Letters from the Editor in Chief

Great stuff. You comments and coverage are a far cry from the mainstream in the US. We have miserable news here. You are to be applauded.

The real story for Canada must be how the CBC conducts itself.

As an unregulated Crown Corporation there is no independent means of access to question the CBC's actions - unlike the BBC that has a separate and independent regulatory body in The BBC Trust - it enshrines the principle of accountability and balance.

While the privately owned media in Canada, with its left bias, can engage in name calling with the PMO - we must establish a balance for the CBC so that nonelected (and nonrepresentative) CBC staffers do not raise their political view points at the expense of the Canadian tax payer.

We must return to a non-political CBC news service by introducing an independent regulatory framework – to ensure accuracy and balance - as part of the current review of the Broadcasting Act.

The CBC was not meant to be a private club of like minded journalists. Surly the days of the CBC Ivory Tower must be coming to an end.

I agree with the prior comment, "Great stuff". True whistleblowers, with reasonable grounds for a fear of retribution for revealing information in the public interest, deserve protection in the rare instances in which true whistleblowing occurs. Otherwise, anonymous sources should be required to identify themselves or else lose their chance to "spin". They should be prepared to take the scrutiny that a free press must apply. The anonymity abused by the defamers of Maher Arar is exactly on point. In darkness evil grows.

For any aspiring journalists, or for many of the "boring" journalists out there, pointed out by Heather Mallick (Middling Earth, 021207): take some pointers away from this article.
Thank you Mr. Burman for writing such an excellent commentary. The tone displayed here is far above anything I've read by any journalist. Well cited, factual, and it didn't paint anyone as a villain. With most articles slanting one way or another, with one side painted protagonist, the other antagonist, containing only grains of truth, the reader has to sift through the trash. This article is so clear and informative that you don't have to try to pull the journalist out of the story.
Thanks again.

I was worried earlier by a headline I saw earlier on CBC that read "Iranians 'at highest levels' meddling in Iraq war: U.S. officer". What was left out however and I saw on wwww.democracynow.org was that "the media briefing was led by three US military officials who refused to be give thier names. No TV cameras or tapes were allowed in, and journalists cell phones were taken away before they entered the briefing room." More frighteningly... "Vice President Cheney was on the Sunday morning talk shows. He was holding the New York Times, saying, “You don't have to believe me. It’s here in the New York Times.”"
The above story redeems the CBC in my eyes, I'm glad to see that other people in the world are picking up on the baised media spin put on the war.

There are a number of problems with this essay, namely:

-Government officials have been using `friendly' reporters to plant stories in the newspaper for many decades, not just 'in the last thirty years.' When the news media (almost invariably left-wing in orientation) agrees with the purpose of a leak, it is fine; when news reporters do not, it becomes an `abuse of process.'
-with regard to the Valerie Wilson case, it is interesting that few (if any) news agencies report that both the U.S. and the U.K. have concluded that, contrary to the Joseph Wilson IV, the Iraqis had indeed been in Africa looking for uranium; that Ms. Wilson selected her husband for the mission (contrary to Wilson's claim that the VP sent him); and that Wilson himself is guilty of revealing confidential sources in his New York Times piece (all this from an American news media that supposedly `Follows the White House line' - a mad assertion given the manifest hostility of the WH press corps in regard to the Bush government
-the culpability of any current WH official in regard to the Wilson case (no one has been charged with allegedly revealing the identity of Ms. Wilson) pales in comparison to the actions of the former U.S. National Security Advisor, Alexander `Sandy' Berger, who stole and then destroyed papers relating to his boss, Bill Clinton's dealing with Osama Bin Laden, for which Berger has been granted a very severe slap on the wrist
-it is heartening that Tony Burman believes that reporters shouldn't act as `stenographers'; it is altogether rich coming from the `chief-editor' of a news service that is practically the news agency of the Liberal party (vide the present non-issue of Conservative government's `stacking' the judiciary)

