This is the Overton window at work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window In the US, it goes far beyond broadcasting. Note how lin manuel miranda's Hamilton has gone from Obama era cultural gold to "cringe-worthy" - https://www.vox.com/22641501/hamilton-parks-rec-harry-potter...

Or how JKR on Harry Potter went from being vilified by conservative voices to the modern "She who will not be named" of Lefty HBO.

(response to post that was just deleted)

'critical to note that she is just recounting of her own perception of herself.'

Tara is outlining why she quit a job she couldn't do anymore because the CBC were ignoring important local stories to focus on CRT, identity politics and racialization of everything, biased reporting and click bait.

'People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported. Or why our pop culture radio show’s coverage of the Dave Chappelle Netflix special failed to include any of the legions of fans, or comics, that did not find it offensive. Or why, exactly, taxpayers should be funding articles that scold Canadians for using words such as “brainstorm” and “lame.”'

Most journalists know if they get paid they are expected to promote the owner's views - the line between pr and journalism is a fine one - but that they will be promoting wholesome, useful values and information. When the owners lurch too far people leave, both writers and readers/viewers, leaving a weak core.

Once you've lied and/or lost your audience's trust it is a very hard road back. It was smart of her to get out while she still had her integrity imo

I always considered the idea of CBC to be... extremely weird. Having government approved journalists on government payroll sure sounds like something out of China, Russia or Cuba. Not a western democracy. From the article:

> To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others.

Here you can see someone "from the top" made that request and that the (taxpayer funded) employees are filling out their request. So much for "journalistic independence".

To me that, and that they are using taxpayer money to fund sitcoms and entertainment while it's one of the most profitable businesses on earth, is completely bizarre. I mean Disney and Marvel made billions just last year simply by producing content people want to watch!

> Most journalists know if they get paid they are expected to promote the owner's views - the line between pr and journalism is a fine one - but that they will be promoting wholesome, useful values and information. When the owners lurch too far people leave, both writers and readers/viewers, leaving a weak core.

At the same time they can push this ultra-liberal agenda because they aren't subjected to market forces. It doesn't matter if more and more people tune out, funding is guaranteed and comes straight from the (captive) taxpayers.

Lastly, for an "anti-racist" media, they aired content that was quite racist not that long ago, and refused to edit any of it. [0]. Maybe some races are more equal than other according to these people!

[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cbc-apology-story-of-u...

Calling the CBC “Government approved journalists on the government payroll” is an extremely misleading description of what is an overwhelmingly common situation in English speaking democracies.

Canada has the CBC, the UK the BBC, Australia the ABC and NZ TVNZ and associated entities. None of these are Pravda, they’re all arms-length, independently run organisations.

I’m sure they’re all far from perfect (I’m happy to share my opinions on the non-CBC ones in an appropriate thread) but what media organisation is?

You're running straight into an established Canadian conservative talking point. It's pushed relentlessly by private news organisations who would reap financial benefit from the CBC being defunded. These organizations also happen to be the major news and opinion source for many conservative people in this country, so there's a convenient feedback loop in place. I'm sure this is not dissimilar to the other countries listed.

I agree with the majority of the linked substack in this thread, I think that the quality of CBC journalism is on a pretty clear downward trend, and I think that ignoring widespread societal issues to focus on the ultra-niche "darling of Twitter" social issues is journalistic malpractice at best.

That being said, the comparison of the CBC to Chinese state-run news broadcasting (while extremely common from conservative opinion makers in this country) is, I'm sorry, a completely childish take.

I really don't see how one could look at CBCs news coverage and feel that way. It's the propaganda arm of the Liberal party, plain and simple. The "childish" take would be really believing that CBC is anything but a liberal mouthpiece. All mainstream Canadian news organizations are garbage, I don't mean to say there is a better alternative, but our tax money only pays for one of them.

If the CBC was the "propaganda arm" of the Liberal party, it would follow that they were be extremely negative towards the NDP and the Green party. The combined share of left-wing vote in Canada swamps the combined right-wing vote, and it's not particularly close. In 2021, there were 9 million left-wing votes and 6 million right-wing votes. If we put the BQ with the left-wing(which in my view isn't unreasonable), it's 10.5 million versus 6 million.

