CBC ignites fresh outrage by heaping scorn on reporters who dared to ask questions of which it disapproves
Presenters and pundits all a flutter after line of inquiry expands beyond the Mother Corp's increasingly narrow window of acceptable perspectives
There hasn’t been much debate within the nation’s media during this election about the fact the paycheques of most of the reporters covering it depend on the outcome.
The Conservative party represents an existential threat to the CBC due to its vow to defund the English portion of it. The Liberal leader, Mark Carney, has, in contrast, promised to shower it with an additional $150 million immediately upon him winning the election and, eventually, double its funding. (Who among us would not be tempted by such an offer?) Carney has not suggested any reforms are necessary and, really, from a Liberal point of view, why would you? The CBC is solidly connected to that party’s support base in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto as epitomized by its At Issue panel of Andrew Coyne, Chantal Hebert and Althia Raj.
Hosted by CBC presenter Rosemary Barton, the panelists are all qualified and professional while dependably smug and dismissive of Western and other apparently plebeian perspectives. They are frequently in agreement, which comes as no surprise given the very narrow range of centre/left/left opinion they represent and which is almost always hostile to Conservatives and their supporters. The combination makes for truly dreadful television and mocks the CBC’s mandate.
The narrower the path the mainstream chooses, the larger and more influential the “fringes” become. So it was no surprise to see feathers ruffled by the presence at this week’s leaders’ debates of media representing views outside the CBC’s sliver of acceptable opinion. Its staff and panelists seemed oblivious to the fact those they believe to be their lessers were present because Federal Court judges ruled in both 2019 and 2021 that they have a right to be. This is sort of how democracy - something journalists claim to defend - works.
Nevertheless, following the French debate, Coyne took umbrage on X/Twitter when a Conservative activist, Stephen Taylor, did what one would expect him to do and amplified a question asked by a reporter from an organization accredited by the debate commission, Drea Humphrey of Rebel News. Humphrey asked, professionally, about the burning and vandalism of Christian churches in the wake of unproven claims in 2021 that remains of Indigenous children had been found at residential schools.
During this election, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has often been criticized for not taking questions from hostile media such as CTV and CBC. After the debate, no such concerns were raised by either when NDP leader Jagmeet Singh said he would not answer questions from Rebel News because it “promotes misinformation and disinformation.” Justin Trudeau used to take the same approach.
(On another day, we will discuss the journalism value of activist news organizations but what matters in this moment is that Humphrey was accredited.)
Meanwhile, Coyne and Taylor exchanged unpleasantries, which you can read here, while the former’s critics had a field day.
Darshan Maharaja was among them:
“Watching @acoyne having a meltdown over the fact that journalists/media outlets that he looks down his nose at were allowed 2ask (sic) questions at the post-debate scrum was the highlight of the leaders’ debate for me. He dialed up his usual snobbery to 11 & put it on full display.”
Not to be outdone, Barton was asked by another CBC presenter, Adrienne Arsenault, to address the “elephant in the room” and explain to viewers who might be puzzled by these “odd” questions being asked. Barton weighed in with what many would describe as a knickers in a twist analysis that alleged Humphrey’s question was part far right misinformation because “yes, there have been remains of Indigenous children found at various places around the country.”
And, kaboom.
X lit up with comments denouncing Barton for being the one spreading misinformation. People will no doubt take sides on this, but her comment - unnecessary as it was - is certainly inconsistent with a correction CBC issued last fall on a similar statement made by Eli Glasner in an interview with Cillian Murphy:
“CORRECTION: A previous version of this video interview includes reference to communities in Canada 'still finding bodies of Indigenous children in the ground' at 1:24. We have removed this portion of the interview. Searches at the sites of former residential schools using ground-penetrating radar have found evidence of possible unmarked graves.”
Barton did not respond to Humphrey when she asked “@RosieBarton you called me a liar, but you haven’t proven it. Be specific, where are the bodies?”
Finally, the At Issue panel, urged on by Hebert’s view that Carney performed better than expected, declared without dissent that the Liberal leader won the debate.
Dependably predictable, it would come as a great surprise if they were to conclude otherwise following the English debate.
The CBC might very well save what will be its increasingly well-funded backside with this sort of performance during an election. But it will have further lost the respect of the 40 per cent of the population currently inclined to vote Conservative while embedding the institutional mistrust and animus towards it and journalists generally within another generation. Or two. And, for what? Hubris?
Speaking of existential threats, Howard Law is a thoughtful man on the subject of journalism who on rare occasion (I expect much to his alarm) finds himself in agreement with me. While we don’t share perspectives, we do share a passion for good journalism.
He has just published a paper titled The high stakes of defunding the CBC for Policy Options. My recent paper on what to do with the CBC was published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute just before the election. The follow up podcast was just posted the other day and you can listen to it here (there’s a one minute clip) if you like.
Thanks to Senator Pamela Wallin for having me and my Full Press podcast partner Tara Henley as guests on her No Nonsense with Pamela Wallin podcast. Please enjoy a pleasant Easter weekend and the meaning it brings to you.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
Thanks to you and the independent journalists who bring us the other side of the story. Or the story itself. I don’t know where we’d be without you. We followed CBC for twenty years, then became disenchanted with them because of their liberal bias. We no longer have anything to do with them except when they pop up on X. As it stands, when I mention certain issues to my CBC-watching friends, they haven’t heard about them. They chalk this up to the fact that I listen to those ‘rightwing nut jobs’. It’s as if we live in different universes.
I don't know how we are going to deal with this Kamloops grave error problem. The media now needs to get this right and own its mistakes. Frances Widdowson is a genuine Canadian hero discussing all this, demanding truth and reason.