It’s been nearly a year since I last wrote about the CBC. In the intervening months, the Prescott memo on bias at the BBC was released, whose stunning allegations of systemic journalistic malpractice “inspired” multiple senior officials to leave the corporation.
I grew up in a household where the cbc was on the radio frequently. As an adult I too for many years had the cbc as a default news source. It was around 2010 when I started to listen less and become aware of their active suppression (avoidance?) of stories they (or their paymasters) didn’t want discussed. I hardly listen anymore. They seem to cover a narrow range of stories, and rarely ask the follow up questions which I would expect.
Here in BC for a long time they avoided news stories about cost of housing and anything on foreign ownership issues when housing prices were completely dis-associating from local levels of affordability. You would think someone would be interested in ‘following the money’. That’s when I realized something rotten was going on at CBC Vancouver news room that was a deliberate avoidance. It was also the time when anyone asking about foreign money in real estate was labeled as racist as an attempt to avoid the topic.
I was someone who used to default to the cbc website for local news, and still do check it for headlines. Once I saw a story at lunch, and when I wanted to show a friend in the evening it was already gone. Google found it but the story link was gone from the cbc news page. Already archived at 7pm when the story had just appeared at 9 am that morning. Meanwhile other stories would sit on the website for many days.
It’s the stories they don’t cover (that need to be covered) that are most concerning. Democracy can’t work without independent scrutiny and the accountability that occurs from putting a spotlight on political decisions. Regardless of political party.
It’s not just the CBC either to be fair. The corporate media clearly has their own bias on various issues also.
CBC began an article on one of Poilievre's most impassioned speeches with "Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is facing criticism for saying too many young people can't buy affordable homes before their "biological clocks" have run out..."
The article does quote some sources who say the premise is true, but most are criticizing the term "biological clock" which CBC suggest became mean once Poilievre says it. Curiously, the term was fine when CBC used it in headlines in 2016 ("Science, sexism and the ticking of the 'biological clock'") and 2019 ("When the biological clock gets loud: three perspectives on the pressure to have kids").
As well as framing bias we see one sided reporting. This article on Substack prompted me to read the cbc local news again just out of curiosity.
There was an article yesterday about businesses in Prince Rupert wanting more temporary foreign workers and complaining they couldn’t find workers. The journalist failed to investigate or ask if these businesses had tried raising wages or any other attempts to attract local workers. No reporting on local unemployment statistics. No reporting on how the LMIA program can act to suppress wages in a market and what effect that has had on Prince Rupert workers.
Nothing of any kind of substantive journalism except repeating complaints of a handful of employers in a completely one-sided article.
Good point. And, based on your description, the piece also seems to be an example of poor journalism. It's like the reporters had zero curiosity about the world they were writing about.
The problem as I see it is as follows: to be hired as a journalist you must have a BA or MA in journalism. Most of the journalists these days have both. I know as I earned my own MA in journalism with them 20 years ago.
The difference is that few have knowledge or training in anything but journalism. No undergrad in economics or politics, history or theology, or god forbid a science or commerce degree. Just a BA in journalism leading to an MA in journalism.
They are not broadly knowledgeable about the world, or organizations and systems that run the world. Critical thinking is simply not present. And reading books is no longer a major pastime.
Further… We’ve blurred the line between opinion and news, and many of today’s journalists don’t think they have to cover stories with which they disagree. So it’s no wonder we’re in the state we are in.
Outstanding work David. Thank you for this! It provides a strong analytical context for what the vast majority who read ALL sources of Canadian news have known by observation and anecdotally for a long, long time.
Does Canada need a tax payer funded public broadcaster? Is it fair to use tax payer money from all tax payers regardless of whether or not they support or have any use for the CBC? Perhaps a move towards a public broadcaster model where those who support it pay for it while leaving those who don’t support it free from having their tax dollars spent subsidizing it. The CBC has long ago passed its reason for being and needs to be cut loose from federal purse strings and left to find and fund its own way.
Peter, I say, the Ceeb should not simply be defunded but should not be allowed to carry ANY advertising. Right now, the Ceeb has advertising for online and for television. If the Ceeb went to a subscription only model then that remaining advertising could be split between the rest of the media industry and then, perhaps, the government can get out of the subsidy business.
If the subscription model doesn't work in some markets, sell of the assets to someone who can use them because clearly the Ceeb would have proven that it cannot economically support those assets.
Great suggestion but makes far too much sense as none of those who raise their voices in howls of indignation anytime a threat is made to move the CBC off the public teat would ever agree to a subscription model as then they would have to demonstrate their support with their own money.
In the Summer of 2015 I noticed a different editorial focus on the National shortly after Mansbridge retired. I decided to categorize the top three lead stories from both the National and then CTV broadcast one hour later for two weeks.
The left wing victim bias led EVERY CBC broadcast but not CTV. It was a variety of stories from the Bell owned CTV. I don’t watch the National any more.
David, I wish that I could say that I am surprised, outraged, incredulous or any other similar adjective. Instead, I simply react with a yawn. Oh, not at your stellar work but that you and your yeoman AI staff went to all that work to find out what we already know. You absolutely did need to do the work but I wish that we could have been positively surprised by unexpected impartiality. But, it was not to be!
Well done, as usual Sir!
Please reward you faithful AIs with some bonus electrons.
I just discovered your platform, referenced by Peter Menzies in ‘The Rewrite’, another discourse. As someone who studied advanced biostatistics so long ago now I can’t make sense of my own crib sheets: THANK YOU! It’s a joy to read your work.
Yes, there are institutional biases at the Corp but they challenge easy definition because they depend on where one lives and in which official language they are served. My own POV is biased because I was a regional television reporter (Montreal), assignment editor and morning radio host in the eighties before quitting to start a newspaper, but I continue to watch/listen/read the output as ONE of my info sources. If I was to place my finger on one major fault, it’s the Corp’s compulsion to be all things to as many Canadians as possible. I still see radio, TV and e-teams converging on a single event to ensure that every platform acts as if it alone is covering, No wonder they’re chronically overstaffed.
That's an interesting observation. I would suggest that the corp's obsession to be all things to all people is somehow related to the fact that precious few Canadians actually tune in (something I discussed as part of this post: https://www.theaudit.ca/p/how-the-cbc-spends-public-money).
