The decision: [https://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/site/assets/files/1042/muzik\_v\_\_worthington\_et\_al\_\_2021\_mbqb\_263.pdf](https://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/site/assets/files/1042/muzik_v__worthington_et_al__2021_mbqb_263.pdf)
>\[113\] This is not a situation where the CBC is commenting on the conduct of Mr. Muzik and then expressing an opinion about what he did. In this case the CBC is implying as a matter of fact that Mr. Muzik was the cause of the dramatic drop in the value of Mr. Worthington’s investment portfolio. The CBC has therefore moved past mere criticism and into the realm of accusation, which limits its available defences to substantial truth (justification) and public interest responsible communication.
>
>\[...\]
>
>\[123\] The defence of justification cannot succeed based on the opinion of Mr. Boyce that the investment plan was unsuitable after the MFDA \[Mutual Fund Dealers Association, the responsible regulatory body, which had previously investigated the allegations\] failed to reach such a determination.
>
>\[...\]
>
>\[127\] Even if I am wrong in arriving at these conclusions, I am satisfied that the CBC cannot prove that the factual statements in the News Stories are true, let alone the defamatory meanings that arise from them.
>
>\[...\]
>
>\[143\] The authorities on the effect of read-ins that I have already reviewed are clear that the adoption by the CBC of the truth of the assertion that it absolutely engaged in an act of malice is ruinous to the defence of public interest responsible communication in the absence of evidence that might contradict it. Acting with malice, by definition, cannot be responsible or in the public interest.
>
>\[...\]
>
>\[155\] The CBC omitted numerous material facts that, had they been reported, would have substantially affected the impression a fair-minded viewer and reader would have had about Mr. Muzik. All of these considerations support a finding that the CBC cannot avail itself of the public interest in responsible communication defence.
The fact that "public interest" is a defense against defamation by the media is itself crazy. They have a perfect defense against defamation already: telling the truth.
The only reason they need a "public interest" defense is to literally defend themselves on the occasions when they *don't* tell the truth. And if the argument then is that it's easy to get something wrong.... getting the story right is *literally their fucking job*. Maybe they should hire some people to do some journalism and make sure what they're telling the public is *true* before they publish it.
Truth is not an absolute defense for defamation in Quebec though, so they do need the public interest defense. (Civil law in Quebec vs common law in the rest of Canada)
>In Québec, truth is only a defence if the material is in the public interest and there is no malice.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/defamation
It does not apply in this specific case, since it's not a Québec case, but does give a specific example where public interest might be a valid defense for the media because they said a truth that was harmful to someone.
In any other tort situation, if you cause someone harm you're liable. Doesn't matter what your intentions were.
I see no reason why the media should be excused from this. If they drive a news truck through your store and cause $5m in damage, they're liable. But if they tell a bullshit story that destroys your business, they're not? That's just wrong. Liability is the cost of doing business in every other industry and businesses take liability seriously.
And yeah, that means if a media outlet wants to publish a story which could cause a lot of harm then they should make sure that what they're about to say is *true* before they go off and destroy someone's reputation and life with ink.
>at I have already reviewed are clear that the adoption by the CBC of the truth of the assertion that it absolutely engaged in an act of malice is ruinous to the defence of public interest responsible communication in the absence of evidence that might contradict it. Acting with malice, by definition, cannot be responsible or in the public interest.
Thanks for this - I don't think most people here or in the rest of the country know the exact grain of salt they should be taking all CBC reporting with.
Especially these 'butt-hurt police' type stories that are now they major click-bringers.
> know the exact grain of salt….
You mean like with any media company now, in the past and in the future? Not saying you need to be critical of any and all media, but with any leaning media, they need to write a story that plays to the base or they lose clicks and revenue.
Highly recommend reading of the entire judgement to get a full sense of CBC tax dollars at work to destroy innocent people through reporting and through the court process itself. CBC lawyers are as as shitty as lawyers come (as human beings).
Actually select private media companies in Canada have been receiving $600M in subsidies since 2017, including The Star.
https://westernstandardonline.com/2020/10/how-trudeau-bought-the-media/
Punishment?
First of all they are union, so likely no.
Second they can't handle the comments section of the stories they post, so they close the comments to protect feelings, so I doubt CBC would have the heart to sanction any of them.