If the CBC had daily meetings where they planned on how to elect the Liberals in the next election, the most logical course of action would not to go after Conservatives, but to spend their time going after the other left-wing parties.

But, of course, that's not what happens. Why does that not happen? Because they're not a "propaganda arm" for the Liberal party, they are biased towards small L liberal viewpoints. And that difference is the difference between the CBC and a state-run propaganda program. The childishness is equating the two.

(FWIW, I know three people who work for the CBC, one of whom is a complete moron, and two of whom are good humans. All three are left-wing in their personal lives, but if any of them were in a meeting where it was discussed how to elect the Liberals in the next election, they would walk out on the spot. The idea that that happens is purely a Conservative fantasy.)

> If the CBC was the "propaganda arm" of the Liberal party, it would follow that they were be extremely negative towards the NDP and the Green party

These two account for virtually nothing (unless I'm missinterpreting how seat allocation works up north). They aren't a threat.

> But, of course, that's not what happens. Why does that not happen? Because they're not a "propaganda arm" for the Liberal party

You seem to believe you have better information and political skills than their paid staff. That's a bold statement.

> but if any of them were in a meeting where it was discussed how to elect the Liberals in the next election, they would walk out on the spot. The idea that that happens is purely a Conservative fantasy.

I have no doubts that your friends aren't invited to these meetings. It's happening behind closed doors way above their paygrade.

The statement that "the NDP and Green Party aren't a political threat to the Liberal party" is a staggering misunderstanding of a situation on which you are speaking authoritatively.

With the utmost respect, I think an elementary understanding of multi-party democracies would be a useful first step for this discussion.

It may be instructive to look at some of the key Canadian swing ridings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Hill_(electoral_distr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchener%E2%80%94Conestoga#El... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Moody%E2%80%94Coquitlam#E... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitt_Meadows%E2%80%94Maple_Rid...

There's a reason that Canadian Conservatives have fought tooth-and-nail against any type of ranked-choice voting system. I genuinely believe that the Conservatives would not win another election in my lifetime in a ranked-choice system.

I could go on, linking to abundant examples of CBC savaging all parties but I’ll sum up your take with one summarizing word: bullshit.

> is an extremely misleading description of what is an overwhelmingly common situation in English speaking democracies.

... but who signs the check?

> they're all arms-length, independently run organizations.

I have no doubts they claim to be. It's pretty convenient to have a news organization that you can claim is "independent", but that will still take commands from you. Like, for example, if you don't want a certain story to be heard. After all, you are signing the check...

Even better, because you subsidize it so much it makes it harder for truly independent medias to survive, so it becomes a single source of "truth". Because your competitor has to make money and attract viewers, while the state-backed network doesn't.

Look at it this way - without government-funded journalism, the only voices are corporate ones. I think it's good to have both, even if neither is fully independent.

I think this is a massively under-appreciated point. Look for how often minority views are given voice on corporate broadcasts and you will immediately see the value of the CBC and its cousin organizations in other commonwealth countries.

I have been exposed to easily 100x more diversity of views and ideas outside my bubble due to the CBC than I have with any corporate broadcaster. We need more of this today - not less.

On the contrary, it's essential for a modern democracy to have an independent news system along with independent judiciary, statistics and central bank. Any privately owned organization will reflect the biases of its owners and the public needs an independent view. Of course, just as with other independent organs of governance, there must be a mechanism for ensuring that the quality of work being done in the public interest is up to standard.

I think a lot of what is happening inside the CBC reflects what is happening in Canada's public service generally. The whole institution has gone from traditional "Liberal" left to a bad caricature of the US left (especially because in Canada we don't have many of the same issues).

Examples?

This is not at all how journalism works.

Journalism requires editorial freedom, who pays the bills should have literally no impact on reporting; this is true even when with meta coverage of the publication or owner in question.

Anything else is not journalism.

> Journalism requires editorial freedom, who pays the bills should have literally no impact on reporting

And yet we all know that's not what really happens.

