Talk:CBC News/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on CBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

CBC News Bias

There seems to be some grievances with the content covered in the "Allegations of Liberal Bias" section of the article. I've created this thread so these issues may be discussed and debated. Given the touchy subject and limited characters allotted for undoing edits I feel this is a good way to prevent future edit wars.Spilia4 (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

supposed liberal bias

The Conservative Party of Canada have accused CBC News of liberal media bias because they want to discredit them and remove funding. So CBC has responded to it without admitting to media bias yet that's how it's sourced. Op-ed pieces from discredited writers are no better. Now we have edit warring to include poor sourced. WTF? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is neutral and should include statements from all sides. The Conservative Party claiming bias should be included in the section, even if the claim is proven in the future to be untrue (currently it has not been disproved, and if it has please expand the article to include this). Most of the content in the section is from third party sources such as the Toronto Star, National Post and Toronto Sun. All sources in the section are from legitimate outlets. None of the writers are discredited. Please note that while your particular ideology clearly does not support the allegations the content still includes a place on Wikipedia. Spilia4 (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem the content you added is not neutral. It's not even sourced correctly. Compare the section in CNBC where there's actual substance to the claim of "anti-conservative bias". The National Post content you added to the CBC article is also an opinion piece. I have not seen your third-party pieces from the Toronto Star or Toronto Sun but look forward to seeing them. I have not stated my ideology either, simply what the media has reported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Toronto Sun and Star sources are already listed. Though the National Post article is not entire neutral, it is also not a biased piece as it is an analytical analysis and is considered a legitimate source for Wikipedia. I did not add the opinionated McLean's piece, I was just migrating it over from the CBC article. I would not oppose this being removed, but the NP article and CBC statement are legitimate sources for Wikipedia.Spilia4 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

the length is WP:UNDUE based in the size of the discussion of bias in the two sources I've seen. They mention it in a single sentence while discussing something entirely different. If you want, I'd be glad to take them (and the two others that I have not seen) to WP:RSN to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to rewrite it with an eye towards WP:DUE weight. Some thoughts: It's undue to give every individual opinion piece its own paragraph; individually, none of them add anything that the others don't say as well, so it makes more sense to combine them into a single sentence saying that some conservative figures have accused the CBC of bias. The vote compass debate seems completely out of place, too (the sources don't really relate it to the broader issue of bias, and trying to present it as evidence that the CBC as a whole is biased would be original research on our part), so I've removed it entirely. The funding discussion had the same problem - we can only use sources where someone explicitly mentions bias; none of those, that I could see, discussed it directly, so they don't belong in this section. Also, we should avoid duplicating this section on two articles, so I'll replace it with a link here on the main CBC article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the familiarity (with Wikipedia) to do the edits myself, but the "allegations of bias" section is shockingly lacking and needs improvement. All the listed allegations are implied to come from the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper and his supporters, when in fact many complaints are directed at CBC over their apparent political bias on news stories on a daily basis on their own website, when CBC users have the rare chance to comment on articles. Many opinion pieces are not labeled as such. All articles on Donald Trump are usually open to comments, and the ones that CBC keeps up are usually hostile. Anyone who dares to disagree is labelled a Russian troll by their audience which is disturbing for obvious reasons, even if CBC isn't entirely to blame for that. Many users complain of comments being removed if they don't align with the narrative CBC is telling. There's constant complaining about the lack of allowing dissent and contrary opinions. I'm not saying they should allow hate speech but that never seemed to be their intention in trying to limit who speaks out, and when. And those limitations came about long before Trump was president. Articles on Liberal leaders and even Democrats are rarely open to commentary, and "hot button" issues for the left are always protected from corrections or rebuttals. There's also no mention of controversial partisan programs CBC signed off on and present as "history" when they are in fact fiction-based opinions of politically motivated individuals. For example this was taken from "The Valour and the Horror" Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Valour_and_the_Horror): "The series became the subject of an inquiry by the Senate of Canada. The NFB's Commissioner at the time, Joan Pennefather, did appear before the committee to defend the production.[1] Pierre Berton, Margaret Atwood and Shirley Douglas, as well as PEN, the Writer's Union, the Guild, the Producer's Association, and many others defended the series. Military historian Desmond Morton stated, "As the McKennas' critics discovered, one of the most difficult things to do in a free society is to criticize the media...Anyone criticizing the media will find them judge, jury, and defence lawyer in their own case." [8] The Senate sub-committee ultimately sided with the veterans' complaints against the filmmakers. The Sub-committee noted "that the criticisms levelled at The Valour and the Horror are for the most part legitimate. Simply put, although the filmmakers have a right to their point of view, they have failed to present that point of view with any degree of accuracy or fairness."" The decision was made by a bipartisan government institution (however pointless it may be), whereas the defenders listed are a CBC employee, a well-known left wing activist and famous fiction author, an actress with no background in history described on her own Wiki as far left (formed a group called "Friends of the Black Panthers"), and people from the film making community. The CBC Ombudsman sided with the critics with numerous damning statements (also on that Wiki page). Frankly that one page does a better job than this far more important page, as far as describing their bias goes. Surely something in there warrants a sentence; if not a paragraph and wonderful, accurate quote. This kind of lack of editorializing standards persists today, and in my opinion shouldn't. I get the sense the problem might be contagious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.242.43 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be a reverse bias. If there was an ongoing problem, rather than individual cases like this, I could see the point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CBC News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)