The CBC News/Current Affairs have become compromised imho. They have lost the trust that I had in their reporting, and with it also my loyalty as someone who’s been tuned in since the mid 1980s. I can certainly relate in questioning their relevance beyond serving and supporting the establishments powers and voices. Thanks Nora for speaking out on this blacklist.
Thank you for saying that. I’d been an avid supporter since 1980. They’ve lost me, I don’t watch the tv news at all, and have felt it less and less important to listen on the radio. They’re no longer relevant
I think sometimes, as people mature, they mistake changes in themselves for changes in the world around them. People who have watched the CBC from both the inside and the outside for decades note that things do change, but there has been no consistent trend in the overall quality of the broadcasting.
They’ve lost local voices - because the CBC is poorly funded. They receive about half the average funding of public broadcasters internationally, and less than a third per capita of the BBC. So there are impacts there. But what I mostly hear from people is that they see media bias and they never used to. But the fact is, it has always been there. We weren’t taught to recognize it and made assumptions that the news should always be accurate. It’s not entertainment - it’s a public service. Nah.
Bias in media has always existed for multiple reasons; in the CBC’s case, it’s often less about who they serve and more about who they hire, by necessity. Regardless, bias, imperfect factuality, and other quality issues have always been there.
What we often fail to recognize, especially when we’re more idealistic youngsters, is that most people working in media (just like everywhere else) are simply doing a job. Some are passionate about it; many aren’t. They take shortcuts, they work under unreasonable timelines, they may care - they may not. And they often produce imperfect results. All of that has always been part of the industry.
What changes over time is that the rose tint fades out of our glasses. As we get older, things can look different, not necessarily because they’ve changed, but because we’ve changed. We see some systems a little more clearly.
No Bill the CBC is notorious for being a very well paying organization. A friend of mine gave up a Law career to use her first degree in journalism to pay the bills. Retired at 58 mortgage free.
Here in Halifax the journalism students have an interesting choice. Go to ATV for the much larger audience or go for the at least 30% higher pay check at CBC. Too much money sloshing around the holy mother corp and Danrash’s experience is just pathetic . They need a clearing out.
No doubt. My guess is working level compensation is probably higher but as you go up in status, the ceiling is much lower. But that's just my guess based on other crowns. Regardless, I was not speaking about compensation. I don't have that information. I was referring to the funding of the crown corporation.
The CBC is poorly funded? WTF 🤔 They’ve received $1.2 billion in taxpayer funding annually since 2018, and look to receive close to $1.5 billion this year. 100% of Canadian taxpayers pay for the CBC, yet the views expressed and promoted represent about 25-30% of Canadians. There was a time when the National/Journal were must see in our house nightly. With their tack hard left - I’ve since removed them entirely from my media consumption.
Yes, it is poorly funded. The amount you claim is accurate. It accounts 0.1% of taxes in Canada. In the UK, the BBC gets 0.3% of thier total budget. Comparisons are helpful I think when we're concerned about the funding. Because of the under funding of the CBC local news and original Canadian programing, while still existing, have diminished.
Much can be said about the public good. Suffice it to say (for now) that it's not just about viewership (although that still matters). A public broadcaster is more like a public library than Netflix. We don't need everyone to watch it to get the value.
The strongest evidence for this comes from comparative research across democracies. Countries with stronger public broadcasters consistently show higher political knowledge and lower misinformation exposure. The point isn’t persuasion - it’s raising the baseline level of public information. Think of what we know about the general level of knowledge of the world around one in the US (the only developed country without a proper public broadcaster) vs. Canada.
While I'm doing a PS... I'll note that CBC is objectively considered left leaning and always has been. It hasn't changed tack. It is measured (by those that do such things as having a moderate left bias). There are individual examples of much more than moderate bias but overall. While private broadcasters can have whatever bias they wish to the point of full on partisanship (e.g. National Post) the CBC has to follow it's mandate. It has public accountability that the others do not. And it is one of the least biased overall in Canada.
Lastly, worth noting, the CBC is not a news outlet. That is one of it's functions. While many are more attracted to the US template for story telling, Canadian cultural programming is still important. It's how most people gain a deeper knowledge of and connection to Canada. Many of us think that's important.
I may have missed something, but the evidence here doesn’t seem to support the conclusion you’re drawing.
From your own description, you were on CBC multiple times (2016–2017), later appeared on Radio-Canada, were invited onto Piya Chattopadhyay’s program, participated in a Sunday morning CBC panel for roughly two years, and were on CBC Radio’s syndication service several times. All while being on an alleged “blacklist.” That’s a surprising list of appearances for someone making your claims.
