r/canada Oct 20 '21

Rex Murphy: On climate change, the CBC has crossed the line from news agency to PMO mouthpiece Opinion Piece

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-on-climate-change-the-cbc-has-crossed-the-line-from-news-agency-to-pmo-mouthpiece
13 Upvotes

9

u/MilesOfPebbles Oct 20 '21

For the record, I got added into r/controversialclub for this post as it this was apparently one of the most controversial posts on all of Reddit today

9

u/UnionstogetherSTRONG Oct 20 '21

Bold words from Mr Rex Murphy and Natpo

29

u/FieldMarshalPeriph Oct 20 '21

yeah, if anyone has credibility on the climate change file it's Rex Murphy. /s

39

u/justa_normal_human Oct 20 '21

Why is climate change partisan? If one side denies settled science, and everyone else disagrees and wants to do whatever they can to slow it down or reverse it, they might not be the mouthpiece for a particular party but everyone who isn’t an ultra conservative science denier.

-2

u/OrangeFantastic_8716 Oct 20 '21

Science by definition is never settled. People who insist that theories going against an established theory ought to be suppressed are anti science by definition. That’s the problem.

If we took the dogmatic approach that is taken on climate change in the past we’d still be thinking the sun revolved around the earth.

26

u/FieldMarshalPeriph Oct 20 '21

People who insist that theories going against an established theory ought to be suppressed are anti science by definition.

You are perfectly free to suggest an alternate theory...but you have to prove it.

8

u/bograt Oct 20 '21

I agree that science is never settled and that is precisely the intent, but not all theories are equal or deserve equal attention.

I think the important thing is to distinguish between "theory" (an idea that can explain something) that can come from anywhere - anecdotal observation, ignorance of the actual facts or the mind of some out-of-touch individual versus "Theory" (a body of knowledge that supports, or refutes, a hypothesis) that has been replicated and backed up by controlled experimentation or observation.

If I theorize (small t!) that climate change is a result of the Keebler elves stoking the fires of Mordor - you do not have to give that credence in any way, shape or form - it is incumbent upon me to support that hypothesis.

Now if I some way manage to develop and execute a study that results in positive support of my theory - great, it may now have some entrance into the minor discussions regarding climate change, a novelty theory if you will, but until anyone replicates an experiment that yields similar results it is merely a footnote (or in some case become a hill for people to die on!)

EDIT: meant this as a response to OrangeFantastic_8716

8

u/OrangeFantastic_8716 Oct 20 '21

I completely agree. But the climate change debate has already gone a step farther to prescribing a very specific set of policies and then arguing that to disagree with any of those policies is to deny climate change exists in any capacity, which is completely idiotic. That’s not even remotely scientific and that’s the biggest problem.

10

u/FieldMarshalPeriph Oct 20 '21

But the climate change debate has already gone a step farther to prescribing a very specific set of policies and then arguing that to disagree with any of those policies is to deny climate change exists in any capacity

Because most of the policies being so derided exists only as a smoke screen to do nothing. Carbon capture, for example, is putting your eggs in a basket that hasn't really been proven to exist. Same as Donald Trump yelling about "Clean" coal.

Advance a policy. Any policy. You have to prove that its a serious policy.

2

u/OrangeFantastic_8716 Oct 20 '21

Wind and solar in their current form are just as ridiculous but that doesn’t stop the climate activists from insisting they are the only future while they ignore proven clean solutions like nuclear. Nor does it mean they should be ignored completely, but a balanced approach that considers a variety of possibilities and explores what is needed to make them viable is in the best interests of society

Solar panels lead to massive amounts of toxic waste. Wind is intermittent and not nearly consistent enough to power at scale. There’s potential but there also needs to be improvements. This is a complex challenge and you people keep proving my point by suggesting certain ideas should just be taken off the table completely because they’re not fully matured in the here and now.

5

u/FieldMarshalPeriph Oct 20 '21

you people keep proving my point by suggesting certain ideas should just be taken off the table completely because they’re not fully matured in the here and now.

And you are deliberately misunderstanding. If you can prove that a policy has a chance of becoming an actual solution then you'd be heard. But there is an insistence on floating non-viable policies simply so you can say "look, you're ignoring me."

3

u/OrangeFantastic_8716 Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

I never said I didn’t think climate change was a thing. But that definitely doesn’t mean I think the policies being pushed are the only way to address it, and that’s what the whole debate has shifted to in suggesting denying the lefts proposed solution is akin to denying science writ large.