The CBC hasn't even pretended to be unbiased for decades. It is a fiscally corrupted, politically activist extension of the institutional left, promoting cultural Marxism and green theocracy, playing offense for the LPC, NDP, Greens, Jihad, grievance industry, and very likely the CCP all while playing defense against conservatives, historians, economist, industrialists, and western civilization - helping to set the table for the next iteration of collectivist dystopia. The CBC is a taxpayer-funded, in-house leftist-lobbying, propaganda leviathan. The other taxpayer subsidized "corporate media" are variously ideological clones of the CBC.
Thanks to state funding of partisan media, Canadian democracy is approaching banana republic stature. CCP interference is one thing that is strangely tolerated but taxpayer funding for the propaganda arm of all but the conservative side of the aisle is textbook corruption of democracy.
I appreciate the effort to interrogate bias at the CBC, but there’s an unavoidable irony here: bias analysis itself is not immune from bias—and this piece shows signs of it. Both in the writer and potentially in the tools. Just at a very cursory level…
Several core claims are asserted without comparative grounding. For example, conservatives are said to be rebutted by “experts,” but no counts are provided, nor are equivalent figures shown for other parties. Anyone who follows CBC regularly will also see expert voices challenging government policy; without parallel numbers, the claim lacks balance (i.e. it’s biased).
More broadly, there is no comparator. Is CBC unusual relative to other Canadian outlets, or public broadcasters elsewhere? Funding differences alone -CBC ($35 per capita) versus the BBC ($140 per capita) - could materially affect editorial depth and sourcing, yet this goes unaddressed. So, while we know there is a level of bias in all reporting the pertinent questions are, is it problematic and if so resolvable (i.e. worth examining)?
Noting that 62% of political stories originate from government announcements risks mistaking structure for bias. Governments are the primary source of policy; the real question is how much journalistic value is added, and whether that differs meaningfully from peers.
Finally, the use of terms like “government stenographer” signal a conclusion embedded in the language (i.e. bias).
None of this is to suggest the CBC is unbiased. It does suggest, however, that we learned less about the degree and distinctiveness of any bias than we might have. Those already convinced will find confirmation; skeptics are left with unanswered questions
I would note that the primary findings of my research wouldn't be impacted by anything you'll find on BBC or local competitors: even bias that's (hypothetically) milder than other players in the market is still bias. And, given that CBC is publicly funded, the significance is greater.
Good points and thanks for sharing the data. I’d really need to see the full analysis to test its veracity. Apologies for this long reply.
My initial response and this long note are not because I think concerns about media bias should be dismissed. Quite the opposite. If we care about public trust, democratic legitimacy, and the long-term health of a publicly funded broadcaster, then media bias is exactly the sort of issue that deserves serious, careful analysis. Not quick conclusions.
The difficulty is that claims about media bias that are meant to be fair, defensible, and useful for improvement require analysis that is rigorous: clearly stated assumptions, systematic methods, and transparent evidence - at a level comparable to what would be expected to survive peer review or cross-examination in an expert report. I don’t think that’s an academic bar for its own sake; it’s the minimum standard needed if findings are going to inform policy, editorial practice, or institutional reform.
Anything short of that:
• relies too heavily on impression, anecdote, or selective examples;
• may still be interesting or persuasive on its own (and of some value); but
• cannot reasonably claim objectivity or methodological rigor.
Media-bias assessment belongs to a class of evaluative judgments where:
• the construct is latent;
• the standards are normative; and
• conclusions are only as strong as the process used to reach them.
That makes quick takes, charts, or single-article judgments useful as heuristics, if from a truly non-partisan frame, but insufficient as evidence when the claim is that detrimental bias has been demonstrated rather than merely suspected. The challenge can be compounded when AI is used in the analysis. If it operates as a black box, where reasoning cannot be followed, tested, or challenged.
The irony is that this lack of rigor does not protect the CBC; it undermines it. Without a credible, transparent, and repeatable way to assess bias, criticism accumulates without resolution, trust erodes unevenly across political groups, and there is no shared factual basis for improvement.
At present, I believe the closest approximations we have are:
• Media Bias/Fact Check, which rates CBC News as “left-center,” noting a slight liberal editorial lean alongside high factual reporting; and
• AllSides, which rates CBC as “lean left,” based on small-panel editorial review, while explicitly noting low confidence due to limited data.
These frameworks are systematic, but they are not peer-reviewed academic analyses. They use internal rating systems with varying levels of transparency and very general conclusions. If we found them reliable, there is still no practical way to translate their outputs into specific, measurable, actionable, and time-bound improvement plans.
There are also public surveys and perception research showing that perceptions of CBC bias vary strongly by political affiliation. Conservatives are more likely to perceive a Liberal bias, while Liberals and NDP supporters tend to see the opposite. These surveys are useful for understanding public attitudes, but perception is not the same thing as demonstrated editorial bias. The most methodologically relevant Canadian survey of this kind (e.g. Abacus) is now dated, and I can find no clear contemporary equivalent.
So, where does that leave us? The best available indicators suggest that the CBC is moderately left-leaning and highly factual in its reporting and, relative to other national Canadian outlets, among the least biased overall. I don’t have high confidence in that conclusion. And, while I do believe it is the most credible signal currently available, it is clearly not settling the matter.
Also, whether detrimental bias is increasing, decreasing, or stable over time is unknown. To my knowledge, no consistent, transparent measures have been applied longitudinally. There are people working in this space, but nothing that squarely addresses the public-interest question: how do we credibly evaluate a public broadcaster, in a way that both critics and supporters can take seriously?
Perhaps the absence of that work is itself the real story?
I'm not sure your useful observations aren't a case of making "perfect" the enemy of "good". You're obviously correct that there hasn't yet been any perfect analysis of bias at CBC - or of anything else for that matter. But that doesn't mean that the absence unlimited time and resources means that we should do nothing. I would argue that my analysis - relying on a pretty robust dataset, an open methodology, and the use of three independent AI models - is pretty good. More than that, it's a serious indicator that something it probably not healthy inside CBC. At the very least, I would argue that CBC itself should devote some resources to presenting a comprehensive rebuttal that we can all assess for ourselves. After all, CBC is unique in that it's costing taxpayers $2 billion a year that could be redirected to healthcare. They have a far greater need to be accountable.
By the way, I haven't personally seen any credible analysis showing that CBC is more "highly factual" or "least biased" in relation to other media outlets. And, in any case, that would be setting the bar pretty low.
I share the intent not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The steps I suggest are intended to achieve “the good.” They will provide a sound basis upon which to build toward the perfect. There’s nothing wrong with the material you provided and, potentially, your analysis, it’s just that the conclusions are not strongly supported.
