Perhaps the news media should focus on reporting the news objectively which means leaving out the little biased snide remarks which inevitably appear in stories. Much of what passes for news reporting has the appearance of an opinion piece. Report the story and let the reader, based on an accurate unbiased piece, come to their own conclusions and form their own opinions.
As you note in your introductory sentence, we "' often hear people saying that a "healthy news media industry enhances democracy'."
That truism is so common but I have not previously seen anyone attempt to measure or test the accuracy of the statement so kudos to you. Whether you achieved your objective or whether finding sufficient "evidence" [the use of quotation marks is quite, quite deliberate simply because I am uncertain as to what would comprise actual evidence], I cannot say. But, as I say, kudos to you for trying. I can say that I found your attempt quite interesting.
The reader responses herein are interesting; there are many who are dismissive of the Ceeb and a few who are [in my view] disgruntled that you are not massively praising the Mother Corp. 'Twas ever thus when discussing public policy questions.
As I note above, I have not previously seen any attempt to measure the accuracy of the statement. It seems to me that if the Ceeb was actually doing it's job, it would make a valiant attempt - with much more resources than are available to you - to find a way to answer the question. It is, after all, in the Ceeb's own interest. Yes, many folks might be dismissive of results of such a project but if it is properly done and presented, it would be hard to ignore.
So, to put it another way, the Ceeb already has massive resources and is soon to receive much more from our new Prime Minister. I expect that the Ceeb could seek out some very highly qualified and impartial academic (or some such) and hire them to undertake a project such as yours but with much more resources (money of course, but also access to not only Ceeb but also other publicly available newsies) and with distinctly unique ways of measuring the civic health, etc.
Given your public eminence (much more than we your readers, you understand), you might make such a recommendation to the Ceeb itself, a Parliamentary committee (you DID get to testify, after all - eminence, etc.) or some such.
Also, do you consider in your conclusions the messaging memes, especially from American right wing sources for several years now, that traditional media is not to be trusted? Do you think this may have influenced impressions among the Canadian public who increasingly is exposed to these memes on non traditional media? Traditional media is losing out to more independent or non traditional sources but does this mean that Journalism quality and standards are better (fair, transparent, unbiased, balanced, insightful, well researched) or worse?
Does the public, in general, understand what high journalism standards are and how they are maintained?
I'm 100% sure that what's going on in the U.S. has had an impact on Canadian attitudes. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground. And it doesn't mean that organizations like the CBC don't share blame. When I testified before the Senate Transportation and Communication committee about regional broadcast media a few months ago, there was no debate about the CBC's catastrophic loss of institutional trust. In fact, the former CBC executive who was the other witness at that session - whose name I forget - made that the centerpiece of her testimony. That's the reality on the ground. I don't see how any government could justify supporting media organizations that are neither trusted nor consumed. What would be the point?
The free press is essential to western civilization. The Canadian legacy media is no longer a free press but subsidized by the state, a first-step replication of Pravda. The CBC is a cesspool of cultural Marxism, green theocracy, anti-conservatism, dhimmitude, and essentially an integral component of the increasingly fascist state and funded by the theft of taxation. Its subsidized "private sector" clones are almost as unappealing.
The Canadian government is now interested in the censorship of ideas that potentially exceed the limits of speech deemed politically correct. On the subject of free speech, Robert F. Graboyes said it best: “Don’t cut the rattle off the rattlesnake. Limits on free speech are more dangerous for you than they are for the snakes”.
If there is an emphasis on ‘cultural Marxism, it can certainly be monitored and documented. This has been done repeatedly. While interpretation has had some variation, there is zero evidence of a ‘cesspool of Cultural Marxism’. Some leanings at times perhaps but nothing like what you suggest. There may be room for improvement or a change in their parliamentary mandate to provide equitable reporting of minority group issues. for example. But ‘cesspool of Cultural Marxism’? I think that indicates a bias that perhaps requires some moderation?
I’d love to see your data. I don’t always read the CBC news website and am not sure how often they update them. The Digital news arm works differently. In a slow news hour they might post something that would be a miss otherwise. You have my email address from your subscriber list. Please send to me there.
Was this your source? http://www.cbc.ca/news? And what band did you click on? World News, national news, Entertainment, Local, Provincial? And did you use the first story on each page? Or 1 and 2? They are both at the top. The digital version requires you to scroll down to see more. Today, at this moment, on Canadian news, I am seeing a news story about a serious accident in Toronto and, right beside it, a report that the PM says a full budget will be presented in the Fall. If I scroll down there is much more to choose from depending in my mood.
I’m doubting your survey. But it would not surprise me that stuff I would consider fluff gets on this site more often than not because as with all digital media, it pursues click bait to get you there and rack up views. You might find something else to grab your attention.
A much deeper analyses is required if you want to get an accurate and useful view of what is going on here.
I only used headlines on cbc.ca (the official landing page) with no "band" chosen. I randomly selected one version of the page from each of the previous 12 months and used *all* the headlines from those pages (there were dozens of headlines for each page). That gave me around 550 headlines representing *everything* surfaced by the organization for each version. Using such a wide scope avoids selection bias.