What the article actually demonstrates is that at some point you stopped being invited onto certain CBC current-affairs programs. That may feel like the door closed, but it’s not evidence of a blacklist. Media bookings are discretionary and change constantly with producers, editorial direction, and guest demand.
The strongest claim in the broader discussion right now comes from Travis Dhanraj’s parliamentary testimony about a supposed list of 45 people CBC wouldn’t book. But even there, no list, document, or corroboration has been produced. At this point, all we really have are perceptions of exclusion.
Which leaves a simpler possibility that the piece never really considers: maybe certain producers just decided they didn’t want to book you anymore. That happens to commentators all the time, across outlets and across the political spectrum.
None of that proves, or even really suggests, a blacklist. It mostly shows how easy it is to interpret perceived slights as an institutional conspiracy - even when the available facts seem to contradict the claim.
Plus, you seem to think CBC shouldn’t exist just because a list of 45 people you claim are “blacklisted” that all of Canada in remote places should not receive news. Make no mistake, no commercial provider will ever supply Nunavut (and, no internet is not a viable alternative) or the Yukon or NWT. The hubris of southern Canadians is breathtaking at times.
While I agree with the general statement here, I have to say that there is also no evidence that geography makes one unreasonable any more than skin colour, height, or accent. Small minds and arrogance can exist anywhere.
I find some are confused between the CBC being loyal to the Canadian Crown (the institutions) and mistaking that for being loyal to a corporate political party brand.
Westerners are so indoctrinated in individualism that they don't see the systems around them, and thus can't ever understand what is needed to fix those systems.
Note: I'm not "conservative", and I've considered the CBC to be a political opponent for decades. I'm one of those who believe in #DefundThePolice and #DefundTheCBC -- for the same anti-racist, anti-colonialism, anti-Empire reasons.
I'm all for PUBLIC broadcasting, but I don't think CBC qualifies.
Russel you don’t really believe taking police off the streets makes all of us safer do you? Canada is a damn successful Colony of a former Empire. Perhaps you have not jumped on some opportunities in your life or life is happier ranting against “the man”.
Join the Army,they need someone like you to teach how things really are.
I have noted over the years that it is different people that push back against #DefundThePolice than #DefundTheCBC , even though I consider both these institutions to be agents of ongoing settler-colonialism.
Do you believe that #DefundThePolice is about "taking police off the streets"?
Law enforcement has become a catch-all service for anything that the Dominion governments don't have a specific service for. There are separate fire fighters and ambulances, but so many other services are needed where "Policing" isn't relevant to the requirement.
I'm not blaming police officers for what to me seem like obvious failures, but the systems (laws/institutions/etc) of Canada. I'm not a subscriber to Western European concepts of individualism, so this isn't about "the man" -- but flawed and antiquated systems.
I believe the Dominion of Canada has been “successful” as a fork of two European Christian Empires -- while the 1867 land claims as well as Newfoundland and PEI can be claimed to relate to the British Empire, all the other expansion on this continent was done by the Dominion of Canada. Due to more than 70% of Canada's population being south of the 49'th, this Westward and Northward expansion created a dominant center and subordinate peripheries -- an Empire.
I am someone who is anti-racist and anti-colonial, so Canada being a "successful" ongoing example of settler-colonialism is something I'd like to be pushed into the past. So many loyalists to the institutions of Canada are stuck in 1700's and 1800's mindsets, and it is currently 2026.
BTW: I'm retired, and too old to join the military. As someone of Scottish, Irish and French descent who was born on land claimed the jurisdiction of Canada, and granted Canadian citizenship at birth, I would be rejected as a candidate for military service as I'm not loyal to what I consider to be the foreign institutions of Canada.
Indeed - and one wonders how many time this conversational filler/ crutch word would make an appearance in actual broadcast format, when it's already making appearances in written form.
If you think that response is snarky, you should never be in proximity to me, because your exquisitely sensitive snarkometer will explode in about a nanosecond.
One would think being blacklisted by the CBC should be viewed as a badge of honour? But maybe Nora misses the adulation? L’affaire Humboldt would be enough to terminate anyone's credibility, to be fair. And what about "They could no longer risk having people accidentally say anything about Israel..." ?? --> Seems the CBC found lots of others to say anything about Israel, just not Nora! LMAO!!
Nora, you gonna go up to Nunavut and provide news? Answer the question honestly. PS, Internet ain’t happening up there all the time. So be honest, can you rival CBC? If so, why.