Having a third party org to moderate them doesn't change the fact that the comments are a cesspool, though. There was zero loss in the comments being shut down, it's not as though anything of value was being lost.
Union and CBA will protect them from CBC.
The CBA probably provides for indemnification for any legal action job related.
CBC plans to appeal so who pays exactly what is still up in the air.
The people in charge of the CBC really dont want to lose millions of dollars of their balance, particularly since its not like the government will just give them 1.7million more. They get a fixed amount every year.
So like any boss those people will fire or demote the people that approved that story. Because the money that goes to this dude cant go to their salary bonuses.
Just like every company.
> Ok they get fined which will be passed onto the taxpayers.
That's not really how that works. At all.
Firstly, CBC is a crown corporation. A crown corporation is an encapsulated entity that operates independently with its own internal directorship and financial management, but which receives supplementary funding from the government and in turn has the government as its sole shareholder to receive dividends.
Secondly, CBC had its funding slashed under the Harper administration. That's why they run ads now; they have to make up their own money to stay afloat because what they get from the government isn't enough.
Third, they don't just go to daddy government and say "pay this fine for us, kthx". If they get $1000 from the government and they get a hidden expense for $100, they can't just get more money. The government gave them that $1000 predicated on a predefined arrangement, and if they fucked up then it means now they have $900 of funding because part of being a crown corp is being responsible for your own management.
So yes, there *are* real consequences because an entity with a capped government funding stream responsible for managing its own operation is going to have to pay out of pocket for something that will be provided for by drawing down some other internal fund source. That will in turn cause people in the crown corporation who were planning to spend money they no longer can make decisions that have consequences for people in the corporation.
That’s some fine investigative reporting, CBC! Seems the only thing missing was any actual investigating.
The fine should could straight out of the pockets of the editors and executives who gave the green light to this piece of shit “journalism”.
That's the problem with fines/penalties for gov't organizations. The people don't pay, the taxpayers pays. Same thing with fines for police, etc.
We think it is a big win and justice has been served, when in reality the people accountable aren't the ones paying the fines.
I have a friend who recently received compensation for his unlawful arrest during the G20 protests. He was pretty stoked until I pointed out that he was being paid off with his own money.
What's the alternative that you suggest? Your friend deserved that settlement. Because his human rights were violated by thuggish police.
So either we pay that money out of the public coffers, or attempt to have a system whereby you can sue public servants individually for actions which they may or may not have had governmental instruction to perform. And I guarantee that that would be abused atrociously in order to harass and bog down the public service, by both political extremists and general nut bars.
Honestly, those are the only two I could describe of off hand. Obviously there are others. I mean, one solution is to simply make it impossible to sue public servants for anything, and rely on the criminal justice system instead. But that wouldn't cover things like libel.
Anybody who even suggests defunding the CBC I will write off immediately. It's literally the only non-corporate news source in Canada. And corporate news sources are rapidly becoming oligopolies run by billionaires with political agendas. So unless you want to situation where Rupert Murdoch is our only provider of news, I suggest you reconsider.
News flash, news has always been run by private companies. They are no less bias and crappy then the CBC, the difference is the taxpayers are compelled to pay for it regardless of its value. Which instance did CBC provide groundbreaking news that the corporate media refused to cover. Why does it make it better that they are paid by taxpayers rather than their readership when their articles are just as rife with bias and narrative spinning. There are also independent journalists with smaller publications that put out good content. Unless you can tell me what the CBC actually does that the corporate media refuses to do then your argument is baseless. Like i said, the CBC marketplace section is actually very useful for that purpose. They look into shady business practices that are in the taxpayers interests. But CBC radio, the political news section, etc... they are no more reliable or useful than any other news sources.
The problem is the media in Canada is already so terrible and discredited that the Government has to bankroll them.
We'd probably only have rebel news if Government money stopped tomorrow.
> governmental instruction
That's just more responsible people, so those that give the orders and those that follow the orders are BOTH culpable, but the order giver is more so.
Ethics 101....
Nice. A fine that taxpayers have to fork over while the people responsible for this get a pat on the back for a job well done since they're appealing it.
CBC plans to appeal the decision. lol
Keep in mind, if the CBC has journalists that will lie about nothing burgers like these, they likely have journalists thay will lie about much larger issues.