thanks
R.B. Glennie

thank god Canwest and Sun Newspapers have a monopoly on newspapers in Canada outside of Toronto. it's perfectly reasonable for the CBC to critizize the NY Times, Washington Post and other extreme right wing publications considering the the Sun and Canwest papers offer a more centrist and balanced view of the war..............yeah right! the Yanks deserve brickbats but the press situation in Canada deserves a spanking more so. there isn't a western demorcracy that has a more right wing friendly press for George Bush then here in Canada. if tony burman would leave his ivory tower in toronto and travel west he would understand this.

I keep reading that the press is invariably left wing in its views. When Conrad Black, (sorry Lord Black) started his own newspaper to get the true story out, no one seemed to imply that this was a right wing press, when he bought out nearly every local paper in Canada including the Winnipeg Free press and the Wig standard, I do not recall people saying this was a right wing press. Rogers, Global etc can hardly be called a "Liberal" news media, neither can the Mop and Pail etc. Please will some one tell me where this "left wing" press is hiding ?

As Mr Burman reminds us, there is no justification for complacency here at home.
CBC Radio news recently broadcast a report about “political lying” in its series about challenges facing democracy: "Speaking Truth to Power: When the Powerful Don't Speak the Truth" (World at Six, January 2, 2007). The exclusive focus of the report was on the U.S.: American media and politicians. Specifically, it dealt with the lead-up to the Iraq war.
A U.S. author was quoted: "The U.S. voter is on a daily level just brutalized by the corporate media which hits us moment after moment and day after day with this avalanche of deceptive information..."
Why the exclusive focus on U.S. politics? What about Canada? What about Canadian politicians and Canadian media? Do they ever lie to us? What about our beloved CBC? Has the CBC ever distorted or misrepresented the truth? Does the CBC filter the news or omit facts to suit its own purposes?
It is very easy to criticize others. It is a lot harder to look at ourselves in the mirror. Journalistic integrity is in short supply these days—not least at the CBC.
Why, for instance, did CBC Radio News continually call the treatment of Iraqi prisoners and Abu Ghraib abuse and not torture? Torture is what it was, so why not call it that?
For many months, CBC News qualified reports about Maher Arar’s experience in a Syrian prison by saying that he claimed to have been tortured. Not to worry. Maher Arar was not tortured. He merely claimed to have been tortured. Did CBC have any reason to doubt his claims?
CBC updates us regularly on the Canadian body count in Afghanistan. Why does CBC not count dead Afghans? Rather than give us a true picture of what Canadians are doing to a people far away, CBC Radio News acts as cheerleader. The CBC criticizes American actions in Iraq, but refuses to bring its critical eye to bear on Canadians in Afghanistan.
Journalists in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Its truly frightening that the US maybe embarking on another fake war in Iran. Its the same stupid media buildup like in Iraq. After the hell of Iraq you would think the US media would investigate things before swallowing them. I can only hope our media never resembles theirs. The bias of US media is not only sickening its cruel. How many of this media has expored the hundreds of thousands dead in this cruel war. I only hope CBC continues to report a angle which is nuetral.

I'm afraid I don't know whom to trust now. The accounts in Mr. Burman's column about the American press left a chill up my spine, and his comments regarding our own press and relations with Ottawa leave me with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. From purely a gut level, I am more disturbed than ever about both sides of this picture; I am left feeling very uneasy. My impression is that two very powerful forces are pitted against each other in a critically important battle right at this time in our history - the state and the press - and no one has even the foggiest notion of where it is all headed. Let us hope that the younger generation will be able to - in time - bring matters under control. It appears that current parties can't and - most importantly - won't. The stakes for each side are too large. Thank you Mr. Burman for your dispassionate observations.