Do I believe that CBC will not provide air for everyone. I do believe that. Do I believe CBC is overly concerned with providing safe space for those willing to denigrate First Nations citizens, immigrant citizens, and BIPOC citizens? Yes. Do I believe that CBC is willing to provide extra space to CPC because M. Poilievre cut off their access last year? Yes. Because of that has CBC board lost their neutrality because of the loss of access, yes, they did. They never called it out. They allowed it to continue without comment. That speaks ill of a national news source that supplies news to the uttermost breadth of Canada. This cannot continue to happen. Nor can a political party stop a news source to remote Canada just because they do not like it. CBC is a unifying Canadian voice that includes the north when all Canadians need that inclusion. Make no mistake no commercial media will ever do the same.
In the Summer of 2015 I noticed a change in the lead story choices of the National after Mansbridge moved on. Almost all Social justice/ victim choices. I decided to keep track of the top three story choices on the National and then an hour later for the CTV national broadcast for two weeks.
CBC had feminist,immigrant,indigenous or
Victim story’s every night.
CTV was far more balanced including a major disaster that CBC ignored
I rarely watch CBC anymore as the preaching is tedious and ignores the Citizens that pay for it.
Not So much about "pleasing the state" as pleasing advertisers. Playing it safe, avoiding risks that anyone might be offended. A recipe for bland, empty reporting that states the obvious and skirts anything controversial!
Also, I find it amusing when Canadian "independent journalists" rag on the CBC as if that broadcaster has any credibility left among the average, critical, not woke Canadian. It would be like me still complaining about the girl who wore the same dress as me to the high school prom, 35 years ago...lol...I only turn on the CBC now for fun, guessing whether the topic will be a. Identity porn, b. Trump derangement Syndrome, or c. Marxist flimflam... it's a fun game.
The CBC News/Current Affairs have become compromised imho. They have lost the trust that I had in their reporting, and with it also my loyalty as someone who’s been tuned in since the mid 1980s. I can certainly relate in questioning their relevance beyond serving and supporting the establishments powers and voices. Thanks Nora for speaking out on this blacklist.
Thank you for saying that. I’d been an avid supporter since 1980. They’ve lost me, I don’t watch the tv news at all, and have felt it less and less important to listen on the radio. They’re no longer relevant
My hypothesis:
I think sometimes, as people mature, they mistake changes in themselves for changes in the world around them. People who have watched the CBC from both the inside and the outside for decades note that things do change, but there has been no consistent trend in the overall quality of the broadcasting.
They’ve lost local voices - because the CBC is poorly funded. They receive about half the average funding of public broadcasters internationally, and less than a third per capita of the BBC. So there are impacts there. But what I mostly hear from people is that they see media bias and they never used to. But the fact is, it has always been there. We weren’t taught to recognize it and made assumptions that the news should always be accurate. It’s not entertainment - it’s a public service. Nah.
Bias in media has always existed for multiple reasons; in the CBC’s case, it’s often less about who they serve and more about who they hire, by necessity. Regardless, bias, imperfect factuality, and other quality issues have always been there.
What we often fail to recognize, especially when we’re more idealistic youngsters, is that most people working in media (just like everywhere else) are simply doing a job. Some are passionate about it; many aren’t. They take shortcuts, they work under unreasonable timelines, they may care - they may not. And they often produce imperfect results. All of that has always been part of the industry.
What changes over time is that the rose tint fades out of our glasses. As we get older, things can look different, not necessarily because they’ve changed, but because we’ve changed. We see some systems a little more clearly.
No Bill the CBC is notorious for being a very well paying organization. A friend of mine gave up a Law career to use her first degree in journalism to pay the bills. Retired at 58 mortgage free.
Here in Halifax the journalism students have an interesting choice. Go to ATV for the much larger audience or go for the at least 30% higher pay check at CBC. Too much money sloshing around the holy mother corp and Danrash’s experience is just pathetic . They need a clearing out.
No doubt. My guess is working level compensation is probably higher but as you go up in status, the ceiling is much lower. But that's just my guess based on other crowns. Regardless, I was not speaking about compensation. I don't have that information. I was referring to the funding of the crown corporation.
The CBC is poorly funded? WTF 🤔 They’ve received $1.2 billion in taxpayer funding annually since 2018, and look to receive close to $1.5 billion this year. 100% of Canadian taxpayers pay for the CBC, yet the views expressed and promoted represent about 25-30% of Canadians. There was a time when the National/Journal were must see in our house nightly. With their tack hard left - I’ve since removed them entirely from my media consumption.