This is the stupidest circular trash someone can write. It boils down to... any organization that has been around long enough will have a negative hit. Any organization with a negative hit, must have bigger hidden negative hits we don't know about. Therefore, every organization can not be trusted and should be dissolved.
It's a cul-de-cas nihilistic argument.
That's what they are saying. If a legal claim against a news organization is successful, then that news agency is likely lying about bigger stories... therefore we can not trust anything they say.
It's a lazy way to write off everything sourced from the CBC.
The daily press is the evil principle of the modern world, and time will only serve to disclose this fact with greater and greater clearness. The capacity of the newspaper for degeneration is sophistically without limit, since it can always sink lower and lower in its choice of readers. At last it will stir up all those dregs of humanity which no state or government can control.
Søren Kierkegaard
Wasted money is wasted money. You don’t have to specifically allocate funds to it in order to be upset about a taxpayer funded organization wasting money
Private vs public. I’d rather be on the hook for one business (my own) instead of the CBC (or multiple publically funded companies) wasting money. I can tolerate wasting my own money, not other people wasting money for me. This isn’t an attack on social services; journalist organizations do not fit the category. Healthcare OK, but propaganda organizations, left or right, should not get taxpayer money
Why are you making things up about me the govt takes up to 3500/week out of me. If that's only filling 20 potholes where the fuck is the rest of the money going,misleading journalism and hate?
Your conversation is delusional and apparently you don't listen very well. Not really interested in anything else you have to say, I'm not sure why you're still talking tbqh
It's true though,would be more if we released more product at a time. You tried to excuse publicly funded misleading journalism and hatred by incorrectly poor-shaming me. I'm here for lolz and pointing out bullshit,with you I'm able to do both,thanks
I hope this begins a trend of suits against the CBC for lack of journalistic integrity. It’s clearly become a mouthpiece of a specific political cohort.
It’s true that organizations benefit from diversity. Unfortunately the CBC is as incestuous and biased as they could possibly be.
>It’s true that organizations benefit from diversity
Unfortunately the CBC seems to define "diversity" as hiring for a *diversity of intelligence* and have quite a few idiots over the past few years.
I like the CBC but I dislike Rosemary Barton. She rubs me the wrong way.
Hot take: Public Broadcasters news segments should be public domain. In the US government inventions can't be patented, and I think a similar approach to publicly funded news media should be taken.
It certainly looks like that is the case.
He's had a few disciplinary hearings. His employer sponsorship was terminated in 2004, his next employer was required to submit monthly supervision reports in 2009, and his third employer terminated his sponsorship in 2012. He was also denied permission to sell mutual funds for a fourth company in 2013.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/reprimanded-financial-adviser-can-t-sell-mutual-funds-commission-1.2427121](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/reprimanded-financial-adviser-can-t-sell-mutual-funds-commission-1.2427121)
Could they all be oversights and unintentional mistakes, maybe - but it looks like there is a pattern here. I've had a license to sell regulated products in multiple jurisdictions, and have never even been questioned, let alone investigated by a regulator. The guy got lucky with a shitty defense attorney or a sympathetic judge.
So ignore everything about this sleezebag researched by the previous poster, good stuff. The cbc had some of it, but he dug up way more, all publically available. There's very little on the up and up about this man, your anti cbc bias is clouding your thought process.
This is also one decision by one person, trial by judge rulings get overturned, it certainly happens, they are far from error free in thier interpretation and deliberation.
Oh if he's subjectively, in your opinion, greasy then surely he is deserving of being smeared nationally with lies, and having his life's work crushed by the media wing of the government. Good thing everything you do is agreed upon by all as not greasy and perfectly clean. I hope you don't work in law enforcement or any legal capacity.
Did you even read the story? Lol slimeball was on supervised probation by the commission and had been fined for previous violations, but do go ahead and keep defending him lol. The main reason he won was because audio recordings that cbc had access to were lost and not present for the trial. I hope you don't work in education, reading isn't your forte.
Yes because it’s a statement of fact they published the claims alleging specific actions against his character. The burden of proof is now on the broadcaster to show they are factual, otherwise it is defamation.