Here are the media bias testers that I’m aware of and whose methodology meets most of the ‘good’ requirements. None of them are approaching perfect. Aside from various methodological compromises, there is also a US-centric element. Slightly different interpretation of some key terms like “left” and “right.” While they each focus on different elements, their findings do not appear to contradict each-other. Newsguard requires subscription.
The Media Bias page is...unimpressive. They offer no useful information about their methodology and, as evidence for systemic neutrality they offer a grand total of one headline example:
> CBC reports Canadian national news with neutral headlines such as: “The 5 most dramatic moments of the year in Ontario politics”.
They claim - again, without any evidence, that "CBC’s straight news reporting is consistently low-biased, factual, and covers both sides of issues." But that's contradicted by some highly politicized examples from my dataset (which, after all, is drawn from what CBC officially characterizes as their "Top Stories"). Some more obvious (and/or misleading and inflammatory) examples include:
* Trump claims there are only ‘2 genders.’ Historians say that’s never been true
* 2-year-old Palestinian girl killed in her home by Israeli military [leaving the clear impression that soldiers entered the home and intentionally killed the girl when it was, in fact, a tragic stray bullet that struck her]
* Israel strikes Lebanon after claiming it intercepted rockets that Hezbollah denies firing
I'm not saying that those examples damn everything the CBC does, but they certainly carry a lot more weight than that single, limp example Media Bias provided.
Nevertheless, even the "lean left" conclusion drawn by AllSides is unacceptable for a publicly-funded broadcaster. They should be scrupulously neutral - especially if neutrality is their marquee claim.
And, of course AllSides itself noted that "As of December 2025, AllSides has low or initial confidence in our Lean Left rating for CBC News"
If those represent the best that's out there as far as assessments go, I would (tentatively and humbly) suggest that what I've done is as close to state of the art as we're likely to get right now. I could be a lot better, of course, but that would require some serious investors. As they say, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have. :)
Definitely flawed. They do share their general methodology but do not share the individual analysis. I’d fail them for this. Newsguard provides more detail but still has material gaps. But they state their assumptions, they use quantification where it’s practical, they have a systematic approach, and have a large database to test the reasonableness of their conclusion. I can’t say if they use AI but if they do, that opens up a whole new range of validity concerns.
Good analysis is scoped, transparent, systematic, logically coherent, and honest about its limits.
I appreciate the effort to interrogate bias at the CBC, but there’s an unavoidable irony here: analysis itself is not immune from bias—and this piece shows signs of it. Both in the writer and potentially in the tools. Just at a very cursory level…
Several core claims are asserted without comparative grounding. For example, conservatives are said to be rebutted by “experts,” but no counts are provided, nor are equivalent figures shown for other parties. Anyone who follows CBC regularly will also see expert voices challenging government policy; without parallel numbers, the claim lacks balance (i.e. it’s biased).
More broadly, there is no comparator. Is CBC unusual relative to other Canadian outlets, or public broadcasters elsewhere? Funding differences alone -CBC ($35 per capita) versus the BBC ($140 per capita) - could materially affect editorial depth and sourcing, yet this goes unaddressed. So, while we know there is a level of bias in all reporting the pertinent questions are, is it problematic and if so resolvable (i.e. worth examining)?
Noting that 62% of political stories originate from government announcements risks mistaking structure for bias. Governments are the primary source of policy; the real question is how much journalistic value is added, and whether that differs meaningfully from peers.
Finally, the use of terms like “government stenographer” signal a conclusion embedded in the language (i.e. bias).
None of this is to suggest the CBC is unbiased. It does suggest, however, that we learned less about the degree and distinctiveness of any bias than we might have. Those already convinced will find confirmation; skeptics are left with unanswered questions
Actually, I dug a bit deeper into my original dataset a few days ago and compiled some solid examples and relative proportions. Both seem to strongly support my original conclusions. I hope to publish a followup in the next couple of weeks.
This is a very enlightening read and it articulates what many Canadians have been seeing and hearing for ages.
It's actually sad to see the way that a once respected Canadian "institution" has frittered away its reputation chasing every left wing hobby horse that comes along. It's absolutely astonishing and shameful how CBC reporters and higher profile journalists in the system can allow "activists" to spew out the wildest nonsense and not counter with insightful questions and alternative points of view. The rebuttals are everywhere if CBC wants to do balanced reporting that would make people think twice before making utterances that can't be backed up by facts.
It's a shame that CBC dodged a close one and the Liberal Party not only snuck back into power but showered MORE money onto the Mother Corp. This has delayed a badly needed retrenchment and new sense of purpose for a Government Monolith that has lost its way. Progressive mantra states that Canadians should be able to "see themselves" in government institutions. The paltry viewership across the CBC system tells me that the CBC is not serving a huge part of the population and needs a serious cut in funding and a period of introspection to reclaim its place as a serious media outlet.
Independent assessments generally rate the CBC as slightly left-leaning but highly factual. Imperfect, yet stronger than most outlets. Across television, radio, and print, its approach is largely consistent regardless of which political party is being covered.
Much of the intense hostility toward the CBC originates within highly partisan circles. Initiated from rather cynical politicking, then repeated echoing of criticism between some politicians and thier followers creates the impression, for them, of a solid factual case.
This doesn't mean the CBC is beyond legitimate criticism. Like any organization, it prioritizes and makes strategic decisions. Programming decisions are shaped by multiple constraints. A central constraint is funding. As an example, eliminating bias in reporting entirely may be unrealistic, but improving balance and quality is possible. However, that requires higher professionalism, stronger controls, and greater resources. (i.e., more money).
Canada funds its public broadcaster at roughly half the per-capita level of comparable countries and about one-quarter of the UK’s: approximately $35 per person for the CBC versus about $140 for the BBC. To believe the CBC is going to match BBC quality with 1/4 the funding (actually much less given the population difference) is to believe in fairy tales.
Within this significant constraint, I feel like the CBC is doing a fairly good job. Could they do better at this funding level? I don't know. Maybe. Should Canada consider being the only developed nation in the world without a public broadcaster? That I can answer. NO.
Given the common language and proximity to the largest exporter of cultural content, it would seem we likely have the strongest need of any country for a place whose purpose is to share Canadian stories, told by Canadians - rather than to maximize profit for shareholders.