Yes, it is poorly funded. The amount you claim is accurate. It accounts 0.1% of taxes in Canada. In the UK, the BBC gets 0.3% of thier total budget. Comparisons are helpful I think when we're concerned about the funding. Because of the under funding of the CBC local news and original Canadian programing, while still existing, have diminished.
Much can be said about the public good. Suffice it to say (for now) that it's not just about viewership (although that still matters). A public broadcaster is more like a public library than Netflix. We don't need everyone to watch it to get the value.
The strongest evidence for this comes from comparative research across democracies. Countries with stronger public broadcasters consistently show higher political knowledge and lower misinformation exposure. The point isn’t persuasion - it’s raising the baseline level of public information. Think of what we know about the general level of knowledge of the world around one in the US (the only developed country without a proper public broadcaster) vs. Canada.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/auntie-knows-best-public-broadcasters-and-current-affairs-knowledge/D4579CE3D1E71564F194768C7B9461F2?utm_source=chatgpt.com
I think some may not be able to access the report.
https://publicmediaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2012AuntieKnowsBest.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
While I'm doing a PS... I'll note that CBC is objectively considered left leaning and always has been. It hasn't changed tack. It is measured (by those that do such things as having a moderate left bias). There are individual examples of much more than moderate bias but overall. While private broadcasters can have whatever bias they wish to the point of full on partisanship (e.g. National Post) the CBC has to follow it's mandate. It has public accountability that the others do not. And it is one of the least biased overall in Canada.
Lastly, worth noting, the CBC is not a news outlet. That is one of it's functions. While many are more attracted to the US template for story telling, Canadian cultural programming is still important. It's how most people gain a deeper knowledge of and connection to Canada. Many of us think that's important.
I'm glad you are here.
thanks :)
Nope
I may have missed something, but the evidence here doesn’t seem to support the conclusion you’re drawing.
From your own description, you were on CBC multiple times (2016–2017), later appeared on Radio-Canada, were invited onto Piya Chattopadhyay’s program, participated in a Sunday morning CBC panel for roughly two years, and were on CBC Radio’s syndication service several times. All while being on an alleged “blacklist.” That’s a surprising list of appearances for someone making your claims.
What the article actually demonstrates is that at some point you stopped being invited onto certain CBC current-affairs programs. That may feel like the door closed, but it’s not evidence of a blacklist. Media bookings are discretionary and change constantly with producers, editorial direction, and guest demand.
The strongest claim in the broader discussion right now comes from Travis Dhanraj’s parliamentary testimony about a supposed list of 45 people CBC wouldn’t book. But even there, no list, document, or corroboration has been produced. At this point, all we really have are perceptions of exclusion.
Which leaves a simpler possibility that the piece never really considers: maybe certain producers just decided they didn’t want to book you anymore. That happens to commentators all the time, across outlets and across the political spectrum.
None of that proves, or even really suggests, a blacklist. It mostly shows how easy it is to interpret perceived slights as an institutional conspiracy - even when the available facts seem to contradict the claim.
Plus, you seem to think CBC shouldn’t exist just because a list of 45 people you claim are “blacklisted” that all of Canada in remote places should not receive news. Make no mistake, no commercial provider will ever supply Nunavut (and, no internet is not a viable alternative) or the Yukon or NWT. The hubris of southern Canadians is breathtaking at times.
While I agree with the general statement here, I have to say that there is also no evidence that geography makes one unreasonable any more than skin colour, height, or accent. Small minds and arrogance can exist anywhere.
But leaving large swaths of Canadians without news
I find some are confused between the CBC being loyal to the Canadian Crown (the institutions) and mistaking that for being loyal to a corporate political party brand.
Westerners are so indoctrinated in individualism that they don't see the systems around them, and thus can't ever understand what is needed to fix those systems.
Note: I'm not "conservative", and I've considered the CBC to be a political opponent for decades. I'm one of those who believe in #DefundThePolice and #DefundTheCBC -- for the same anti-racist, anti-colonialism, anti-Empire reasons.
I'm all for PUBLIC broadcasting, but I don't think CBC qualifies.
Russel you don’t really believe taking police off the streets makes all of us safer do you? Canada is a damn successful Colony of a former Empire. Perhaps you have not jumped on some opportunities in your life or life is happier ranting against “the man”.
Join the Army,they need someone like you to teach how things really are.
I have noted over the years that it is different people that push back against #DefundThePolice than #DefundTheCBC , even though I consider both these institutions to be agents of ongoing settler-colonialism.
Do you believe that #DefundThePolice is about "taking police off the streets"?
Law enforcement has become a catch-all service for anything that the Dominion governments don't have a specific service for. There are separate fire fighters and ambulances, but so many other services are needed where "Policing" isn't relevant to the requirement.