'In journalism, a hack writer is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer

Kind of … more and more journalism outfits are going towards non-profit status. That usually involves some sort of ideological position: National Review is neoconservative, Jacobite is far left, n+1 is progressive.

That’s not really what we usually mean by news, but that’s the mode being adopted by many news outlets.

The UK Guardian is an interesting example of a highly ideological oped/news spin organization that relies heavily on the readers it influences to fund itself, which has been quite successful recently after hemorrhaging cash and readers previously under its 'run by a trust' model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

> That’s not really what we usually mean by news, but that’s the mode being adopted by many news outlets.

National Review was founded in 1955, and is the only one of the examples you cite that even pretends to have a journalistic component (though its overtly mainly commentary); Jacobin is overtly commentary, not news; n+1 is a literary, rather than journalistic, outlet.

That's not really good examples of a novel trend in journalism.

I didn’t give any examples of for-profits that converted to non-profits. My examples are expository, not argumentative.

> Or how JKR on Harry Potter went from being vilified by conservative voices to the modern "She who will not be named" of Lefty HBO.

well, that's for one very specific and notable reason alone, not because of some shifting moral landscape.

She got cancelled for an essay that essentially says, “Trans women are fine, and I support them, but they are not the same as people who are born women”, which is a position that went from relatively uncontroversial to transphobic within the last five or so years.

What point was she trying to make by highlighting any distinction?

Intention of the writer is not the point. The fact that she is saying something that would be accepted as "policy" in the overton window previously but is now grounds for a coordinated shunning is a good example of how the window shifts over time.

I think she was countering the assertion that there is no distinction with the fact that the distinction is real, and is important.

And a different edge of said window expanded to include actual ethno-fascists.

This is not whataboutism, just want to portray the scenario in a more complete light.

I think that the Overton Window shattered.

To explain what I mean, let me start by defining a personal Overton Window. Each individual person has a range of what they, personally consider to be "acceptable ideas". I, personally, have my own politics, but I consider other views to be acceptable, even if I don't agree with them. Both Democrats and Republicans have some views that are within my personal window, but not all ideas of either side.

Society has an Overton Window when most people hold views that are within most other peoples' personal Overton Windows. For example, in 1950 there was a society-wide Overton Window on gay marriage - it was outside the personal Overton Window of, say, 98% of the population, so 98% of the people had views that fit within 98% of the peoples' personal Overton Window. That's a society-wide Overton Window.

Now it's different. Now, say, 40% of the people still have gay marriage outside their personal Overton Window. (All numbers made up on the spot, but I think they're approximately right.) But 25% of the people think that opposing gay marriage is unacceptable - it's outside their personal Overton Window. The remaining 35% are somewhere in the middle. There is no position that the majority of the people fit in. That's a shattered Overton Window.

But the people who are in media have more of a consensus Overton Window. But it doesn't match the peoples' Overton Window (then again, nothing does, because there is no consensus view).

This split - the media has a more unified view than the people do - is why so many people feel unrepresented by the media.

Actual ethno-fascists?

There is a thread of "legitimate white supremacy" winding its way around the internet at an increasing pace since around 2015. Tiktok memes, 4chan's /pol/, certain facebook groups, etc. It has a weird "shape"; the boundaries are seemingly intentionally indefinite.

There were always 'stormfronters' on the internet, like the edgy kid everyone made fun of who carried around Mein Kampf in highschool. But now, all of a sudden, that kid has a bunch of new friends who have left their old cliques to start listening to this asshole.

I specify this as "legitimate" because I see the "woke activist" crowd accusing basically everything of being white supremacist.

She was talking about ethno-stalinists, not fascists

>Neilsen demonstrates that the legacy media are dying fast, fewer and fewer people are tuned in as the broadcasting becomes more and more toxic. This is a good thing imo.

But is it a good thing?