I will circle back to the end point of my original post:
Many, many Canadians have abandoned the CBC including me. You can talk about hard edged political bias against the CBC all you want but a paltry 4% of prime time viewership would suggest that the significant slippage in viewership is far more complicated than that.
In my line of work I spend a lot of time in isolation with a radio at hand, and as a result the conversational nature of CBC radio programming is attractive and also hones good listening skills. In the past decade, the quality of the content has slipped badly and my beef is the way that CBC editors shape the content around three base themes: climate change, indigenous issues and DEI.
Those with good listening skills and knowledge about balanced reporting and good journalism will quickly find that in the quest to push their three favourite themes, balance takes a very huge hit. Many, many interviews and stories don't provide any pretensions of balance and often if an alternative viewpoint is offered for balance it is buried at the end and/or couched in negative terms.
This is a serious abdication of responsibility for a public broadcaster. Their role isn't to shape public opinion but to tell Canadians what we are all thinking and doing.
Spending more and more money is not the answer when the baseline product is awful. A long overdue retrenchment is due, including massive layoffs in the senior and middle management ranks. These people are overseeing the production of a terrible product and they are far too entrenched to make improvement.
I think it helps to separate what can be supported by data or analysis from what is perception or lived experience. Both matter, but they aren’t the same thing. Once they’re blended together, they stop being meaningfully debatable on a factual basis.
There’s solid evidence of CBC’s audience decline, particularly on English-language television. There’s also strong evidence that this decline is driven by structural factors well beyond political bias: audience fragmentation, cord-cutting, and competition from global platforms. In that sense, the slippage in viewership is clearly more complicated and not CBC specific.
It’s also well established that CBC/Radio-Canada operates with relatively low public funding - roughly 40 to 45% of the per-capita funding average of comparable public broadcasters internationally. Whatever one thinks of the current product, sustained resource constraints clearly matter in a highly competitive media environment.
Where the evidence runs out is around claims of a demonstrable collapse in journalistic balance or standards, or that CBC content is now narrowly shaped around a small set of themes. Those claims go beyond what can be established empirically. My own view is that many of these perceptions are strongly shaped by political alignment rather than by clear, measurable changes in journalistic practice.
Two other perceptions of my own: First, I do perceive CBC as leaning progressive. This isn’t a critique, and I don’t see it as a recent shift. CBC has long approached major issues, nation-building, reconciliation, social inclusion, through broadly progressive frameworks and always present other viewpoints (admittedly often as a secondary). That feels like continuity rather than change.
Second, my experience with CBC Radio has been relatively stable over time. My listening habits today aren’t much different from decades ago: sometimes I stay, sometimes I move on, and I often return for the news at the top of the hour. Some content resonates, some doesn’t, and some is clearly niche—but that mix feels familiar. I sincerely miss Gzowski in the Morning and Sheila Rogers and the old Rex Murphy but the Current is great and Hanomansing is great.
The harder and more important issue, in my view, is rising partisanship. As audiences polarize, it becomes both more difficult and, at the same time, more essential for a public broadcaster to serve a broad public. Trust and engagement now vary sharply by political identity, which complicates any discussion about bias, balance, or relevance. I think the world has changed more than CBC has - and their challenge is to try to maintain that same position in an environment that is shifting in new ways.
People engaging in these conversations clearly care about the CBC. Thoughtful discussion about how a public broadcaster stays relevant in a fragmented and polarized media environment is important, I think, and worth having. So, thanks for the back and forth.
"As audiences polarize, it becomes both more difficult and, at the same time, more essential for a public broadcaster to serve a broad public."
Bullseye!
You fairly assess that CBC leans into "progressive politics" and while you and I may disagree on whether CBC actively seeks out an alternative viewpoint, we can certainly agree that a CBC mandate as a public broadcaster shouldn't be to pick sides in a highly polarized society but straddle the fence and try to facilitate an environment where we hear each other. Instead, we are being served up a daily diet of progressive voices at huge public expense per year with very, very few contrary voices to be seen or heard. In fact, if you are to parse the choices that make it to air on The Current or The National, how many of these choices are presented from a conservative perspective? Especially stories or conversations such as the need for pipelines, or oil and gas development, or the impacts of unbridled immigration on the housing market or part time jobs? CBC has an obligation to present this view of Canada to Canadians, because whether the producers or journalists like it or not, there are many, many people who do not think about these matters from a progressive lens and because they have financial skin in the game through taxation that needs to change.
Not sure what province you're in but I'm in BC, in Nanaimo. I have a lefty government at all three levels. So I do expect to see more lefties on my TV. It shouldn't be by a long shot though, and I dont feel it is.
The only Canadian politicians I saw on Newsworld this morning was the PM and Peter MacKay. The PM was a soundbite and MacKay was on at length. He was interesting, a good interview. I had the TV on for a couple cycles and I dont recall any Indigenous, DEI, or Climate news.
The last actual interview I saw with the PM was the year-end one with Rosemary Barton, Barton was quite aggressive with him and was using CPC criticism and pinning him for a straight answer. Liberal partisans didn't like it. I thought it was tough but entirely fair. Global and TVA were both much easier on him - deferential.
I guess what I'm saying is I have a pretty different impression. I've been watching CBC for 60 years. I've seen shifts in the approach and language over time but it's more of a back and forth than a single direction. And I don't believe that there is an increased bias in content selection or news coverage. I accepted that could be wrong. It's just my sense. And I don't actually watch much TV. The various organizations that track such things tend to lag but so far they've indicated no such shift.
CBC chooses FACEBOOK, X and TIK TOK for their social media.
🇨🇦💙 On November ‘25 Peter Zimonjic CBC News restacked a JDVance post where Michael A Arouet referred to a fake graph showing left leaning policies were destroying Canada’s living standards.
Arouet’s credentials? He has an X account and attended Yale (so did Vance). Arouet has no peer reviewed research, working papers, academic profile or affiliation on any university site.
That post was viewed 5 million times on CBC’s social media, all use MAGA bots to amplify algorithms to spread their poison.
I contacted Mr. Zimonjic and asked why he didn’t vet the source - no response.
I grew up in a household where the cbc was on the radio frequently. As an adult I too for many years had the cbc as a default news source. It was around 2010 when I started to listen less and become aware of their active suppression (avoidance?) of stories they (or their paymasters) didn’t want discussed. I hardly listen anymore. They seem to cover a narrow range of stories, and rarely ask the follow up questions which I would expect.