I'm not blaming police officers for what to me seem like obvious failures, but the systems (laws/institutions/etc) of Canada. I'm not a subscriber to Western European concepts of individualism, so this isn't about "the man" -- but flawed and antiquated systems.
https://r.flora.ca/p/should-you-be-upset-at-individual
I believe the Dominion of Canada has been “successful” as a fork of two European Christian Empires -- while the 1867 land claims as well as Newfoundland and PEI can be claimed to relate to the British Empire, all the other expansion on this continent was done by the Dominion of Canada. Due to more than 70% of Canada's population being south of the 49'th, this Westward and Northward expansion created a dominant center and subordinate peripheries -- an Empire.
https://r.flora.ca/p/alberta
I am someone who is anti-racist and anti-colonial, so Canada being a "successful" ongoing example of settler-colonialism is something I'd like to be pushed into the past. So many loyalists to the institutions of Canada are stuck in 1700's and 1800's mindsets, and it is currently 2026.
BTW: I'm retired, and too old to join the military. As someone of Scottish, Irish and French descent who was born on land claimed the jurisdiction of Canada, and granted Canadian citizenship at birth, I would be rejected as a candidate for military service as I'm not loyal to what I consider to be the foreign institutions of Canada.
Maybe you are just a poor writer? How many times does the word ‘like’ appear in the above article, used in a conversational filler way?
Four times in 1253 words. Also, CBC is mostly broadcast, not print.
Indeed - and one wonders how many time this conversational filler/ crutch word would make an appearance in actual broadcast format, when it's already making appearances in written form.
Feel free to answer the question for yourself by watching or listening to the hundreds of thousands of hours of me talking that are available online.
You always have a snarky response, even to valid criticism. When will you grow up?
If you think that response is snarky, you should never be in proximity to me, because your exquisitely sensitive snarkometer will explode in about a nanosecond.
Whatever. Okay. Good.
Who is on the blacklist
One would think being blacklisted by the CBC should be viewed as a badge of honour? But maybe Nora misses the adulation? L’affaire Humboldt would be enough to terminate anyone's credibility, to be fair. And what about "They could no longer risk having people accidentally say anything about Israel..." ?? --> Seems the CBC found lots of others to say anything about Israel, just not Nora! LMAO!!
Nora, you gonna go up to Nunavut and provide news? Answer the question honestly. PS, Internet ain’t happening up there all the time. So be honest, can you rival CBC? If so, why.
Please tey to be serious, Elaine.
I M, but clearly you are not
I don’t believe you. You have no proof.
Do I believe that CBC will not provide air for everyone. I do believe that. Do I believe CBC is overly concerned with providing safe space for those willing to denigrate First Nations citizens, immigrant citizens, and BIPOC citizens? Yes. Do I believe that CBC is willing to provide extra space to CPC because M. Poilievre cut off their access last year? Yes. Because of that has CBC board lost their neutrality because of the loss of access, yes, they did. They never called it out. They allowed it to continue without comment. That speaks ill of a national news source that supplies news to the uttermost breadth of Canada. This cannot continue to happen. Nor can a political party stop a news source to remote Canada just because they do not like it. CBC is a unifying Canadian voice that includes the north when all Canadians need that inclusion. Make no mistake no commercial media will ever do the same.
In the Summer of 2015 I noticed a change in the lead story choices of the National after Mansbridge moved on. Almost all Social justice/ victim choices. I decided to keep track of the top three story choices on the National and then an hour later for the CTV national broadcast for two weeks.
CBC had feminist,immigrant,indigenous or
Victim story’s every night.
CTV was far more balanced including a major disaster that CBC ignored
I rarely watch CBC anymore as the preaching is tedious and ignores the Citizens that pay for it.
Not So much about "pleasing the state" as pleasing advertisers. Playing it safe, avoiding risks that anyone might be offended. A recipe for bland, empty reporting that states the obvious and skirts anything controversial!
Not you. They love people like you.
Also, I find it amusing when Canadian "independent journalists" rag on the CBC as if that broadcaster has any credibility left among the average, critical, not woke Canadian. It would be like me still complaining about the girl who wore the same dress as me to the high school prom, 35 years ago...lol...I only turn on the CBC now for fun, guessing whether the topic will be a. Identity porn, b. Trump derangement Syndrome, or c. Marxist flimflam... it's a fun game.
Also thanks for finding a useful way to spin the Dhanraj testimony.
"How Canada Works"... sounds like a good title for a Kids' CBC series. Peut-etre une presentation des jumelles Loreto?