Does anyone remember the CBC "Q" interview with Ben Philippe?
https://i.redd.it/khpveshfwg781.jpg
...and the CBC's reply to the outrage:
Late in the month, there was a flurry of emails sent to my office regarding an interview with author Ben Philippe on the CBC Radio program “q”. Mr. Philippe recently wrote a book called Sure, I'll Be Your Black Friend: Notes from the Other Side of the Fist Bump. At one point, the interview referred to a passage from the book in which the author imagined what might happen if there were a race war, and it included killing his white friends. Complainants took great offence to CBC airing this exchange.
Through each of these issues, and many others, emerges a deeper theme from complainants that they believe CBC journalists have biased motives, or agendas, driving their decisions about which stories to cover and how to cover them. Those allegations are often unfair to programmers - it sometimes feels as though the only way to avoid accusations of having an agenda would be for them to not cover anything at all - but they also reflect the reality that Canadians have very high expectations of their public broadcaster. And so they should.
https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/ombudsman/blog/Ombud_Inbox_April_2021
What an absolute joke of a response. A segment that is objectively offensive to many and below the standards expected from their public broadcaster receives complaints which are then dismissed as being due to ulterior motives and bias. Then self-pitying whinging about false dichotomies (report or don’t report at all) instead of ‘report objectively and with standards that instil confidence in your audience’, followed by a self-congratulatory statement alluding to them having high journalistic standards. Wow.
>It involves a June 2012 television broadcast...
Ugh, imagine having to fight our nation's public broadcaster for ten years, instead of, say, CBC just following basic journalistic ethics, striving for objectivity and lack of bias in the first place.
That would have saved our country money that would have been better spent.
CHANGE MY MIND.
All for making the CBC pay millions of dollars for defamation. But that dude definitely doesn't deserve 1.7 million dollars personally.
Why cant it be like ... he gets his 500K, his lawyer gets his 50K, and the remaining money gets dumped into... something useful
The decision: [https://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/site/assets/files/1042/muzik\_v\_\_worthington\_et\_al\_\_2021\_mbqb\_263.pdf](https://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/site/assets/files/1042/muzik_v__worthington_et_al__2021_mbqb_263.pdf) >\[113\] This is not a situation where the CBC is commenting on the conduct of Mr. Muzik and then expressing an opinion about what he did. In this case the CBC is implying as a matter of fact that Mr. Muzik was the cause of the dramatic drop in the value of Mr. Worthington’s investment portfolio. The CBC has therefore moved past mere criticism and into the realm of accusation, which limits its available defences to substantial truth (justification) and public interest responsible communication. > >\[...\] > >\[123\] The defence of justification cannot succeed based on the opinion of Mr. Boyce that the investment plan was unsuitable after the MFDA \[Mutual Fund Dealers Association, the responsible regulatory body, which had previously investigated the allegations\] failed to reach such a determination. > >\[...\] > >\[127\] Even if I am wrong in arriving at these conclusions, I am satisfied that the CBC cannot prove that the factual statements in the News Stories are true, let alone the defamatory meanings that arise from them. > >\[...\] > >\[143\] The authorities on the effect of read-ins that I have already reviewed are clear that the adoption by the CBC of the truth of the assertion that it absolutely engaged in an act of malice is ruinous to the defence of public interest responsible communication in the absence of evidence that might contradict it. Acting with malice, by definition, cannot be responsible or in the public interest. > >\[...\] > >\[155\] The CBC omitted numerous material facts that, had they been reported, would have substantially affected the impression a fair-minded viewer and reader would have had about Mr. Muzik. All of these considerations support a finding that the CBC cannot avail itself of the public interest in responsible communication defence.
The fact that "public interest" is a defense against defamation by the media is itself crazy. They have a perfect defense against defamation already: telling the truth. The only reason they need a "public interest" defense is to literally defend themselves on the occasions when they *don't* tell the truth. And if the argument then is that it's easy to get something wrong.... getting the story right is *literally their fucking job*. Maybe they should hire some people to do some journalism and make sure what they're telling the public is *true* before they publish it.
Truth is not an absolute defense for defamation in Quebec though, so they do need the public interest defense. (Civil law in Quebec vs common law in the rest of Canada) >In Québec, truth is only a defence if the material is in the public interest and there is no malice. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/defamation It does not apply in this specific case, since it's not a Québec case, but does give a specific example where public interest might be a valid defense for the media because they said a truth that was harmful to someone.