Here in BC for a long time they avoided news stories about cost of housing and anything on foreign ownership issues when housing prices were completely dis-associating from local levels of affordability. You would think someone would be interested in ‘following the money’. That’s when I realized something rotten was going on at CBC Vancouver news room that was a deliberate avoidance. It was also the time when anyone asking about foreign money in real estate was labeled as racist as an attempt to avoid the topic.
I was someone who used to default to the cbc website for local news, and still do check it for headlines. Once I saw a story at lunch, and when I wanted to show a friend in the evening it was already gone. Google found it but the story link was gone from the cbc news page. Already archived at 7pm when the story had just appeared at 9 am that morning. Meanwhile other stories would sit on the website for many days.
It’s the stories they don’t cover (that need to be covered) that are most concerning. Democracy can’t work without independent scrutiny and the accountability that occurs from putting a spotlight on political decisions. Regardless of political party.
It’s not just the CBC either to be fair. The corporate media clearly has their own bias on various issues also.
Keep up the good research and reporting.
CBC began an article on one of Poilievre's most impassioned speeches with "Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is facing criticism for saying too many young people can't buy affordable homes before their "biological clocks" have run out..."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-poilievre-biological-clock-1.7499220
The article does quote some sources who say the premise is true, but most are criticizing the term "biological clock" which CBC suggest became mean once Poilievre says it. Curiously, the term was fine when CBC used it in headlines in 2016 ("Science, sexism and the ticking of the 'biological clock'") and 2019 ("When the biological clock gets loud: three perspectives on the pressure to have kids").
That's an excellent example of framing bias.
As well as framing bias we see one sided reporting. This article on Substack prompted me to read the cbc local news again just out of curiosity.
There was an article yesterday about businesses in Prince Rupert wanting more temporary foreign workers and complaining they couldn’t find workers. The journalist failed to investigate or ask if these businesses had tried raising wages or any other attempts to attract local workers. No reporting on local unemployment statistics. No reporting on how the LMIA program can act to suppress wages in a market and what effect that has had on Prince Rupert workers.
Nothing of any kind of substantive journalism except repeating complaints of a handful of employers in a completely one-sided article.
Good point. And, based on your description, the piece also seems to be an example of poor journalism. It's like the reporters had zero curiosity about the world they were writing about.
The problem as I see it is as follows: to be hired as a journalist you must have a BA or MA in journalism. Most of the journalists these days have both. I know as I earned my own MA in journalism with them 20 years ago.
The difference is that few have knowledge or training in anything but journalism. No undergrad in economics or politics, history or theology, or god forbid a science or commerce degree. Just a BA in journalism leading to an MA in journalism.
They are not broadly knowledgeable about the world, or organizations and systems that run the world. Critical thinking is simply not present. And reading books is no longer a major pastime.
Further… We’ve blurred the line between opinion and news, and many of today’s journalists don’t think they have to cover stories with which they disagree. So it’s no wonder we’re in the state we are in.
Outstanding work David. Thank you for this! It provides a strong analytical context for what the vast majority who read ALL sources of Canadian news have known by observation and anecdotally for a long, long time.
Does Canada need a tax payer funded public broadcaster? Is it fair to use tax payer money from all tax payers regardless of whether or not they support or have any use for the CBC? Perhaps a move towards a public broadcaster model where those who support it pay for it while leaving those who don’t support it free from having their tax dollars spent subsidizing it. The CBC has long ago passed its reason for being and needs to be cut loose from federal purse strings and left to find and fund its own way.
Peter, I say, the Ceeb should not simply be defunded but should not be allowed to carry ANY advertising. Right now, the Ceeb has advertising for online and for television. If the Ceeb went to a subscription only model then that remaining advertising could be split between the rest of the media industry and then, perhaps, the government can get out of the subsidy business.
If the subscription model doesn't work in some markets, sell of the assets to someone who can use them because clearly the Ceeb would have proven that it cannot economically support those assets.
Great suggestion but makes far too much sense as none of those who raise their voices in howls of indignation anytime a threat is made to move the CBC off the public teat would ever agree to a subscription model as then they would have to demonstrate their support with their own money.
In the Summer of 2015 I noticed a different editorial focus on the National shortly after Mansbridge retired. I decided to categorize the top three lead stories from both the National and then CTV broadcast one hour later for two weeks.
The left wing victim bias led EVERY CBC broadcast but not CTV. It was a variety of stories from the Bell owned CTV. I don’t watch the National any more.
David, I wish that I could say that I am surprised, outraged, incredulous or any other similar adjective. Instead, I simply react with a yawn. Oh, not at your stellar work but that you and your yeoman AI staff went to all that work to find out what we already know. You absolutely did need to do the work but I wish that we could have been positively surprised by unexpected impartiality. But, it was not to be!
Well done, as usual Sir!
Please reward you faithful AIs with some bonus electrons.
Really good analysis, thank you.
Do I detect a bias in this reporting on CBC bias?
I'm detecting bias in your critique of bias in a piece about bias. But perhaps I'm biased.
I just discovered your platform, referenced by Peter Menzies in ‘The Rewrite’, another discourse. As someone who studied advanced biostatistics so long ago now I can’t make sense of my own crib sheets: THANK YOU! It’s a joy to read your work.
Yes, there are institutional biases at the Corp but they challenge easy definition because they depend on where one lives and in which official language they are served. My own POV is biased because I was a regional television reporter (Montreal), assignment editor and morning radio host in the eighties before quitting to start a newspaper, but I continue to watch/listen/read the output as ONE of my info sources. If I was to place my finger on one major fault, it’s the Corp’s compulsion to be all things to as many Canadians as possible. I still see radio, TV and e-teams converging on a single event to ensure that every platform acts as if it alone is covering, No wonder they’re chronically overstaffed.
That's an interesting observation. I would suggest that the corp's obsession to be all things to all people is somehow related to the fact that precious few Canadians actually tune in (something I discussed as part of this post: https://www.theaudit.ca/p/how-the-cbc-spends-public-money).
The CBC hasn't even pretended to be unbiased for decades. It is a fiscally corrupted, politically activist extension of the institutional left, promoting cultural Marxism and green theocracy, playing offense for the LPC, NDP, Greens, Jihad, grievance industry, and very likely the CCP all while playing defense against conservatives, historians, economist, industrialists, and western civilization - helping to set the table for the next iteration of collectivist dystopia. The CBC is a taxpayer-funded, in-house leftist-lobbying, propaganda leviathan. The other taxpayer subsidized "corporate media" are variously ideological clones of the CBC.
