Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

cpb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–596 of 596 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#591

Post by timbit42 »

transcriptase wrote: post #524
timbit42 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of Canadians seem to think the CBC is overly biased but that the BBC is less biased, but the BBC is actually more biased than the CBC. A lot of Canadians also think the CBC is too expensive but it is less expensive than the BBC and public media in most of the EU. The British government pays BBC $100/person/year. The Canadian government pays CBC $29/person/year.

The CBC is biased in the sense of what they won’t include in a story, or not cover until they’re the only Canadian news outlet not covering an event. You will never see the CBC break a story about something that makes the Liberal party or a person or group they consider marginalized look bad. Only once CTV, Global, NatPost, G&M have it on the front page will CBC cover it and usually leave out certain things that migh…

This is incorrect. CBC has broken stories that made the Liberal party look bad.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#592

Post by ncr100 »

ta1243 wrote: post #399
ncr100 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I speculate it started in the 1950s. There was a move to make Business about numbers over People, per my Grandpa's "Back In My Day" speeches he used to give me. He blamed the MBA (no offense to MBAs) for encouraging money-over-people thinking. This then leads to GOP appearing to value winning political power for itself over building a healthy society, in my view.

Probably around the time your Gradpa started paying attention (post ww2). The 1920s and the great depression were hardly non-weird times.

Ya possibly!

He and rest of my family of that era were deeply impacted by racism, ideological weirdness as you put it. Immigrants, refugees.

Makes me sick seeing what the GOP and their racist base are doing today. Wishing I had the balls to join in some legal actions against those turkeys.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#593

Post by jaybrendansmith »

mike_hearn wrote: post #587
jaybrendansmith wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always find examples. But it's a question of frequency. I can turn on Fox and in 1 second hear a falsehood. The key is the process ... NPR, BBC, PBS always have to show their sources and are required to have verification of sources. That's how news used to work, but now it doesn't in the 24-hour infotainment cycle. The fact that these public sources must have 2 sources means 99% of what they report is accurat…

You need to double check all your beliefs about the media before continuing this thread. There's no nice way to say this, but your posts have been a stream of totally made up "facts" that are making this discussion worse. - You claimed Fox never reported on the stock market crash, something easily disproved with a five second web search. - You claimed having two sources yields 99% accuracy, a made up number. - You cl…

So you are stating flatly that Fox has the same journalistic ethics as NPR and BBC? Really? That's your argument? "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears." - Orwell.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#594

Post by jaybrendansmith »

tekknik wrote: post #588
jaybrendansmith wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything comes down to statistics. There are no perfect solutions. But showing multiple sources reduces the obvious errors to an error margin that ensures most people are well-informed. And they have to be real, verified sources, not facebook posts or tweets.

So if those multiple sources are all biased, like news media tends to be, then really you’re masquerading as having balanced sources that prove your point yet they’re all biased. Right?

It's called journalistic ethics. Look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_ethics_in_media https://www.npr.org/ethics https://www.pbs.org/standards/accuracy/ https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/policies/codeofcondu...

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#595

Post by transcriptase »

timbit42 wrote: post #591
transcriptase wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CBC is biased in the sense of what they won’t include in a story, or not cover until they’re the only Canadian news outlet not covering an event. You will never see the CBC break a story about something that makes the Liberal party or a person or group they consider marginalized look bad. Only once CTV, Global, NatPost, G&M have it on the front page will CBC cover it and usually leave out certain things that migh…

This is incorrect. CBC has broken stories that made the Liberal party look bad.

Such as? And let’s limit the scope to Justin Trudeau’s time as PM. I’m not aware of them breaking any of the dozen major scandals or even one of the countless minor controversies involving the LPC in the last decade. I’m sure since you say I’m incorrect you can give at least a couple examples going back to 2016.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#596

Post by quails8mydog »

mike_hearn wrote: post #580
quails8mydog wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't even talking about enforcement, I neither pay nor fall afoul of the terms. I can't find any evidence of BBC employees calling it "far left", all I find when searching for that is right wing people calling it far left for not agreeing with them enough as well as some more "scientific" analysis that seemed to show it having a right wing bias. Most news bias raters put BBC as centre or centre left (it probably…

Look at my other comment for one simple example from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43881222 But as you just discovered, there are endless examples. Dismissing criticism of BBC bias as "right wing people calling it far left for not agreeing with them enough" is almost tautological: yes, that's what bias looks like, the people it's biased against will disagree with them a lot. Not because they're…

I don't think discussing further is going to be very productive given how entrenched your views are.

Just for the record in case someone stumbles across this in future. Chris Middleton worked freelance for the BBC and was let go for making a parody song criticising the winter fuel payment cuts. The figure criticised is ostensibly left wing, but repeatedly criticised for being too centrist/right wing compared to where Labour usually stand and his previously stated position. That's what happened here, the person fired was criticising him from the left, i.e. their political stance was too left wing for the BBC (or maybe the BBC doesn't allow strong political stances in any direction).

Post reply on HN