I don’t think he CBC is any more biased than any other news outlet – perhaps
some of the bias ‘shows’ more because, unlike the print media, public broadcasters have a ‘stunted’ editorial position (
pace Rex Murphy). We
know, for example, where the
Toronto Star and the
National Post ‘stand’ on political issues: we know because we are supposed to know – they tell us, explicitly, “we support this party, these policies and we hope for these outcomes.”
I like the idea of partisan and private media; I’m one who believes that “freedom of the press belongs to those who own it (the printing press).” I suspect that the difference between a robust private print media and, in editorial terms, an anaemic broadcast system is the fact – and it is a fact – that the electromagnetic/radio frequency spectrum is part of the nation’s sovereign patrimony, it, unlike a printing press or a paper mill, belongs to us all and, therefore, governments (e.g. R.B. Bennett’s in Canada, Franklin Roosevelt’s in the USA) initially (
circa 1930) established broadcast regulations that more or less forced the broadcasters, private and public, into a ‘public trust’ model that
I believe is ineffective and almost promotes biased journalism.
My biggest ‘problem’ is the idea of ‘balance’ that,
I am convinced, leads, almost forces, broadcasters to spout nonsense – even when they know it’s nonsense.
Let me give you an example: I’m interested in politics; politicians and their opinions matter to me; I rarely pass up an opportunity to listen to a politician or a political scientist - except when they are forced into a phoney
’dialogue’ on any number of radio and (mostly) TV programmes. Very single time I see Don Newman (CBC) or Mike Duffy (CTV) turn to their three or four member parliamentary panels I give thanks for the ‘clicker’ and switch quickly to something more useful – like a paid promotion for the
Veg-o-Matic. I have
nearly the same reaction when, immediately after someone like the MND or the CDS is interviewed, on a policy matter, the CBC or CTV or Global or whichever immediately calls on some
’defence expert’ like
Sunil Ram or
Scott Taylor. With respect to both, neither is especially well qualified to comment on much of anything to do with defence policy. In fact,
in my personal opinion, as much as I admire Taylor for his perseverance and grit and, ultimately, personal success as a ‘journalists’ and publisher, neither he nor Ram is credible on any foreign/defence
policy or strategic issue.
There
are qualified critics out there – for example:
Ernie Regehr at
Project Plowshares or
Roland Paris and his colleagues at the University of Ottawa’s
Centre for International Policy Studies are reliable, highly qualified and thoughtful
critics of government (any government) policy (any policy).
“Critic,” of course, means
”one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter”- but that’s not what a ratings obsessed public broadcaster needs, “reason” is a bad way to sell soap. Rather, in the 21st century, “reason” and “balance” give way to polemicists, like Taylor, and promoters, like Ram, who can be trusted to provoke controversy. Almost all Canadian broadcast media coverage of important issues has devolved into a sad parody of the
screamers on “The McLaughlin Group” or the “O’Reilly Factor” for the perfectly good reason that they are ‘entertaining’ and broadcast media managers assume, correctly, that entertainment will bring in audiences. Journalism and information take a poor second place. The end result is a sort of institutionalized ‘anti-establishment’ bias that makes the aging baby-boomers (and their pale imitators) happy and entertains viewers/listeners who are, sadly, less and less interested in issues and more and more prone to adopt a ‘popular’ position based on the celebrity status of its proponents.
So, the problem is not,
I think, as much journalists’ bias as it is the broadcast media’s search for audience ‘share.’ Unlike ‘deep pocketed media moguls’ like e.g. Conrad Black, broadcasters (public and private) do not have the luxury of being able to afford an opinion of their own. Rather, they must dance to the public’s insatiable appetite for entertainment and controversy and journalistic ‘quality’ is the first thing they sacrifice on the alter of ratings.
Edit: typo