Many are big proponents of nuclear energy for example, but there are some who would say it’s an unacceptable solution to reduce carbon emissions, to the point they’re not even willing to debate its merits. Ditto for carbon capture.

Also, even within the body of climate change research, there are variations in what experts expect the long term effects to be. But these days even suggesting that we may not be headed for a mass extinction if we don’t radically change our society in the next half century is dismissed as anti science.

6

u/FieldMarshalPeriph Oct 20 '21

carbon capture.

You can't throw carbon capture out there and expect to be taken seriously.

Despite carbon capture increasingly appearing in policymakers' proposals to address climate change,[11] existing CCS technologies have significant shortcomings that limit their ability to reduce or negate carbon emissions; current CCS processes are usually less economical than renewable sources of energy[12][13] and most remain unproven at scale.[14] Opponents also point out that many CCS projects have failed to deliver on promised emissions reductions. [15] One of the most well-known failures is the FutureGen program, partnerships between the US federal government and coal energy production companies which were intended to demonstrate ″clean coal″, but never succeeded in producing any carbon-free electricity from coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

Much like the science, on the policy side you can suggest whatever you want. But you have to prove it.

5

u/OrangeFantastic_8716 Oct 20 '21

I could make the same statement about solar panels given proponents seem to ignore their lack of reliability and the accumulation of toxic waste that comes from using them.

Your statement only argues that they’re not an effective solution for scale now. That’s not a justification for dismissing the concept in its entirety. You did however deftly demonstrate the overarching point I was making, which is a complete intolerance to a true open discussion on options to address climate change.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/solar-trash-tsunami-how-solar-power-is-driving-a-looming-environmental-crisis/wcm/8a88e6bb-5bf2-48a7-b6f4-a14911d31a8c/amp/

1

u/FieldMarshalPeriph Oct 20 '21

Your statement only argues that they’re not an effective solution for scale now. That’s not a justification for dismissing the concept in its entirety. You did however deftly demonstrate the overarching point I was making, which is a complete intolerance to a true open discussion on options to address climate change

You can float any policy you want. But you have to prove that you are presenting a viable policy (even for the future, as something to work towards) as opposed to a policy that exists as a smoke screen to do nothing. In its current form Carbon Capture is a smoke screen.

11

u/OrangeFantastic_8716 Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

Buddy, neither of us are experts. I’m not here to solve climate change. I’m saying the dogmatic approach by activists to dismiss concepts outright and try to slander them as anti science is damaging to the debate and to making meaningful change. Especially because those activists are surely not experts in the field, they’re just emotionally invested in an ideological view of how to change the world to their liking.

The extent of your argument against carbon capture was quoting a Wikipedia article. Forgive me if I don’t buy that you’ve thoroughly debunked its potential.

Look - this took 5 seconds to find.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/potential-carbon-capture-tech-captivating

Here’s another - it appears the Canadian government disagrees with you that carbon capture has no potential. They’ve probably done more research than your 5 second Wikipedia search on it.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-change/canadas-green-future/carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-strategy/23721

0

u/FieldMarshalPeriph Oct 20 '21

I’m saying the dogmatic approach by activists to dismiss concepts outright and try to slander them as anti science is damaging to the debate

Except you're just wrong. You are using a very common tactic. Float a non-viable policy, claim to have done the work and then blame the "other side" when its rejected.

You can absolutely advance carbon capture as something to work towards. But right now it's completely non-viable, so it cannot be the basis of a policy.

4

u/OrangeFantastic_8716 Oct 20 '21

So is wind. So is solar. Doesn’t stop people from arguing they should be progressed, and doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep working on them. There is no viable renewable energy right now to displace fossil fuels in it’s entirety. The closest would be nuclear because it’s zero carbon, abundant, can be easily stored and managed, and renewable.

You just keep proving my point over and over by displaying your intolerance to consider anything outside of your pre confirmed biases. You’ve clearly decided certain solutions can’t work, and believe they should be excised from the policy conversation. That’s damaging.

→ More replies

1

u/Content_Employment_7 Oct 20 '21

Carbon capture tech is still in its infancy, but it's very probably our only shot at dealing with large bad actors like China and Russia. The West is going to need to be not only net-zero, but net-negative, if we're going to avert disaster and compensate for rising emissions in other countries.