Re: Paul Whittaker

Name-calling, as in labelling a news organization as left-wing, is just another form of spin employed to raise flags and/or sound alarms among the sheep when the author has nothing constructive or informative to say. It is a tactic that is very well employed by the narrow-minded, short sighted bigoted "Neo-cons"

OH MY GOSH! Now I'm doing it! ARRRRRRGH!!

Can someone please explain to me how the corporate media can be accussed of having a left bias? I'm sure that most senior management and shareholders in these corporations are not left-wingers by any stretch of the imagination, no more than any other corporation. This being the case are we to believe that lower level employees such as editors and reporters are all left wingers who are free to print whatever they feel like with no oversight from above? That sounds like a pretty large canard to swallow.

Thank you Mr. Burman,

In the South the media is supporting the policies of the Executive state. right or wrong. They has lost its’ forth state capacity. Since I came to Canada before 20 years I am watching every day the most popular American TV channels news in the evening: CBS, ABC and NBC. They have every day the same news no more any less. What is amazing that even the press conferences of the president of the USA or any other official, they, the TV’s, put it the same wording after editing!!! I lost confidence, as many did, of the Americans’ freedom of speech. I use to call these statins “Pravda” of the Soviet Union.
When they say to protect their sources! What they mean? In the case of Mrs. Blame, when somebody uncovers her name which is criminal act, how can a reporter give immunity to that criminal? It is ridiculous!!! Are these the American Endangered Values of President Carter?
If we take the CNN. They established this station to absorb the anger and frustrations of the Americans. They succeeded. But when they tried making Al-Jazeera in the Middle East to play the same roll; They failed 100%. Why? Because every one in the Middle East knows in the foreign policy and politics better than Mrs Rice knows!!! That is why the Americans were frustrated and bombed Al-Jazeera offices in Baghdad!

For Canada. Except the CBC; 90% of the media in Canada, are owned and under the authority of the right wing, They, unfortunately, apply the policies of the USA official and conservatives and not the Canadian policies. They are receiving there editorials letters from the South. The CBC is committed to the Canadian’s policies to a large extend. They try hard to serve the interests of the Canadians as far as they can. What I call on the CBC is to work harder on the social programs which make our diverse society stronger and deferent from the South. By the way, I was very much happy for requiring a passport to cross the borders with the Americans!!!

Journalists have become lazy, they don't really bother checking whether anonymous sources are legitimate or whether they're simply using anonymity as a cover for launching gossip or propaganda. Why assume that because someone won't give their name, they automatically have credibility? It's an obvious trick, reverse psychology working against the eager reporter: If you simply told them something openly, they would be sceptical; but pretend that you cannot officially say something, that what you are about to tell them is priveleged information, and the reporter will lap it up without even verifying if it has any truthful basis. Someone needs to wake the media up and remind them all how easily they were suckered the last time around, by the same people.

I am pleased the CBC is working to be a leader in professional journalism. Recognising and reporting on the weakness of other media is important. I trust the CBC works to eliminate similar weakness in its own reporting. Significant harm can be done by/through weak media.

The internet has not made me better informed. Computers did not enable me to write a business letter as well as a secretary. Similarly, the internet has not enabled me to determine the accuracy and completeness of information on a topic. The non-reviewed, anonymously provided information on the net is like the unverified news source. That is why I check professional media, like the CBC, when seeking information.

I expect professional journalists to question and confirm before they report, and to challenge what appears to be weak journalism whenever they see it. It is disturbing that the attempted smear job on Iran got wide coverage in the USA media and that action by non-journalists was required to stop it. Regrettably, some harm had already been done. In marketing it is known that the first message people hear is the one they remember best. No amount of corrective reporting can completely undo the harm of misleading messages. Some Americans still believe the 9-11 bombers entered the USA from Canada.

To gain public trust, journalists should follow the same simple virtue as trusted professionals. Doctors follow the rule of “Do no harm”. For journalists, it would seem that any incorrect, misleading, or manipulative message is harmful.