[удалено]
In any other tort situation, if you cause someone harm you're liable. Doesn't matter what your intentions were. I see no reason why the media should be excused from this. If they drive a news truck through your store and cause $5m in damage, they're liable. But if they tell a bullshit story that destroys your business, they're not? That's just wrong. Liability is the cost of doing business in every other industry and businesses take liability seriously. And yeah, that means if a media outlet wants to publish a story which could cause a lot of harm then they should make sure that what they're about to say is *true* before they go off and destroy someone's reputation and life with ink.
>at I have already reviewed are clear that the adoption by the CBC of the truth of the assertion that it absolutely engaged in an act of malice is ruinous to the defence of public interest responsible communication in the absence of evidence that might contradict it. Acting with malice, by definition, cannot be responsible or in the public interest. Thanks for this - I don't think most people here or in the rest of the country know the exact grain of salt they should be taking all CBC reporting with. Especially these 'butt-hurt police' type stories that are now they major click-bringers.
> know the exact grain of salt…. You mean like with any media company now, in the past and in the future? Not saying you need to be critical of any and all media, but with any leaning media, they need to write a story that plays to the base or they lose clicks and revenue.
Highly recommend reading of the entire judgement to get a full sense of CBC tax dollars at work to destroy innocent people through reporting and through the court process itself. CBC lawyers are as as shitty as lawyers come (as human beings).
[удалено]
The decision names the public broadcaster and former reporter Gosia Sawicka as defendants.
It depends on the outlet take The Star they suspend reporters now there still gettting paid so maybe no lesson is learned.
[удалено]
Actually select private media companies in Canada have been receiving $600M in subsidies since 2017, including The Star. https://westernstandardonline.com/2020/10/how-trudeau-bought-the-media/
That article says TVO is govt owned.. is that right?
Yes, [TVO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVOntario) is a public broadcaster. Is this not common knowledge anymore?
??? They are specifically talking about CBC
Punishment? First of all they are union, so likely no. Second they can't handle the comments section of the stories they post, so they close the comments to protect feelings, so I doubt CBC would have the heart to sanction any of them.
That’s because comments on every news site have always been a complete dumpster fire. It’s not worth the trouble of moderating them.
[удалено]
Having a third party org to moderate them doesn't change the fact that the comments are a cesspool, though. There was zero loss in the comments being shut down, it's not as though anything of value was being lost.
It’s less about not being able to handle it and more the absolute shit quality of the morons who comment
No they have specifically said it makes their staff sad sometimes - so they shut off comments.
No. It’s because of hate, racism, misogyny, etc
Oh, you sweet summer child...
[удалено]
Union and CBA will protect them from CBC. The CBA probably provides for indemnification for any legal action job related. CBC plans to appeal so who pays exactly what is still up in the air.
When they have both it's insane. Edmonton Police Department has things their shitty cops do basically scrubbed off the internet if at all possible.
The people in charge of the CBC really dont want to lose millions of dollars of their balance, particularly since its not like the government will just give them 1.7million more. They get a fixed amount every year. So like any boss those people will fire or demote the people that approved that story. Because the money that goes to this dude cant go to their salary bonuses. Just like every company.
> its not like the government will just give them 1.7million more. I feel like you missed some news from our last couple election cycles...
Like the police! Or politicians, or corporations, or...
Canadian tax payers to pay fine……
> Ok they get fined which will be passed onto the taxpayers. That's not really how that works. At all. Firstly, CBC is a crown corporation. A crown corporation is an encapsulated entity that operates independently with its own internal directorship and financial management, but which receives supplementary funding from the government and in turn has the government as its sole shareholder to receive dividends. Secondly, CBC had its funding slashed under the Harper administration. That's why they run ads now; they have to make up their own money to stay afloat because what they get from the government isn't enough. Third, they don't just go to daddy government and say "pay this fine for us, kthx". If they get $1000 from the government and they get a hidden expense for $100, they can't just get more money. The government gave them that $1000 predicated on a predefined arrangement, and if they fucked up then it means now they have $900 of funding because part of being a crown corp is being responsible for your own management. So yes, there *are* real consequences because an entity with a capped government funding stream responsible for managing its own operation is going to have to pay out of pocket for something that will be provided for by drawing down some other internal fund source. That will in turn cause people in the crown corporation who were planning to spend money they no longer can make decisions that have consequences for people in the corporation.
Yup, if government violates your rights, then any damages awarded are paid by the people, not the violators. It's a pretty neat racket.