4

u/FieldMarshalPeriph Oct 20 '21

Carbon capture tech is still in its infancy

And it absolutely can be worked on. But it can't be the foundation of a policy.

3

u/Wizzard_Ozz Oct 20 '21

Also, even within the body of climate change research, there are variations in what experts expect the long term effects to be. But these days even suggesting that we may not be headed for a mass extinction if we don’t radically change our society in the next half century is dismissed as anti science.

Mass extinction can be predicted based on Co2 levels alone. If you ignore the effect on the planet ( weather systems, etc ), we have building codes for ventilation that prevent Co2 levels from exceeding 600ppm. If our atmosphere hits those levels the negative effect on the human body will be unavoidable.

Our bodies are far more fragile, or less tolerant of Co2 levels than the planet, but all the focus is on the planet. The biggest complaint I have about climate change is that it doesn't focus on what matters the most. If you want to convince people, we have studies on the effects of co2 concentrations on the human body. Focus on how this will directly affect the population, make it about them and their children's development.

3

u/OrangeFantastic_8716 Oct 20 '21

Negative effect and mass extinction aren’t the same thing. Mass extinction has an explicit definition - 75% of a species being lost within a defined length of time.

But again, activists will tell you we are already experiencing a mass extinction at a time when the world population continues to grow. That is just nonsense, as are the doom claims we will experience on in the next decade or two.

2

u/Wizzard_Ozz Oct 20 '21

In the most severe mass extinctions it may take 15 to 30 million years.

We have no concept of time on a planetary/species scale because we are fresh out of the womb in the existence of the planet. How many creatures on this planet existed in an atmosphere that we have currently caused? Our Co2 levels are those of 50 million years ago.

Our ability to function is not only the cause of this, but our way out of this. If you continue the pollution at the rate it currently is, our ability ( and that of many species ) to function at all will end well within that time window.

3

u/OrangeFantastic_8716 Oct 20 '21

“Continuing pollution unabated will lead to a mass extinction” and “we are already experiencing a mass extinction” are not the same thing.

I have full confidence in human ingenuity to develop a low carbon society.

3

u/Wizzard_Ozz Oct 20 '21

But these days even suggesting that we may not be headed for a mass extinction if we don’t radically change our society in the next half century is dismissed as anti science.

"Headed to" was from your original comment, If things don't change then we most definitely are. Will it take half a century, at our current planetary increases in pollution, I'd say we would definitely be well on our way.

Given pollution is continuing to grow, I am not confident in your level of confidence we ( humans ) can change.

1

u/tekazgtr1984 Manitoba Oct 20 '21

It doesn't just include the human population when scientists mention the current mass extinction event. It includes flora and fauna across the entire planet.

As if that even needs to be pointed out.

-2

u/Nobagelnobagelnobag Oct 20 '21

If we’re talking science here, I’ve yet to see a proposition from any party, or any human for that matter, that shows a path for Canada to reduce emissions to the point it has a measurable difference on climate change. And I never will. Why? Science shows we are irrelevant. Could be wiped from the map and it wouldn’t make any measurable difference.

So… this is all pretty moot. Ain’t it?

4

u/NorthIslandlife Oct 20 '21

Ah the shift the blame arguement, AKA the "What about China?"

Per capita Canadians are among the worst polluters on the planet. Countries on the other side of the world are saying "What about Canada?"

The ship is sinking bud, you can either start bailing or continue pissing and we can all go down with the ship.

2

u/Nobagelnobagelnobag Oct 20 '21

If the action is futile, the outcome is irrelevant to whether or not the action is logical.

It will do nothing. That’s it. That’s all you need to know. There is also a cost to it.

3

u/NorthIslandlife Oct 20 '21

The action is not futile. Maybe you don't think we can make a difference but I and many others do.

You can stand by and watch.

1

u/Nobagelnobagelnobag Oct 20 '21

How. Show me the math. You’re basing it on faith, I’m using science. Hilariously, the exact thing this argument started about.

1

u/NorthIslandlife Oct 20 '21

What math do you want to see?

4

u/Nobagelnobagelnobag Oct 20 '21

How Canada reducing emissions can measurable impact climate change. What degree of reduction would do it? Show your work.

6

u/NorthIslandlife Oct 20 '21

Canada can't do it alone obviously. It's a world wide problem and it will require worldwide effort.