In today’s marketing saturated world, with tight news budgets and public demand for immediate news in info-bytes, there is bound to be journalistic weakness. Hopefully, media like the CBC can withstand the pressure and be reliable sources of complete and accurate information on relevant topics. With journalists striving to do no harm, challenging each other, and being reviewed by vigilant editors, harmful reporting can be minimized.

The Americans need to wake up and take back control of their country again. The blue collar guy or gal running for office seems to be over. The people of the USA and Canada for that matter better get used to the fact the media works for the Government first, paycheck 2nd and then the people last. If by now you can't realize we are all being controlled in one way or another by the tree hugging right wing of things may I remind you of all things we all enjoyed that we can't do anymore. If the fathers and sons of this country can go overseas and die for our us at least we can do is let them have a smoke and a beer in the same place.

I totally agree with Calgarian Ken Kernaghan's comments about CBC coverage of the news.

While it has been increasingly difficult to trust journalism, I do believe that the CBC tries hard to do fair, well-researched, and intelligent coverage.

The current distrust of news media and political groups may be due to increased awareness that they are becoming self-serving and are often seen to be working together to spread manipulative, misinformation messages.

The public level of trust of professions seems to correlate with whether the profession is seen as selflessly serving the general population, like doctors (trusted), or being manipulative for personal benefit (not-trusted).

Once trust is lost it is very difficult to regain.

Many news media and political groups are losing it.

The CBC, BBC, and other news providers who are trying to regain public trust need to return to, and stay true to, selflessly serving the public by clearly providing complete and accurate information.

Political groups, and others, wishing to manipulate public opinion will claim such media are biased and will carefully control contact with such media. They will try to discredit such news providers because they would get in the way of their self-interested misuse of marketing. Manipulative marketing messages like out of context quotes, presentations of only selected pieces of information, or distorted snippets of fact packaged to make them appear to support a message, cannot work if the full context of the quote, all information on a subject, or how a message has misused or misrepresented information, becomes common knowledge. A media that will report complete and correct information and challenge what others report is very damaging to those who wish to misuse marketing for their self-interest.

Democracy needs a strong, honest, trusted news media to counteract the power of manipulative marketing. Political groups will only be discouraged from manipulative marketing when strong news providers are the norm rather than the exception. News media that stay true to selflessly serving the general population by clearly presenting correct and complete information should eventually regain the public’s trust.

I whole-heartedly agree with Tony Burman’s advice to readers of his column that they listen to the Spin Cycles series. It is one of the most informative programs I've heard on CBC Radio for many years. It provides excellent insights into why modern news media, public and private, left and right, find it so difficult to provide the kind of journalistic professionalism and integrity that many of the writers here are looking for.

Canadians have sat back and watched as for the last twenty years successive governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have chopped away support for the CBC. As budgets continually shrink year after year, the only possible outcome is that standards have dropped – and they’ve dropped considerably. This is as true and evident in the newsroom as it is in every other facet of CBC’s operations. Publicly owned media throughout the world have undergone similar downsizing.

Consolidation, competitive pressure, and concern for “shareholder value” have had an identical effect in private sector media. Newsrooms are very much smaller than they used to be and the effect of the change has been dramatic.

There’s almost no one left to be professional or to stand up and show their integrity. There are precious few left to chase down stories, to cross-check, to do background research. Reporters simply wait for publicists to tell them what’s going on. They no longer ask the questions - they’re given the message.

And this plays perfectly into the hands of organizations such as governments, politicians, businesses, and special interest groups, who would rather tell us what to think than allow us to gather our own informed opinions. All of their lives have become much easier as news media have become impotent.

The CBC does not offer significantly more serious investigative journalism than does CNN or FOX NEWS.
Disagree? Why do CBC articles consistently fail to mention that Iran actually has a legal right to enrich uranium under the NPT? Why does the CBC fail to report the well documented importance of Afghanistan as a source of narco-funding to the CIA and many of its covert operations since the 70s (including Iran-contra)? Why does the CBC fail to question any part of the "War on Terrorism", based on what have been repeatedly shown to be fake terror alerts and major cases of entrapment (Toronto bomb plot) by western law enforcement?