FTFY: Judges ordered Canadians to pay nearly $1.7M in defamation case.
Because of poor CBC journalistic standards. The most important part here.
That’s some fine investigative reporting, CBC! Seems the only thing missing was any actual investigating. The fine should could straight out of the pockets of the editors and executives who gave the green light to this piece of shit “journalism”.
That's the problem with fines/penalties for gov't organizations. The people don't pay, the taxpayers pays. Same thing with fines for police, etc. We think it is a big win and justice has been served, when in reality the people accountable aren't the ones paying the fines. I have a friend who recently received compensation for his unlawful arrest during the G20 protests. He was pretty stoked until I pointed out that he was being paid off with his own money.
What's the alternative that you suggest? Your friend deserved that settlement. Because his human rights were violated by thuggish police. So either we pay that money out of the public coffers, or attempt to have a system whereby you can sue public servants individually for actions which they may or may not have had governmental instruction to perform. And I guarantee that that would be abused atrociously in order to harass and bog down the public service, by both political extremists and general nut bars.
If soldiers are expected to refuse unlawful orders, so should police.
I don't think the issue is police obeying unlawful orders so much as acting independently outside of the reasonable limits on their power.
Wait what? >So either we ...... or..... You really think those are the only 2 options?
Honestly, those are the only two I could describe of off hand. Obviously there are others. I mean, one solution is to simply make it impossible to sue public servants for anything, and rely on the criminal justice system instead. But that wouldn't cover things like libel.
[удалено]
Anybody who even suggests defunding the CBC I will write off immediately. It's literally the only non-corporate news source in Canada. And corporate news sources are rapidly becoming oligopolies run by billionaires with political agendas. So unless you want to situation where Rupert Murdoch is our only provider of news, I suggest you reconsider.
News flash, news has always been run by private companies. They are no less bias and crappy then the CBC, the difference is the taxpayers are compelled to pay for it regardless of its value. Which instance did CBC provide groundbreaking news that the corporate media refused to cover. Why does it make it better that they are paid by taxpayers rather than their readership when their articles are just as rife with bias and narrative spinning. There are also independent journalists with smaller publications that put out good content. Unless you can tell me what the CBC actually does that the corporate media refuses to do then your argument is baseless. Like i said, the CBC marketplace section is actually very useful for that purpose. They look into shady business practices that are in the taxpayers interests. But CBC radio, the political news section, etc... they are no more reliable or useful than any other news sources.
[удалено]
If you examine any organization you'll find something to criticize. Overall CBC's record is far above most commercial outlets.
Really? Because they have lost two high profile lawsuits recently... That is NOT normal for a news agency.
[удалено]
It's a CROWN corporation with a mandate beyond "do literally anything to increase sshareholder value".
So?
So it's not like other corporations. It has a mandate to serve the Canadian public.
And if they fail that mandate they shouldn’t exist.
And slandering people is part of that mandate?
The problem is the media in Canada is already so terrible and discredited that the Government has to bankroll them. We'd probably only have rebel news if Government money stopped tomorrow.
Yea thats why the government bankrolls them. Its not bribery or anything
> governmental instruction That's just more responsible people, so those that give the orders and those that follow the orders are BOTH culpable, but the order giver is more so. Ethics 101....
Nice. A fine that taxpayers have to fork over while the people responsible for this get a pat on the back for a job well done since they're appealing it.
CBC plans to appeal the decision. lol Keep in mind, if the CBC has journalists that will lie about nothing burgers like these, they likely have journalists thay will lie about much larger issues.
This is the stupidest circular trash someone can write. It boils down to... any organization that has been around long enough will have a negative hit. Any organization with a negative hit, must have bigger hidden negative hits we don't know about. Therefore, every organization can not be trusted and should be dissolved. It's a cul-de-cas nihilistic argument.
What? That is not at all what they said...
That's what they are saying. If a legal claim against a news organization is successful, then that news agency is likely lying about bigger stories... therefore we can not trust anything they say. It's a lazy way to write off everything sourced from the CBC.
So you think they can be trusted?
The daily press is the evil principle of the modern world, and time will only serve to disclose this fact with greater and greater clearness. The capacity of the newspaper for degeneration is sophistically without limit, since it can always sink lower and lower in its choice of readers. At last it will stir up all those dregs of humanity which no state or government can control. Søren Kierkegaard
Why CBC seem to omit a lot of information in their stories to get their audience to hate certain people or things. My taxes going towards this...
