The guy is a idiot. The CBC should broadcast news with substance and accuracy neither are ever present from Conservative dialogue these days.
I also don't know how CBC could lose this one since they probably have hundreds of articles in the last few years showing they go out of their way to find a Conservative to provide their idiotic opinion.
He said he felt shows like Power & Politics would just have Liberal talking points on all the time, and that as a network, the CBC needed balance.
"There were repeated episodes of Conservatives being blocked. I mean, I have the G-chats right here. I said in terms of getting folks on, that we need to have balance," Dhanraj said.
Agreed, there's a confusion between "balance" and "clout". When media just invite people based on right or left clout, audiences lose in terms of quality information. We end up receiving echo chambers on the airwaves because these clout chasers repeat talking points at us. Clout chasers in turn just want to maintain their own reputation and this loop turns into a toxic signals circle.
It would suit the interests of corporate and right wing elements for him to advance this case, both in court and in the media. Maybe they are taking some of the financial burden off his virtuous pursuit of truth...
Yes it's pretty in line with the what they do these days. He loses they rage over the institutional people out to get them, he wins they'll rage over institutional people out to get them.
Sounds like he probably should have stayed in commercial media. The article itself is interesting because of its authorship and the issues that raises.
CBC P&P has had Danielle Smith, Scott Moe and Pierre Poilievre on for interviews more recently than David Eby or Wab Kinew. Also the political insiders on the Power Panels aren't afraid of making fun of the party they are or were previously affiliated with.
7 Comments
SamuelRJankis@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 179d
The guy is a idiot. The CBC should broadcast news with substance and accuracy neither are ever present from Conservative dialogue these days.
I also don't know how CBC could lose this one since they probably have hundreds of articles in the last few years showing they go out of their way to find a Conservative to provide their idiotic opinion.
runsmooth@kopitalk.net · 6 pts · 179d
Agreed, there's a confusion between "balance" and "clout". When media just invite people based on right or left clout, audiences lose in terms of quality information. We end up receiving echo chambers on the airwaves because these clout chasers repeat talking points at us. Clout chasers in turn just want to maintain their own reputation and this loop turns into a toxic signals circle.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 179d
It would suit the interests of corporate and right wing elements for him to advance this case, both in court and in the media. Maybe they are taking some of the financial burden off his virtuous pursuit of truth...
SamuelRJankis@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 178d
Yes it's pretty in line with the what they do these days. He loses they rage over the institutional people out to get them, he wins they'll rage over institutional people out to get them.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 179d
Sounds like he probably should have stayed in commercial media. The article itself is interesting because of its authorship and the issues that raises.
Rentlar@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 179d
CBC P&P has had Danielle Smith, Scott Moe and Pierre Poilievre on for interviews more recently than David Eby or Wab Kinew. Also the political insiders on the Power Panels aren't afraid of making fun of the party they are or were previously affiliated with.
TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website · 4 pts · 179d
What I understand from this is that Dhanraj thought it was a good idea to ask notorious con
servativeman their ideaDarylInCanada@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 178d