Der frühere CBC-Moderator Travis Dhanraj soll heute vor dem Parlamentsausschuss aussagen, unter dem Vorwurf der Diskriminierung und Mobbing – thestar.com
https://www.thestar.com/news/former-cbc-host-travis-dhanraj-to-testify-before-parliamentary-committee-today-amid-allegations-of-discrimination/article_47f84e30-a447-4b1a-9a20-419d2fe784c2.html
7 Kommentare
The video of his testimony is quite damning. Suppression of dissenting opinion of thought and opinion – amongst other notable tidbits from Dhanraj.
> Dhanraj’s resignation became a major flashpoint for critics of the broadcaster. **His allegations of political bias, particularly that he was restricted from selecting certain guests from the Conservative party, have been a catalyst for those calling to defund the Crown corporation.**
And yet people still hit the roof when it is suggested that the CBC has steadily displayed a political bias over the past few years. This isn’t surprising to anyone other than the people who fiercely deny any bias at all.
Unless they’ve committed a crime, why would you *prohibit journalists from interviewing specific elected members of parliament?*
That does not strike me as something a politically impartial public broadcaster would or should be doing.
This honestly does not surprise me. But the reality is that this is not just a CBC issue. Bias exists across the entire media landscape. Producers, editors, and publishers are human beings, and like anyone else they bring their own perspectives and assumptions into their work.
Where I do think the CBC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, has a particular responsibility is around transparency and journalistic standards. When questions about balance arise, the expectation should be simple: show the work.
Did the program attempt to reach out to different political perspectives? Were Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, and Greens contacted for comment or invited to participate in a panel? If someone declined, say so. If someone did not respond, say so. Being open about that process would go a long way toward addressing accusations of bias.
Personally, I do not care if a guest from any political stripe comes on air and says something foolish. Let them. That is part of the public conversation. But when a broadcaster is funded by the public, the obligation should be to demonstrate as clearly as possible that a range of perspectives was sought.
If that effort is visible, the accusations of bias become much harder to sustain. Without that transparency, the criticism will never fully go away, regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right.
Dhanraj is surprisingly bad at this. But I’ve thought that of other reporters giving testimony in parliament too. Maybe it’s just really intimidating.
Regardless though, while I’m sure there’s toxic shit going on at the CBC that we’d all benefit from correcting, this ain’t it, as they say.
The only thing that holds any weight from his testimony is the idea that the atmosphere is a bit toxic and shitty. Which very well could be true. I’m not sure I’ve worked with a large org. that didn’t have a ton of toxic politics going on somewhere.
The problem is he’s been in grifter territory for a while, half of his examples don’t really seem to be backed up by anything at all, and a lot of his complaints are easily disproved nonsense, like being confused as to why he can’t interview MP’s.
To be clear, listened to his post CBC podcast. Its not that conservative MPs were barred from appearing on CBC, but rather that producers were mad that Travis was able to get conservatives on his show that would not appear on Power & Politics with Rosemary Barton or other flagship CBC figures.
Not necessarily about bias, but moreso internal politicking whcih comes down along the lines of more liberal (small L) figures in Ontario, compared to rising voices from the west.
[removed]
[removed]