I am not a fan. The government should not be spending tax payer money on items that the private industry should pay for themselves. If they want the profit, they should spend their money on it. Why was this a model that worked previously that doesn’t work now? What changed?
Apparently, I can’t ask pointed or directed questions, so I’ll rephrase, “Why does the far left continue to implement policies that economically hurt Canadians?”
The USA has 13 times the GDP of Canada. Simplistically it might seem that the smaller country would be the victim in a major trade war. But I think this is wrong. Canadian stocks are doing well and a headline is “Canadian economy set for best quarterly growth in more than three years.”
The impression I get from my (biased?) news sources, is that Carney – unlike Trump – is a true master of deal-making and strategy.
Promised:
Carney isn’t the Trump whisperer, he’s the Trump bitch. His only marginally effective response is to do nothing. A potted plant could do similar. Yeah, your sources are biased especially if you are using the Carney Broadcast Corporation as the source.
So the CBC is out. Is there any news source you are willing to accept, or have you shut yourself from any and all news agencies?
Rebel “news”? True North? Canada Strong and Free? Mobilize Media Group?
Of course the CBC is out. If the conservatives were the ones giving them money and the Liberals were against it, you’d be completely in my camp. Any media organization that receives government money is suspect. But because it supports the far left narrative those that are on that spectrum trust it blindly.
You are free to address my other claims, but I assume you’ve chosen the one you think you can defend?
Is there a news agency that you trust and are willing to accept? I just want to know what you won’t reject.
Side note: I’m also curious, do you reject actual government agencies and departments? Like would you reject the advice of Health Canada, or the data from Stats Canada?
Some sources are less biased than others. I accept CBC when it isn’t biased. By ‘accept’ it only means that I’m not spending any excess time on it as it makes some sense in what it is reporting. Why would you not question all your sources? I make it a point to try and quote CBC in my arguments, if I can. This avoids automatic discounting of my argument just because of the source.
But here we are talking about the CBC due to a comment from the poster asking if his sources were biased, and avoiding the real issue which is his opinion, based on those sources, that Carney is doing a good job. If the job is to fly around the world spending inordinate amounts of money on catering and otherwise doing nothing, then yes he is entirely successful. e.g Who said judge me on the price of groceries? Are you judging him on his own criteria? Are you judging him at all?
Side note: I’m also curious, do you reject actual government agencies and departments? Like would you reject the advice of Health Canada, or the data from Stats Canada?
Not automatically. But it has to make sense. e.g. A judge making a ruling that a petition affects someone’s rights even though if it passes changes nothing, is obviously ideologically driven, rather than based upon law or protecting people’s rights. In fact, the only right’s being affected directly are the ones petitioning their government. So, should I trust government sources where there is even less visibility?
I will cite a source only when it agrees with me. If it does not agree with me, then I will call it biased and ignore it.
That tracks.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Again, lets talk about the CBC and not about Carney’s broken promises. The poster said he thought Carney was doing a good job according to his sources which could be biased. Obviously, they are biased or they would be reporting his lack of progress on any of his promises.
Apparently in your humble opinion. As if no one ever thought of that potential issue. The CBC is subject to legal protection from government interference by the Broadcasting Act. It also has an independent board of directors and its own published journalistic standards. They’ve consistently adhered to those high standards through all governments, liberal and conservative, and criticized them all as was appropriate.
But yes, I do understand why right-wing types hate and condemn the CBC. It’s the same reason the Orange Peril down south stopped funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which helped suppport PBS and NPR. Truths are often very uncomfortable for right-wingers, who tend to be driven by blind ideology rather than facts.
Ah, the old “no you” riposte.
I just wish that I was teaching a class on logical fallacies. There is lots of material here.
Moderating
Stop making this personal. Address content of posts on topic, not the poster themselves.
This topic was automatically opened after 22 minutes.
Spot the bias: Carney says he 'should have been clearer' about new Gordie Howe bridge agreement | CBC News
I’ll give you a hint, some people ‘suggested’ some people ‘said’.