Thanks to state funding of partisan media, Canadian democracy is approaching banana republic stature. CCP interference is one thing that is strangely tolerated but taxpayer funding for the propaganda arm of all but the conservative side of the aisle is textbook corruption of democracy.
I appreciate the effort to interrogate bias at the CBC, but there’s an unavoidable irony here: bias analysis itself is not immune from bias—and this piece shows signs of it. Both in the writer and potentially in the tools. Just at a very cursory level…
Several core claims are asserted without comparative grounding. For example, conservatives are said to be rebutted by “experts,” but no counts are provided, nor are equivalent figures shown for other parties. Anyone who follows CBC regularly will also see expert voices challenging government policy; without parallel numbers, the claim lacks balance (i.e. it’s biased).
More broadly, there is no comparator. Is CBC unusual relative to other Canadian outlets, or public broadcasters elsewhere? Funding differences alone -CBC ($35 per capita) versus the BBC ($140 per capita) - could materially affect editorial depth and sourcing, yet this goes unaddressed. So, while we know there is a level of bias in all reporting the pertinent questions are, is it problematic and if so resolvable (i.e. worth examining)?
Noting that 62% of political stories originate from government announcements risks mistaking structure for bias. Governments are the primary source of policy; the real question is how much journalistic value is added, and whether that differs meaningfully from peers.
Finally, the use of terms like “government stenographer” signal a conclusion embedded in the language (i.e. bias).
None of this is to suggest the CBC is unbiased. It does suggest, however, that we learned less about the degree and distinctiveness of any bias than we might have. Those already convinced will find confirmation; skeptics are left with unanswered questions
Those are mostly reasonable questions. In fact, the reason I included a link to my dataset (https://drive.proton.me/urls/QNG7FZ9S8W#fLUSnFavA8Ta) was to make it easy for anyone to do their own analysis.
I would note that the primary findings of my research wouldn't be impacted by anything you'll find on BBC or local competitors: even bias that's (hypothetically) milder than other players in the market is still bias. And, given that CBC is publicly funded, the significance is greater.
Good points and thanks for sharing the data. I’d really need to see the full analysis to test its veracity. Apologies for this long reply.
My initial response and this long note are not because I think concerns about media bias should be dismissed. Quite the opposite. If we care about public trust, democratic legitimacy, and the long-term health of a publicly funded broadcaster, then media bias is exactly the sort of issue that deserves serious, careful analysis. Not quick conclusions.
The difficulty is that claims about media bias that are meant to be fair, defensible, and useful for improvement require analysis that is rigorous: clearly stated assumptions, systematic methods, and transparent evidence - at a level comparable to what would be expected to survive peer review or cross-examination in an expert report. I don’t think that’s an academic bar for its own sake; it’s the minimum standard needed if findings are going to inform policy, editorial practice, or institutional reform.
Anything short of that:
• relies too heavily on impression, anecdote, or selective examples;
• may still be interesting or persuasive on its own (and of some value); but
• cannot reasonably claim objectivity or methodological rigor.
Media-bias assessment belongs to a class of evaluative judgments where:
• the construct is latent;
• the standards are normative; and
• conclusions are only as strong as the process used to reach them.
That makes quick takes, charts, or single-article judgments useful as heuristics, if from a truly non-partisan frame, but insufficient as evidence when the claim is that detrimental bias has been demonstrated rather than merely suspected. The challenge can be compounded when AI is used in the analysis. If it operates as a black box, where reasoning cannot be followed, tested, or challenged.
The irony is that this lack of rigor does not protect the CBC; it undermines it. Without a credible, transparent, and repeatable way to assess bias, criticism accumulates without resolution, trust erodes unevenly across political groups, and there is no shared factual basis for improvement.
At present, I believe the closest approximations we have are:
• Media Bias/Fact Check, which rates CBC News as “left-center,” noting a slight liberal editorial lean alongside high factual reporting; and
• AllSides, which rates CBC as “lean left,” based on small-panel editorial review, while explicitly noting low confidence due to limited data.
These frameworks are systematic, but they are not peer-reviewed academic analyses. They use internal rating systems with varying levels of transparency and very general conclusions. If we found them reliable, there is still no practical way to translate their outputs into specific, measurable, actionable, and time-bound improvement plans.
There are also public surveys and perception research showing that perceptions of CBC bias vary strongly by political affiliation. Conservatives are more likely to perceive a Liberal bias, while Liberals and NDP supporters tend to see the opposite. These surveys are useful for understanding public attitudes, but perception is not the same thing as demonstrated editorial bias. The most methodologically relevant Canadian survey of this kind (e.g. Abacus) is now dated, and I can find no clear contemporary equivalent.
So, where does that leave us? The best available indicators suggest that the CBC is moderately left-leaning and highly factual in its reporting and, relative to other national Canadian outlets, among the least biased overall. I don’t have high confidence in that conclusion. And, while I do believe it is the most credible signal currently available, it is clearly not settling the matter.
Also, whether detrimental bias is increasing, decreasing, or stable over time is unknown. To my knowledge, no consistent, transparent measures have been applied longitudinally. There are people working in this space, but nothing that squarely addresses the public-interest question: how do we credibly evaluate a public broadcaster, in a way that both critics and supporters can take seriously?
Perhaps the absence of that work is itself the real story?
I'm not sure your useful observations aren't a case of making "perfect" the enemy of "good". You're obviously correct that there hasn't yet been any perfect analysis of bias at CBC - or of anything else for that matter. But that doesn't mean that the absence unlimited time and resources means that we should do nothing. I would argue that my analysis - relying on a pretty robust dataset, an open methodology, and the use of three independent AI models - is pretty good. More than that, it's a serious indicator that something it probably not healthy inside CBC. At the very least, I would argue that CBC itself should devote some resources to presenting a comprehensive rebuttal that we can all assess for ourselves. After all, CBC is unique in that it's costing taxpayers $2 billion a year that could be redirected to healthcare. They have a far greater need to be accountable.
By the way, I haven't personally seen any credible analysis showing that CBC is more "highly factual" or "least biased" in relation to other media outlets. And, in any case, that would be setting the bar pretty low.
I share the intent not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The steps I suggest are intended to achieve “the good.” They will provide a sound basis upon which to build toward the perfect. There’s nothing wrong with the material you provided and, potentially, your analysis, it’s just that the conclusions are not strongly supported.
