A thought. No matter how angry you might be about an egregious or noxious piece of public radio programming - you may want to consider the precedent/consequences of inviting cabinet ministers to interfere with such programming decisions. Because some day a future Heritage Minister may well do so.
Comments
We either turn it into THE reliable reference or we are doomed.
Agreed about the disconnect between what's being done and what's needed. Almost feels like sabotage. (Have none of these people studied History, Political Science, Behavioral Psychology?)
Which is no better, IMO. Not in regards to this.
"The bus driver meant well" but still drove the world off a cliff.
I agree with you. The CBC needs a serious shake up.
Pascale St-Onge has the right idea.
Is it a free speech free for all? If we allow blatant pandering to NYT-style sanewashing, does that mean we also allow Newsmax-adjacent leadership to hijack the entire CRTC if the wrong party gets elected?
Does the CBC not have standards and practices
and tell me where those indicate best tell the audience “ to their own fact checking online” is appropriate at all when one of the guests deliberately spreading misinformation
If this would send us down a slippery slope of intervention, that counts against having a CBC, period.
this isn't at all about what a Heritage Minister might do.
it's about normalizing threats to our sovereignty
I hope new journalists are being educated differently.
It's subjective.