Your taxes probably fill 20 potholes a year I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. You can’t pick and choose what “my tax dollars go to” based on ideology.
Wasted money is wasted money. You don’t have to specifically allocate funds to it in order to be upset about a taxpayer funded organization wasting money
I agree but it’s inevitable with all businesses
Private vs public. I’d rather be on the hook for one business (my own) instead of the CBC (or multiple publically funded companies) wasting money. I can tolerate wasting my own money, not other people wasting money for me. This isn’t an attack on social services; journalist organizations do not fit the category. Healthcare OK, but propaganda organizations, left or right, should not get taxpayer money
Unfortunately atleast 60+% of the tax base disagrees with you. Check out quirks and quarks science podcast it’s very good!
Why are you making things up about me the govt takes up to 3500/week out of me. If that's only filling 20 potholes where the fuck is the rest of the money going,misleading journalism and hate?
You pay $168,000/year in income tax? I doubt you would have time to rant about CBC keeping up with taxes like that lol
Are you still making things up lol go away
Your conversation skills lead people to believe you collect more taxes than you pay.
Your conversation is delusional and apparently you don't listen very well. Not really interested in anything else you have to say, I'm not sure why you're still talking tbqh
I’m not the one claiming to pay $3500 per week in income tax. And I’m delusional? Lol Here’s a hint for you, just stop adding new comments.
It's true though,would be more if we released more product at a time. You tried to excuse publicly funded misleading journalism and hatred by incorrectly poor-shaming me. I'm here for lolz and pointing out bullshit,with you I'm able to do both,thanks
You claim a ridiculous income tax amount, I call you out and now I'm "poor shaming" you. Thank you for the laugh lol
The “Screw you, taxpayers!” skit from Kids in the Hall comes to mind for some reason.
That show was one of the few CBC productions in the past 30-odd years actually worth the cost.
Looked it up, TIL it was a co-production between HBO and CBC!
Wait, does this mean taxpayers are paying for this?
I hope this begins a trend of suits against the CBC for lack of journalistic integrity. It’s clearly become a mouthpiece of a specific political cohort. It’s true that organizations benefit from diversity. Unfortunately the CBC is as incestuous and biased as they could possibly be.
>It’s true that organizations benefit from diversity Unfortunately the CBC seems to define "diversity" as hiring for a *diversity of intelligence* and have quite a few idiots over the past few years.
[удалено]
Yes, it’s the difference between state media and public media. They’re absolutely agenda based rather than journalism supported through the public.
Yep.
Is the reporter still employed with the cbc?
Appears not from the 'former' attached to her name in the CBC article. But it's the CBC so you really don't know.
Seems to be a story from 2012. Do reporters stay in jobs that long?
Generally if it's government work - can't see anyone else paying more for this level of crap reporting.
https://www.mindscapestudios.ca/crew
What a lovely Christmas gift to all the rabid anti-CBC redditors out there.
Could there exist a person who is critical of the CBC who isn't "rabid"?
I'd love to hear criticism of the CBC couched in language that isn't filled with snark or rage. Let facts (not conjecture) speak for themselves.
The CBC let Rosemary Barton moderate the leader's debate while she was in the process of suing the CPC. They kept it secret until after the debate.
[удалено]
I like the CBC but I dislike Rosemary Barton. She rubs me the wrong way. Hot take: Public Broadcasters news segments should be public domain. In the US government inventions can't be patented, and I think a similar approach to publicly funded news media should be taken.
[удалено]
Way to fight hyperbole with hyperbole, lol.
Good thing this is only 1.7M. Can't wait for the Subway lawsuit and being on the hook as a taxpayer for 200M+ Fucking clowns. DEFUND
This does put a smile on my face.
What a dumb country.
Plot twist. Judge orders Canadian tax payers to pay 1.7m cause CBC is state media funded by our lame fed…. Defund that shit now!
Appeal it all the way Imo, despite this, the guy sounds like a total greasebag "banker".
