing motives to journalists there. They’re just people who need jobs, like anybody else. Not all of them, of course, but I know plenty of right-leaning journos who would take a CBC job for their resume. I know at least two former CBCers who are rather more right-leaning than I am.
The public service, and the CBC employees if you want to include them, run the full gamut of ideologies. They’re not just lefties.
I don’t usually watch the CBC, but occasionally they have a good documentary or news story that isn’t bbiased. Because they’re so well-funded they sometimes grab some good Canadian content.
Journalistic Standards?!?!? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Journalistic Standards ranks right up there with military intelligence.
PBS is publically funded, CBC is government funded … Huge and important difference.
They occasionally do have some awesome Canadian content.
And here in Southun’ Ontario, the CBC’s Documentary Channel occasionally has some good stuff (it’s on a perpetual free preview), such as a two-hour film documentary, where a photographer recently went back and shot the same photos from the same location and perspective as the original photog shot in Quebec in the early Seventies, to show the change in landscape and in the development and the people.
Sorry I can’t remember the name of the show.
But back to politics.
I must admit, that Evan Solomon at least sometimes tries to be fair to both sides of the political spectrum.
Yes, I hate to admit it. But I have seen it … occasionally.
I’m aware of your cynicism. Not impressed with it, but aware of it.
Fair enough.
Everyone does know Adrian.
The left know exatly what is being referred to with the description, as does the right. The only people confused about it are the ones who try to misdirect with pissy little semantics arguements.
No one – not the left or the right thinks that referring to the CBC as State run or State broadcaster somehow implies that the CBC is an arm of the Conservative government.
Seriously are you trying to land a job at the CBC?
Yeah, I’m trying to land a job at the CBC. You’ve got it all figured out.
What does calling your political opponents racists and rednecks do for debate?
The question has nothing to do with what people call the CBC, the question should be why taxpayers are forced to fund a far left boutique propaganda organization to the tune of a billion dollars a your, and better yet why you want to argue semantics while CBC bastardizes the term journalism day in and day out.
I see absolutely no evidence of right of center ideology at the CBC (please dont throw out the Don Cherry red herring).
So do your right wing freinds at CBC proclaim their ideologies while at work?
“but occasionally they have a good documentary or news story that isn’t bbiased.”
Perfectly stated Adrian as to why the CBC should not receive tax dollars.
The same thing. Why?
Adrian, I think you’re arguing semantics.
But you’re swimming upstream.
I was thirteen in 1979 and I listened to Joe Clark’s victory speech on CBC radio in bed.
I thought it was a great victory at the time.
Hindsight, though sees that Clark was only slightly right of Trudeau, and that wasn’t very right at all.
But the narrative for that election was shaped in a two and a half channel universe.
And the CBC was the channel with the largest piece of the pie.
They had the money, the reach and the mandate to tell Canadians what to think.
To me, that comes pretty close to state broadcaster.
It’s something they always perpetuated and hid behind when the budget knife was stalking them.
Personally, it was when the climategate emails came to light and they belatedly received a perfunctory discussion on CBC when the blogosphere was ablaze with it for weeks already.
I saw Buckner feeding a global warming proponent questions to shape the Officer Barbrady narrative that there was nothing to see here people, move along.
A truly national broadcaster would have shone the light onto the climategate revelations.
But a state broadcaster, albeit with the state sitting in Opposition, felt free to reinforce the state’s global warming green shift orthodoxy.
Technology has made the CBC a lot less powerful.
But they do not adapt and change beyond the window dressing of a facebook group or a twitter feed.
To them, it is still 1979, Trudeau is still coming back for one more kick at glory and the baby boomers are still thirty five years away from the reckoning they face from their welfare state idealism.
The CBC has always positioned themselves as the voice of Canadians.
But they don’t mention that they feel their mandate is to tell Canadians what to think.
How is that any different than Pravda, Tass or the BBC?
Oh, and one more common denominator.
State broadcaster also means statist broadcaster.
The CBC is statist. It believes in Big Government, 40% of us don’t want that (50% outside Québec), we want competitive free market capitalism and we don’t get heard. Not one conservative thinking person would get hired by the CBC (the 2 people Adrian knew “used to be” with the CBC).
Every newscast by the CBC should have a disclosure statement or trailer on the bottom of the screen that says we have a vested interested in keeping free market politicians out of office and progressives in office because it is in our self interest to do so.
What the CBC needs is to change its mandate from a screed about divisive, class-war, Trudeaupia-Multiculti silos to a mandate of true diversity of thought. Tolerence about diversity of thought is the key value we all share. To reflect that the CBC needs to have representatives on the air who reflect the thought of 40/50% of us and that would mean regular appearances by media people like Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, Salim Mansur, Robert Fulford, Christie Blatchford, and Barbara Kay.
Well the Hockey night in Canada theme was probably
CBC,s most cherished possessions and they let it
go without being devastating.No one I know watches
CBC TV or listens to CBC radio.Where are you
living,up North.Not to be to sarcastic here,but do
your friends ever complain about the bias or are
they forced to watch CBC.
LOL,whew thought we lost another one.
CBC is THE state broadcaster…period.
They broadcast a theme, that does NOT register with ordinary Canadians.
Hence Kate’s yelling back at the radio (you don’t speak for me).
I’ve been following your writing for some time now, I’m the guy who pointed out you were fouth generation, not fifth, I also pleaded with you to write about CBC bias.
So here we are, a few years later and you’re debating semantics and perception.
Calling the CBC the state broadcaster is an accuate term regardless of how people perceive the meaning.
The CBC has been promoting a stately view of Canada since it’s inception, if people perceive that as a (TASS) type of indoctrination, thats their buisness.
The CBC are biased leftward and Liberal oriented, to many that is the definition of “state broadcaster”.
We could call it Liberal/Socialist TV and that would be just as accurate a description as any.
Ward at 3:43pm…
says what I just tried to say but better..!
For the same reason they did so when Chretien was in government?
Because it is news. It is not that hard.