A free press can be thought of as the sensory organs of the polity. If the sensory organs are faulty, or worse are deliberately lying, then alternative sensory organs may fill in the blanks with less robust information. These days, when you read a story from mainstream sources, it's often best to say, "well, I don't know anything about this story, but it's pretty safe to assume that what I just read is either wrong or nonsense." That's really not good. It gets worse if the only alternatives are just as wrong, or just as nonsensical, and you have to apply some kind of boolean bullshit math to get some outline of what the issue even is.

The erosion of public trust isn't a short-term problem.

By 'free press' here I think you mean state sponsored and/or corporate 'news' outlets. The internet has transcended these last century print and broadcast foundationed constructs long ago, but their owners prop up their mastheads as though they are still the top tier of 'fact checked' integrity, despite the fact they are now in some cases sloppier than the Drudge Report ever was.

Tara presumably left a salaried job where her job description changed. Good for her, now the challenge is building credibility on the censorship dominated internet and staying on the right side of the big tech editorial platform gatekeepers....CDA230 where are you?

>> CDA230 where are you?

Right where it has always been, ensuring that online services are not held liable for third party content regardless of moderation choices.

If you’re referring to being banned from twitter or not appearing on the first page of google as “censorship”, then your beef is with the first amendment, not 230.

By "free press," I mean a First Amendment-type operation. Which we probably don't really have at the moment, for the reasons (state sponsored/corporate sponsored) you state.

The Internet did transcend that once upon a time, except now it's just even more corporate sponsored and controlled. There is no First Amendment-type operation as, if a corporate entity wants to, they can deplatform you at the access, services, network, or financing tier, with the full support of the government.

Which wouldn't be so bad, except the government is also fully co-opted by corporate interests. We had a free market and let capitalism take over, and now we don't have a free market, neither in goods and services, nor in information.

The main points of this article (roughly, that the supposedly-centrist-but-actually-left-wing media now cares more about wokeness than real news) have been made prominently and continuously since the days of Rush Limbaugh. The old joke about liberal media coverage of the apocalypse ("WORLD ENDS, WOMEN AND MINORITIES HIT HARDEST") dates from 1988.

And now 'women' are no longer in that category, which may be contributing to Tara's alienation.

Maybe the news media are just playing out a future where every minority within a minority needs to have it's fifteen minutes of being seen and then watch the attention it receives get diverted to the next most underrepresented group until we run out of turtles.

I feel we have a (not accidental) misunderstanding about left/right in the US, which serves to misdirect everyone from acknowledging class. Focusing on identity serves only to split the lower and middle classes. Whereas the elites exhibit marvelous class solidarity.

The political center wanders more than the magnetic north pole at the moment!

>It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, frequently sparking tension by questioning identity politics. This happened in the span of about 18 months. My own politics did not change.

The whole left/right division has completely lost its point. You can see it if you list the typical points of disagreement, order them from most discussed to least discussed, and look at stances from left to right:

  COVID vaccines: mandate -> encourage -> offer for all -> offer for vulnerable -> ignore
  Climate Change: ban plastics/meat/kids -> subsidize solar/wind -> promote nuclear -> work on mitigations -> declare hoax
  Race: discriminate majority -> be color-blind -> discriminate minorities
  Homeless + petty crime: tolerate -> prosecute -> punish progressively
  Homeless + mental issues: tolerate -> offer treatment -> force treatment -> imprison
  LGBT: set quotas + role model for kids -> allow with no special benefits -> frown upon -> criminalize
  Immigration: allow arbitrarily -> set quotas -> allow high-skilled only -> ban
  Abortions: allow -> allow for medical reasons -> ban
  Housing: increase density -> ban foreign capital/increase rates -> develop new areas -> do nothing

What typically happens is a vocal person holding a specific opinion on a specific topic declares everyone left from them "communist" or everyone right from them "far right", implying that they have the leftmost/rightmost stances on all other topics. So people that would normally agree on some middle-ground solution for most topics end up at the opposing sides of the artificial division.

We must resist it and look at specific problems and specific solutions and call bullshit on anyone trying to generalize and alienate someone based on their affiliation.

P.S. Note how impactful topics like interest rate, retirement, corporations taking place of middle class owner-operated businesses, etc. are not even on the radar.