Also, if the article is about Carney being ‘clearer’, then why did it switch to the benefits of the bridge opening rather than remain on the consequences to Carney if he was actually trying to mislead people? It is almost as if we stopped asking tough questions to move onto the positives.
But who cares. It is a given the CBC is biased when it comes to Carney. If we address what happened with the bridge and his statemen we are left with a number of options.
Options 1 and 2 would still be serious for a prime minister negotiating a multibillion-dollar public asset. Option 3 would constitute deliberate deception. The article does not investigate which explanation is credible; it largely accepts his characterization as imperfect communication. Option 4 is just incompetence.
None of this should give anyone confidence that what happens during CUSMA will be reported accurately or that Canadian interests are being protected.
Vs. this article: Gordie Howe Bridge: Mark Carney admits confusion over deal
While still allowing Carney to slip the question of whether he was lying, it goes deeper into the details and is more explicit on the question Carney was asked i.e. was he lying.
And then this one for the Globe: Mark Carney’s rhetorical fog over the Gordie Howe bridge - The Globe and Mail
Goes into more details and we find out the obfuscation from Carney wasn’t just a one time thing, he waffled on multiple occasions when, if it was a concern, his handlers should have briefed him on what the truth was, assuming he didn’t know it.
Great article on conservatives’ pathological obsession with taking down the CBC. Mentions how Pierre Poilievre teamed up with far-right lunatic Elon Musk to have the CBC classified as “government funded” on Twitter. When the Canadian Press emailed Twitter with questions about this exaggerated claim and its completely false implications, Twitter sent back a poop emoji. Poilievre and Musk – what a classy team!
The author of the article is a former CBC journalist who states “As a former CBC employee, I can only say no one I know who worked in the trenches made any editorial choices based on who was in Ottawa—Liberal or Conservative—ever.”
Also, since the subject was previously mentioned, a link to an informative article on Trump’s Mafia-like shakedown to extort revenue from the Gordie Howe bridge (“nice bridge you got here, would be a shame if it never opened …”).
One wonders why the far left wants to prop it up? To put out the Canadian message? Who determines the message seems to be the main issue.
“CBC silenced and intimidated me for simply trying to do my job and fulfil my public service role to Canadians,” Dhanraj said.
From the article: While Conservatives asked questions, Liberals ignored Dhanraj and focused on other witnesses less hostile to the Mark Carney government’s favourite broadcaster.
And like the Liberals on the panel, they ignored the main point. Did Carney lie to Canadians on the bridge deal and does the left care even if he did?
Good job of not answering the question. You know which sources yo7 don’t trust, but you don’t wish to share with us those you do. Interesting.
I don’t see the problem with the CBC. So it’s government-funded. Big deal. Also government-funded is the BBC, one of the most respected and trusted news media in the world. The CBC was modelled on the BBC, and though I disagree with the CBC in a few ways (CBC’s “Little Mosque on the Prairie” was an insult to those of us on the Prairies, implying that we simply couldn’t handle Muslims moving into Saskatchewan, when in fact, they’ve been living among us for years; “The Plouffe Family” insulted all of us in English Canada), there is no question that its news coverage is top-notch, neutral, and accurate. CBC is critical of any government when it needs to be. In other words, it is no TASS (USSR), or KCNA (North Korea), both of which extol the so-called “successes” of the only party that is allowed to be in power. And they were the only game in town.
Thinking of that, remember that CBC is competing with private news organizations: CTV, Global, City. Add to those Postmedia, Torstar, Globe and Mail, Sun News, and so on. Not all will carry the message that you want to hear, but when the “government-funded” source tells you that the moon is made of green cheese, and you believe it because it came from a “government-funded” source while all other private news media tell you that the moon is not made of green cheese; well, maybe you had better start to look at other news media and not the government-funded one. Majority rules.
Point is, that with so many different private media to choose from, Canadians need not choose CBC or nothing. They have a variety of choices.
CBC is true to the story, because it has to be. If it started spouting government lies, despite what all other media has decided is the truth, it would be no better than TASS or the KCNA. As it is, CBC is much like the BBC: a very trusted media source. Because it cannot be otherwise, given its competition.