CBC Bias

Recently, the CBC released a report on a study of its bias. It was an unqualified farce, and the folks at Inside the CBC took them to task.  So here, for their consideration, is a list of what subjects should be examined. I'm sure the other folks commenting at Inside the CBC could expand upon this list.

1) Topics for examination: How does the CBC treat these subjects? Do they treat them at all, and if so, is the treatment balanced?

• USA - politics, history, values

• Science and public policy

• Education, especially university liberal arts colleges

• Environment

• Oil industry

• Climate change or any of the myriad other names used to motivate scam artistry

• Any and all things military

• United Nations and other joint bodies, such as NATO

• War and peacekeeping

• Justice system sentencing, parole, recidivism, violent crime, victims versus perpetrators

• Religion: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, especially violence committed in the name thereof

• Canada's political parties and leaders

• First Nations issues

• Political and social philosophies

• History, especially over the long term

• Immigration

• Media bias (Do they ever examine this, other than to bash so-called "right wing" coverage? Do they ever examine their own bias? Hah! It will be a cold day in hell....)

2) Methods and formats:

• Exposes: What do they delve into and what do they ignore? How frequently and on what topics do they become obsessive, keeping it in the news for weeks upon weeks at a time?

• Live Debates: Do they control crosstalk, interruptions, etc.? Give each side equal time? What expertise do the opponents have?

• Structure: What do they start with? Do they use phrases such as "Some would say..." without reference to who exactly "would say..."? Do they lay down a "preferred/consensus" position first and then bring in "experts" to reinforce it? Do they sum up at the end with their own opinion?

• Controversy:  Do they allow contrary points of view to be examined in depth without using a "shouting match" debate format, say one point of view in one hour with no interruptions, the other in the next hour, also without interruption? Which view goes first and which goes second? How is that determined? Does the second in line then use it as an the opportunity to rebut rather than present their case? Is the guest espousing the "preferred" narrative the only one given a chance to rebut?

• Public participation and accountability: Policy versus practice regarding public comments allowed on websites? Screening callers during live debates? Do they ever question why the participating public seems to be primarily from one side of the fence? Have they asked themselves whether this reflects the whole country, or only those who still listen to or watch what they have to offer?

• Duty of the Board of Directors to consult with the public: Is there an expectation on the part of the Board to do so, and if so, how often do they do it and by what methods?  Do they conduct scientifically valid surveys of public opinion about their services and, if so, how often? Do they make reports readily available to the public and make it know that those reports are available?   Do they ascertain on a regular basis whether the public is aware of CBC's public participation venues and opportunities?  If it is found that the public is aware of these participatory opportunities, but still does not participate, does the Board concern itself with the question of why this is so?  Does the Board have ways of determining their services' relevance and value to the majority of the tax paying public?

3) Staffing and expertise: 

• What fields of expertise are investigative journalists and broadcasting staff expected to have?  For example, what is a war correspondent expected to know about military strategies, issues, the history of the particular conflict they are reporting or history period, and so on? 
• Are their guidelines in place to ensure Canadian lives, including those of soldiers, are not put at risk or does the CBC consider this to be of lessor importance than "getting the story"?  
• Do staff reporting on environmental issues have a related science background, and if they don't, are they expected to seek outside advise from those of who have scientific expertise in relevant fields? Or do they simply seek out those who support a pre-supposed "correct" narrative? (Hint: Bob MacDonald may be qualified to be a high school science teacher, but little more and David Suzuki is way out of his league on anything but genetics.)

Or, for that matter, do any CBC staffers have any expertise on anything but looking pretty in front of a camera or being endowed with a sonorous voice?