Here are the media bias testers that I’m aware of and whose methodology meets most of the ‘good’ requirements. None of them are approaching perfect. Aside from various methodological compromises, there is also a US-centric element. Slightly different interpretation of some key terms like “left” and “right.” While they each focus on different elements, their findings do not appear to contradict each-other. Newsguard requires subscription.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbc-news-canadian-broadcasting/
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cbc-news-media-bias
https://www.newsguardtech.com/solutions/news-reliability-ratings/
The Media Bias page is...unimpressive. They offer no useful information about their methodology and, as evidence for systemic neutrality they offer a grand total of one headline example:
> CBC reports Canadian national news with neutral headlines such as: “The 5 most dramatic moments of the year in Ontario politics”.
They claim - again, without any evidence, that "CBC’s straight news reporting is consistently low-biased, factual, and covers both sides of issues." But that's contradicted by some highly politicized examples from my dataset (which, after all, is drawn from what CBC officially characterizes as their "Top Stories"). Some more obvious (and/or misleading and inflammatory) examples include:
* Trump claims there are only ‘2 genders.’ Historians say that’s never been true
* 2-year-old Palestinian girl killed in her home by Israeli military [leaving the clear impression that soldiers entered the home and intentionally killed the girl when it was, in fact, a tragic stray bullet that struck her]
* Israel strikes Lebanon after claiming it intercepted rockets that Hezbollah denies firing
I'm not saying that those examples damn everything the CBC does, but they certainly carry a lot more weight than that single, limp example Media Bias provided.
Nevertheless, even the "lean left" conclusion drawn by AllSides is unacceptable for a publicly-funded broadcaster. They should be scrupulously neutral - especially if neutrality is their marquee claim.
And, of course AllSides itself noted that "As of December 2025, AllSides has low or initial confidence in our Lean Left rating for CBC News"
If those represent the best that's out there as far as assessments go, I would (tentatively and humbly) suggest that what I've done is as close to state of the art as we're likely to get right now. I could be a lot better, of course, but that would require some serious investors. As they say, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have. :)
Definitely flawed. They do share their general methodology but do not share the individual analysis. I’d fail them for this. Newsguard provides more detail but still has material gaps. But they state their assumptions, they use quantification where it’s practical, they have a systematic approach, and have a large database to test the reasonableness of their conclusion. I can’t say if they use AI but if they do, that opens up a whole new range of validity concerns.
Good analysis is scoped, transparent, systematic, logically coherent, and honest about its limits.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
I appreciate the effort to interrogate bias at the CBC, but there’s an unavoidable irony here: analysis itself is not immune from bias—and this piece shows signs of it. Both in the writer and potentially in the tools. Just at a very cursory level…
Several core claims are asserted without comparative grounding. For example, conservatives are said to be rebutted by “experts,” but no counts are provided, nor are equivalent figures shown for other parties. Anyone who follows CBC regularly will also see expert voices challenging government policy; without parallel numbers, the claim lacks balance (i.e. it’s biased).
More broadly, there is no comparator. Is CBC unusual relative to other Canadian outlets, or public broadcasters elsewhere? Funding differences alone -CBC ($35 per capita) versus the BBC ($140 per capita) - could materially affect editorial depth and sourcing, yet this goes unaddressed. So, while we know there is a level of bias in all reporting the pertinent questions are, is it problematic and if so resolvable (i.e. worth examining)?
Noting that 62% of political stories originate from government announcements risks mistaking structure for bias. Governments are the primary source of policy; the real question is how much journalistic value is added, and whether that differs meaningfully from peers.
Finally, the use of terms like “government stenographer” signal a conclusion embedded in the language (i.e. bias).
None of this is to suggest the CBC is unbiased. It does suggest, however, that we learned less about the degree and distinctiveness of any bias than we might have. Those already convinced will find confirmation; skeptics are left with unanswered questions
Actually, I dug a bit deeper into my original dataset a few days ago and compiled some solid examples and relative proportions. Both seem to strongly support my original conclusions. I hope to publish a followup in the next couple of weeks.
This is a very enlightening read and it articulates what many Canadians have been seeing and hearing for ages.
It's actually sad to see the way that a once respected Canadian "institution" has frittered away its reputation chasing every left wing hobby horse that comes along. It's absolutely astonishing and shameful how CBC reporters and higher profile journalists in the system can allow "activists" to spew out the wildest nonsense and not counter with insightful questions and alternative points of view. The rebuttals are everywhere if CBC wants to do balanced reporting that would make people think twice before making utterances that can't be backed up by facts.
It's a shame that CBC dodged a close one and the Liberal Party not only snuck back into power but showered MORE money onto the Mother Corp. This has delayed a badly needed retrenchment and new sense of purpose for a Government Monolith that has lost its way. Progressive mantra states that Canadians should be able to "see themselves" in government institutions. The paltry viewership across the CBC system tells me that the CBC is not serving a huge part of the population and needs a serious cut in funding and a period of introspection to reclaim its place as a serious media outlet.
Independent assessments generally rate the CBC as slightly left-leaning but highly factual. Imperfect, yet stronger than most outlets. Across television, radio, and print, its approach is largely consistent regardless of which political party is being covered.
Much of the intense hostility toward the CBC originates within highly partisan circles. Initiated from rather cynical politicking, then repeated echoing of criticism between some politicians and thier followers creates the impression, for them, of a solid factual case.
This doesn't mean the CBC is beyond legitimate criticism. Like any organization, it prioritizes and makes strategic decisions. Programming decisions are shaped by multiple constraints. A central constraint is funding. As an example, eliminating bias in reporting entirely may be unrealistic, but improving balance and quality is possible. However, that requires higher professionalism, stronger controls, and greater resources. (i.e., more money).
Canada funds its public broadcaster at roughly half the per-capita level of comparable countries and about one-quarter of the UK’s: approximately $35 per person for the CBC versus about $140 for the BBC. To believe the CBC is going to match BBC quality with 1/4 the funding (actually much less given the population difference) is to believe in fairy tales.
Within this significant constraint, I feel like the CBC is doing a fairly good job. Could they do better at this funding level? I don't know. Maybe. Should Canada consider being the only developed nation in the world without a public broadcaster? That I can answer. NO.
Given the common language and proximity to the largest exporter of cultural content, it would seem we likely have the strongest need of any country for a place whose purpose is to share Canadian stories, told by Canadians - rather than to maximize profit for shareholders.