If it’s not popular just dump it. I find this reasoning simplistic and reductive and not useful. Yes, the CBC must strive better to be relevant. It certainly needs a reboot. And it needs eyeballs and its digital service actually gets them, from stats I’ve read. Every public broadcaster in the developed world is facing similar challenges. Public media is crucial to democracy. In a Democracy, a critical mass of the population is as important as a majority of it.
Let me rephrase that a bit: If precious few Canadians consume it, then what are tax dollars spent on its support accomplishing?
> "Public media is crucial to democracy"
That is exactly the point where this post began. I was looking for evidence that proves that "public media is crucial to democracy". Such evidence may be out there, but I haven't found it yet. But even before diving down that rabbit hole, I figured it would be useful to know whether even the very best possible news media could have an impact if it's not being viewed - no matter how strong the underlying theory might be.
In a typical month, over 20 million Canadians use CBC/Radio-Canada's digital services, and 65% of Canadians use at least one of its services. While the CBC's television audience share is lower than other broadcasters, many Canadians consume CBC news through its digital platforms and social media. During key national and international news events, such as elections, disasters, Canadians turn to the CBC in the largest numbers because of its access and dependability.
And yet, Canada spends the least on public broadcasting than almost all OECD countries.
Check the stats: when there is a serious event in Canada, the CBC news online gets the most hits was certainly true during the pandemic, serious flooding events, and wildfires. Can they do better? Sure.
What headlines did you source? Online digital, The National, TV or Radio News? Were they from a local or National headline source? Frankly, your results are far from what I’ve experienced.
If you want to understand what good journalism is, check out the CBC Journalism HandBook. It used to be required reading for anyone who worked in a CBC newsroom. Some J-schools even used it. Not sure where it is now - you should check that
That project from a year ago was based on 550 headlines (more or less) randomly selected from the previous 12 months of links on the cbc.ca home page (https://www.cbc.ca/). I still have the spreadsheet with the original data if you'd like to see it.
I'm sure they do. But I was focusing on their "front page" - i.e., the page the organization presents as the first thing viewers encounter. This is the space any organization uses to define their brand.
Perhaps the news media should focus on reporting the news objectively which means leaving out the little biased snide remarks which inevitably appear in stories. Much of what passes for news reporting has the appearance of an opinion piece. Report the story and let the reader, based on an accurate unbiased piece, come to their own conclusions and form their own opinions.
As you note in your introductory sentence, we "' often hear people saying that a "healthy news media industry enhances democracy'."
That truism is so common but I have not previously seen anyone attempt to measure or test the accuracy of the statement so kudos to you. Whether you achieved your objective or whether finding sufficient "evidence" [the use of quotation marks is quite, quite deliberate simply because I am uncertain as to what would comprise actual evidence], I cannot say. But, as I say, kudos to you for trying. I can say that I found your attempt quite interesting.
The reader responses herein are interesting; there are many who are dismissive of the Ceeb and a few who are [in my view] disgruntled that you are not massively praising the Mother Corp. 'Twas ever thus when discussing public policy questions.
As I note above, I have not previously seen any attempt to measure the accuracy of the statement. It seems to me that if the Ceeb was actually doing it's job, it would make a valiant attempt - with much more resources than are available to you - to find a way to answer the question. It is, after all, in the Ceeb's own interest. Yes, many folks might be dismissive of results of such a project but if it is properly done and presented, it would be hard to ignore.
So, to put it another way, the Ceeb already has massive resources and is soon to receive much more from our new Prime Minister. I expect that the Ceeb could seek out some very highly qualified and impartial academic (or some such) and hire them to undertake a project such as yours but with much more resources (money of course, but also access to not only Ceeb but also other publicly available newsies) and with distinctly unique ways of measuring the civic health, etc.
Given your public eminence (much more than we your readers, you understand), you might make such a recommendation to the Ceeb itself, a Parliamentary committee (you DID get to testify, after all - eminence, etc.) or some such.
Yeah...I don't think there's anyone "inside" who will give much weight to my two cents on this one... :)
David, you are too, too modest; you are worth at least five cents. A whole beaver for you!
Also, do you consider in your conclusions the messaging memes, especially from American right wing sources for several years now, that traditional media is not to be trusted? Do you think this may have influenced impressions among the Canadian public who increasingly is exposed to these memes on non traditional media? Traditional media is losing out to more independent or non traditional sources but does this mean that Journalism quality and standards are better (fair, transparent, unbiased, balanced, insightful, well researched) or worse?
Does the public, in general, understand what high journalism standards are and how they are maintained?
I'm 100% sure that what's going on in the U.S. has had an impact on Canadian attitudes. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground. And it doesn't mean that organizations like the CBC don't share blame. When I testified before the Senate Transportation and Communication committee about regional broadcast media a few months ago, there was no debate about the CBC's catastrophic loss of institutional trust. In fact, the former CBC executive who was the other witness at that session - whose name I forget - made that the centerpiece of her testimony. That's the reality on the ground. I don't see how any government could justify supporting media organizations that are neither trusted nor consumed. What would be the point?