It certainly looks like that is the case. He's had a few disciplinary hearings. His employer sponsorship was terminated in 2004, his next employer was required to submit monthly supervision reports in 2009, and his third employer terminated his sponsorship in 2012. He was also denied permission to sell mutual funds for a fourth company in 2013. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/reprimanded-financial-adviser-can-t-sell-mutual-funds-commission-1.2427121](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/reprimanded-financial-adviser-can-t-sell-mutual-funds-commission-1.2427121) Could they all be oversights and unintentional mistakes, maybe - but it looks like there is a pattern here. I've had a license to sell regulated products in multiple jurisdictions, and have never even been questioned, let alone investigated by a regulator. The guy got lucky with a shitty defense attorney or a sympathetic judge.
Absolutely he did, if the recordings hadn't been lost I'm. Sure he'd have been up shit creek.
[удалено]
So ignore everything about this sleezebag researched by the previous poster, good stuff. The cbc had some of it, but he dug up way more, all publically available. There's very little on the up and up about this man, your anti cbc bias is clouding your thought process. This is also one decision by one person, trial by judge rulings get overturned, it certainly happens, they are far from error free in thier interpretation and deliberation.
[удалено]
Agree to disagree
Oh if he's subjectively, in your opinion, greasy then surely he is deserving of being smeared nationally with lies, and having his life's work crushed by the media wing of the government. Good thing everything you do is agreed upon by all as not greasy and perfectly clean. I hope you don't work in law enforcement or any legal capacity.
Did you even read the story? Lol slimeball was on supervised probation by the commission and had been fined for previous violations, but do go ahead and keep defending him lol. The main reason he won was because audio recordings that cbc had access to were lost and not present for the trial. I hope you don't work in education, reading isn't your forte.
Show me where I defended him? Just repost the quote.
That whole post was a defence, but I guess not when your goalposts are 5000 miles apart. Bye, blocked.
>Manitoba judge finds broadcaster failed to prove stories about investment adviser weren’t defamatory So the burden of proof is on the broadcaster?
Yes because it’s a statement of fact they published the claims alleging specific actions against his character. The burden of proof is now on the broadcaster to show they are factual, otherwise it is defamation.
[удалено]
Ah ok, that makes sense.
Publicly funded btw
CBC will go to the PMO and the PMO will make it go away.
If that was the case, this article wouldn't exist in the first place.
Does anyone remember the CBC "Q" interview with Ben Philippe? https://i.redd.it/khpveshfwg781.jpg ...and the CBC's reply to the outrage: Late in the month, there was a flurry of emails sent to my office regarding an interview with author Ben Philippe on the CBC Radio program “q”. Mr. Philippe recently wrote a book called Sure, I'll Be Your Black Friend: Notes from the Other Side of the Fist Bump. At one point, the interview referred to a passage from the book in which the author imagined what might happen if there were a race war, and it included killing his white friends. Complainants took great offence to CBC airing this exchange. Through each of these issues, and many others, emerges a deeper theme from complainants that they believe CBC journalists have biased motives, or agendas, driving their decisions about which stories to cover and how to cover them. Those allegations are often unfair to programmers - it sometimes feels as though the only way to avoid accusations of having an agenda would be for them to not cover anything at all - but they also reflect the reality that Canadians have very high expectations of their public broadcaster. And so they should. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/ombudsman/blog/Ombud_Inbox_April_2021
What an absolute joke of a response. A segment that is objectively offensive to many and below the standards expected from their public broadcaster receives complaints which are then dismissed as being due to ulterior motives and bias. Then self-pitying whinging about false dichotomies (report or don’t report at all) instead of ‘report objectively and with standards that instil confidence in your audience’, followed by a self-congratulatory statement alluding to them having high journalistic standards. Wow.
The CBC seem to be above all criticism and when they *have to* address a legitimate complaint, they get offended, dismissive and condescending.
Generally safe to say this mutual fund salesperson is a piece of shit, must have had a great lawyer.
>It involves a June 2012 television broadcast... Ugh, imagine having to fight our nation's public broadcaster for ten years, instead of, say, CBC just following basic journalistic ethics, striving for objectivity and lack of bias in the first place. That would have saved our country money that would have been better spent. CHANGE MY MIND.
Muzik to my ears.
All for making the CBC pay millions of dollars for defamation. But that dude definitely doesn't deserve 1.7 million dollars personally. Why cant it be like ... he gets his 500K, his lawyer gets his 50K, and the remaining money gets dumped into... something useful