Wake up Canada! From the BBC to the CBC, to NBC and CNN, Western "news" is propaganda!

How come the Canadian media didnt inform Canadians that we are part and parcel to the starvation of the Palestinian people.If our Government is doing this why not tell us?I am not sure what democracy and free speech are anymore.

I do believe that CBC does a better job then all american news (or should i say comedy) networks, but i am not sure if that is sufficient!!! I still see alot of one sided un-researched reporting. How come we never hear about the fact that the UN has never found any evidence to prove Iran is building nuclear weapons? or the fact that Iran unlike the US, Israel, China and Russia allows FULL inspections of its nuclear facilities? How come we never hear the fact that the US was the founding father of political terror (read Good Muslims Bad muslims)? Why is it that the aparthite policies of Israel in gaza and the west bank never shown on TV? How come we never hear about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt? but we hear about iran often eventough, anyone who has visited all countries can attest that Iran is far more humane (still along way to go tought) in its treatment of Women and its citizens then a backward country like Saudi Arabia?.... These are the questions that have never even been answered before ...

This is a good article outlining the relationship of the White House with the press. In addition the Spin cycles series is excellent. You should look at the way the Liberal Press ( NY Times, Washington Post, CBS CNN etc.) is covering the upcoming US election. The Press has clearly made it's choices and are promoting certain candidates. The Press must stick to rteporting the News not making it.

where were you, the CBC, at the start of the Iraq War? I didn't hear your voice shouting that the war was a scam, a lie, a US propaganda fait a complete.
Many Canadians knew in their gut that this was a sham, and you, our revered CBC, just passed on the US line of "blow up the Iraqis" and show the great tv footage of that.
You are little better than the Americans and you can wipe away that smug Canadian smile.

Let's get real here. The CBC, for all its wonderful qualities, is anything but fair and balanced in its reporting. Two examles will demonstrate this point.

In every intervew I have seen or heard about global warming there has NEVER been someone invited to speak about the view that perhaps it is exaggerated or the cause is other than human activity. The CBC has been David Suzuki's soapbox.

Whenever there is any discussion of George Bush no one ever points out the good things he has accomplished as, for example, a booming economy for 7 straight years. That was Bill Clinton's ONLY accomplishment (remember: "it's the economy stupid"). Bush gets absolutely no credit for that. Not to mention the US has not been attacked on its home soil since 9/11. That is something else noteworthy.

The CBC is hardly a paragon of spin-free, slanted or biased reporting. In fact it is the opposite. Sorry to burst your bubble!

There was a grisly report on CBC Radio One's "The Current" this morning about the American military using live pigs to train military medics. They would shoot the pig in the face, then stabilize it. Then the stabilized pig would be shot with an AK47. Then stabilized. Then the pig was burned (alive) and then treated medically again. I was driving my car at the time this report came on. I had to pull my car over because I was sick.

What the hell is wrong with America? Is there nothing these people won't do for oil?

To anyone who deludes themselves or others into thinking that there is a liberal bias in the press in either the U.S. or Canada, or indeed that there is a single mainstream media outlet spouting leftist viewpoints, you are sorely mistaken.
Ever since Al Gore was denounced (successfully) as a liberal crazy, anyone with a humanist worldview or a sane, progressive political agenda has been laughed out of newsrooms and ridiculed in print across North America.
This is evident in the contemptuous way the media has treated Ralph Nader over the years. They laugh at him, because he has morals, ideals, conviction, and some ideas for serious change. You call that balance? As a result, there are no real Liberals left in the limelight.
Democrat and Liberal are not synonyms, and it's time the media stopped using them as such. McCarthy would shudder with pleasure to see how small the political spectrum has shrunk. Shame, shame.