I will circle back to the end point of my original post:
Many, many Canadians have abandoned the CBC including me. You can talk about hard edged political bias against the CBC all you want but a paltry 4% of prime time viewership would suggest that the significant slippage in viewership is far more complicated than that.
In my line of work I spend a lot of time in isolation with a radio at hand, and as a result the conversational nature of CBC radio programming is attractive and also hones good listening skills. In the past decade, the quality of the content has slipped badly and my beef is the way that CBC editors shape the content around three base themes: climate change, indigenous issues and DEI.
Those with good listening skills and knowledge about balanced reporting and good journalism will quickly find that in the quest to push their three favourite themes, balance takes a very huge hit. Many, many interviews and stories don't provide any pretensions of balance and often if an alternative viewpoint is offered for balance it is buried at the end and/or couched in negative terms.
This is a serious abdication of responsibility for a public broadcaster. Their role isn't to shape public opinion but to tell Canadians what we are all thinking and doing.
Spending more and more money is not the answer when the baseline product is awful. A long overdue retrenchment is due, including massive layoffs in the senior and middle management ranks. These people are overseeing the production of a terrible product and they are far too entrenched to make improvement.
Thanks for the reply.
I think it helps to separate what can be supported by data or analysis from what is perception or lived experience. Both matter, but they aren’t the same thing. Once they’re blended together, they stop being meaningfully debatable on a factual basis.
There’s solid evidence of CBC’s audience decline, particularly on English-language television. There’s also strong evidence that this decline is driven by structural factors well beyond political bias: audience fragmentation, cord-cutting, and competition from global platforms. In that sense, the slippage in viewership is clearly more complicated and not CBC specific.
It’s also well established that CBC/Radio-Canada operates with relatively low public funding - roughly 40 to 45% of the per-capita funding average of comparable public broadcasters internationally. Whatever one thinks of the current product, sustained resource constraints clearly matter in a highly competitive media environment.
Where the evidence runs out is around claims of a demonstrable collapse in journalistic balance or standards, or that CBC content is now narrowly shaped around a small set of themes. Those claims go beyond what can be established empirically. My own view is that many of these perceptions are strongly shaped by political alignment rather than by clear, measurable changes in journalistic practice.
Two other perceptions of my own: First, I do perceive CBC as leaning progressive. This isn’t a critique, and I don’t see it as a recent shift. CBC has long approached major issues, nation-building, reconciliation, social inclusion, through broadly progressive frameworks and always present other viewpoints (admittedly often as a secondary). That feels like continuity rather than change.
Second, my experience with CBC Radio has been relatively stable over time. My listening habits today aren’t much different from decades ago: sometimes I stay, sometimes I move on, and I often return for the news at the top of the hour. Some content resonates, some doesn’t, and some is clearly niche—but that mix feels familiar. I sincerely miss Gzowski in the Morning and Sheila Rogers and the old Rex Murphy but the Current is great and Hanomansing is great.
The harder and more important issue, in my view, is rising partisanship. As audiences polarize, it becomes both more difficult and, at the same time, more essential for a public broadcaster to serve a broad public. Trust and engagement now vary sharply by political identity, which complicates any discussion about bias, balance, or relevance. I think the world has changed more than CBC has - and their challenge is to try to maintain that same position in an environment that is shifting in new ways.
People engaging in these conversations clearly care about the CBC. Thoughtful discussion about how a public broadcaster stays relevant in a fragmented and polarized media environment is important, I think, and worth having. So, thanks for the back and forth.
"As audiences polarize, it becomes both more difficult and, at the same time, more essential for a public broadcaster to serve a broad public."
Bullseye!
You fairly assess that CBC leans into "progressive politics" and while you and I may disagree on whether CBC actively seeks out an alternative viewpoint, we can certainly agree that a CBC mandate as a public broadcaster shouldn't be to pick sides in a highly polarized society but straddle the fence and try to facilitate an environment where we hear each other. Instead, we are being served up a daily diet of progressive voices at huge public expense per year with very, very few contrary voices to be seen or heard. In fact, if you are to parse the choices that make it to air on The Current or The National, how many of these choices are presented from a conservative perspective? Especially stories or conversations such as the need for pipelines, or oil and gas development, or the impacts of unbridled immigration on the housing market or part time jobs? CBC has an obligation to present this view of Canada to Canadians, because whether the producers or journalists like it or not, there are many, many people who do not think about these matters from a progressive lens and because they have financial skin in the game through taxation that needs to change.
Not sure what province you're in but I'm in BC, in Nanaimo. I have a lefty government at all three levels. So I do expect to see more lefties on my TV. It shouldn't be by a long shot though, and I dont feel it is.
The only Canadian politicians I saw on Newsworld this morning was the PM and Peter MacKay. The PM was a soundbite and MacKay was on at length. He was interesting, a good interview. I had the TV on for a couple cycles and I dont recall any Indigenous, DEI, or Climate news.
The last actual interview I saw with the PM was the year-end one with Rosemary Barton, Barton was quite aggressive with him and was using CPC criticism and pinning him for a straight answer. Liberal partisans didn't like it. I thought it was tough but entirely fair. Global and TVA were both much easier on him - deferential.
I guess what I'm saying is I have a pretty different impression. I've been watching CBC for 60 years. I've seen shifts in the approach and language over time but it's more of a back and forth than a single direction. And I don't believe that there is an increased bias in content selection or news coverage. I accepted that could be wrong. It's just my sense. And I don't actually watch much TV. The various organizations that track such things tend to lag but so far they've indicated no such shift.
I would assume that a similar analysis of the direct national competition (CTV, Global, et al.) would be forthcoming?
Without in depth analysis my gut suggests there will be significant similarities in bias although not as strong.
It's probably possible to do something similar with CTV and Global, although I haven't had the chance to take a serious look yet.
No surprises here!
CBC chooses FACEBOOK, X and TIK TOK for their social media.
🇨🇦💙 On November ‘25 Peter Zimonjic CBC News restacked a JDVance post where Michael A Arouet referred to a fake graph showing left leaning policies were destroying Canada’s living standards.
Arouet’s credentials? He has an X account and attended Yale (so did Vance). Arouet has no peer reviewed research, working papers, academic profile or affiliation on any university site.
That post was viewed 5 million times on CBC’s social media, all use MAGA bots to amplify algorithms to spread their poison.
I contacted Mr. Zimonjic and asked why he didn’t vet the source - no response.