The free press is essential to western civilization. The Canadian legacy media is no longer a free press but subsidized by the state, a first-step replication of Pravda. The CBC is a cesspool of cultural Marxism, green theocracy, anti-conservatism, dhimmitude, and essentially an integral component of the increasingly fascist state and funded by the theft of taxation. Its subsidized "private sector" clones are almost as unappealing.
The Canadian government is now interested in the censorship of ideas that potentially exceed the limits of speech deemed politically correct. On the subject of free speech, Robert F. Graboyes said it best: “Don’t cut the rattle off the rattlesnake. Limits on free speech are more dangerous for you than they are for the snakes”.
If there is an emphasis on ‘cultural Marxism, it can certainly be monitored and documented. This has been done repeatedly. While interpretation has had some variation, there is zero evidence of a ‘cesspool of Cultural Marxism’. Some leanings at times perhaps but nothing like what you suggest. There may be room for improvement or a change in their parliamentary mandate to provide equitable reporting of minority group issues. for example. But ‘cesspool of Cultural Marxism’? I think that indicates a bias that perhaps requires some moderation?
I’d love to see your data. I don’t always read the CBC news website and am not sure how often they update them. The Digital news arm works differently. In a slow news hour they might post something that would be a miss otherwise. You have my email address from your subscriber list. Please send to me there.
I can actually share the spreadsheet itself (on Google docs) here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bSpOmZHEi0z83Pc8ywmQoC7VR9RP1GlWRyyyVamF7G4/
the spreadsheet itself doesn't include links back to the original CBC pages, but a simple web search should get you there.
Your ‘random’ methodology is not clear and doubtful.
Was this your source? http://www.cbc.ca/news? And what band did you click on? World News, national news, Entertainment, Local, Provincial? And did you use the first story on each page? Or 1 and 2? They are both at the top. The digital version requires you to scroll down to see more. Today, at this moment, on Canadian news, I am seeing a news story about a serious accident in Toronto and, right beside it, a report that the PM says a full budget will be presented in the Fall. If I scroll down there is much more to choose from depending in my mood.
I’m doubting your survey. But it would not surprise me that stuff I would consider fluff gets on this site more often than not because as with all digital media, it pursues click bait to get you there and rack up views. You might find something else to grab your attention.
A much deeper analyses is required if you want to get an accurate and useful view of what is going on here.
I only used headlines on cbc.ca (the official landing page) with no "band" chosen. I randomly selected one version of the page from each of the previous 12 months and used *all* the headlines from those pages (there were dozens of headlines for each page). That gave me around 550 headlines representing *everything* surfaced by the organization for each version. Using such a wide scope avoids selection bias.
Describe your ‘random’ methodology.
If it’s not popular just dump it. I find this reasoning simplistic and reductive and not useful. Yes, the CBC must strive better to be relevant. It certainly needs a reboot. And it needs eyeballs and its digital service actually gets them, from stats I’ve read. Every public broadcaster in the developed world is facing similar challenges. Public media is crucial to democracy. In a Democracy, a critical mass of the population is as important as a majority of it.
> "If it’s not popular just dump it."
Let me rephrase that a bit: If precious few Canadians consume it, then what are tax dollars spent on its support accomplishing?
> "Public media is crucial to democracy"
That is exactly the point where this post began. I was looking for evidence that proves that "public media is crucial to democracy". Such evidence may be out there, but I haven't found it yet. But even before diving down that rabbit hole, I figured it would be useful to know whether even the very best possible news media could have an impact if it's not being viewed - no matter how strong the underlying theory might be.
Precious few?
In a typical month, over 20 million Canadians use CBC/Radio-Canada's digital services, and 65% of Canadians use at least one of its services. While the CBC's television audience share is lower than other broadcasters, many Canadians consume CBC news through its digital platforms and social media. During key national and international news events, such as elections, disasters, Canadians turn to the CBC in the largest numbers because of its access and dependability.
And yet, Canada spends the least on public broadcasting than almost all OECD countries.
Check the stats: when there is a serious event in Canada, the CBC news online gets the most hits was certainly true during the pandemic, serious flooding events, and wildfires. Can they do better? Sure.
What headlines did you source? Online digital, The National, TV or Radio News? Were they from a local or National headline source? Frankly, your results are far from what I’ve experienced.
If you want to understand what good journalism is, check out the CBC Journalism HandBook. It used to be required reading for anyone who worked in a CBC newsroom. Some J-schools even used it. Not sure where it is now - you should check that
out.
That project from a year ago was based on 550 headlines (more or less) randomly selected from the previous 12 months of links on the cbc.ca home page (https://www.cbc.ca/). I still have the spreadsheet with the original data if you'd like to see it.
Are you aware that The National has a completely different set of headlines?
I'm sure they do. But I was focusing on their "front page" - i.e., the page the organization presents as the first thing viewers encounter. This is the space any organization uses to define their brand.