But us saying "no thanks" to helping would make it harder for everyone else. If there's a problem, you offer to help. I believe Canada could be a leader and show the world that we can punch above our weight. That's what I believe.

Not all Canadians are created equal though.

3

u/Nobagelnobagelnobag Oct 20 '21

It wouldn’t make it harder for anyone else. It would be irrelevant to everyone else. That’s the point. That’s why it’s called a tragedy of the commons. It’s not a tragedy because everyone’s just an asshole or stupid. It’s a tragedy because every actor is acting rationally and appropriately. By the way, the actual solution to the tragedy of the commons is to work together but there is no incentive to doing so before others and the agreement must have teeth.

There is absolutely no benefit to anyone for Canada to unilaterally impose carbon reduction .

→ More replies

1

u/swordsdancemew Oct 21 '21

We used to matter as a huge carbon sink before deforestation. There are no old growth trees within a day's drive of my home in any direction

16

u/cw08 Oct 20 '21

Le both sides

25

u/kudatah Oct 20 '21

Friendly reminder Rex is an oil shill and the CBC took away his ability to make money with them

https://thenarwhal.ca/cbc-clamps-down-speaking-fees-after-rex-murphy-s-pro-oil-speech-controversy/

13

u/cw08 Oct 20 '21

This explains a lot. Axe to grind.

8

u/tekazgtr1984 Manitoba Oct 20 '21

Yep. He's been a mouthpiece for the oil industry for years and has zero credibility or integrity himself.

5

u/wet_suit_one Oct 20 '21

Eh...

Rex my man, what exactly are you?

Maybe consider that before taking this line of attack.

Sheesh.

19

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

What questions would you like them to ask Rex?

Is stating that the tone of an article sounds like a proclamation supposed to be a point of some sort?

What if it's not an article at all?

We use this editor's blog to explain our journalism and what's happening at CBC News.

...

Our pledge is simply that climate change and the endeavours to mitigate its effects will get the sustained journalistic focus and attention they deserve at a time most experts describe as an inflection point for the planet.

I'm still trying to figure out why he decided to pick a non-news blog as material for a hit piece.

17

u/JonTheBold Oct 20 '21

He's been soaking up oil industry money for the past decade or so. Neither he nor the Post care about the source, just that final product attacks all of the juicy targets: Trudeau, Liberals, environmentalism, etc. That's the payday formula for anyone you see on the Post's opinion page.

20

u/XianL Nova Scotia Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

Ancient grumpy thesaurus man angrily cries bOtH SiDeS about topic 99% of knowledgable people generally agree upon.

33

u/Canadiannurse1 Oct 20 '21

Normally, I think Rex is a crazy old man. But I do agree the CBC has become far too partisan. It is very pro liberal party in much of its reporting. It is as friendly to the liberal party and SUN media is to the conservatives. I wish there were more fair reporting/media in this country.

30

u/SuburbanValues Oct 20 '21

Fair is not necessarily down the middle of what politicians are saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

8

u/Historical-Poetry230 Oct 20 '21

I don't think anyone is saying "the middle" (what would that even mean in regards to some topics like fiscal policy?) But a lot of media here like the CBC acts like the Liberal party line is the only and right way to do something when that's not necessarily the case

-10

u/SuburbanValues Oct 20 '21

Maybe the Liberal party just happens to be picking the correct positions. The media is only being fair by reporting on this. If other parties adopt the correct positions they will get positive coverage. Incorrect positions will be criticized.

12

u/StarshipStonks Oct 20 '21

That's incredibly circular logic. "The only right positions are the ones the CBC endorses, so it's only fair that the CBC endorses them".

5

u/Angree_dude Oct 20 '21

I would argue an offshoot of confirmation bias. People who do not hold the same ideas perceive the CBC to be biased in favor of Liberals whereas they just happen to share the same views as the Liberals as do a vast majority of Canadians.

-3

u/StarshipStonks Oct 20 '21

as do a vast majority of Canadians

What sort of trick math are you using where 32% of Canadians are a "vast majority"?

3

u/Angree_dude Oct 20 '21

So NDP, Green and many Conservative voters do not share the sentiment that climate change is a pressing issue?

1

u/StarshipStonks Oct 20 '21

"They just happen to share the same views as the Liberals" implies far more agreement than a single issue. If you want to be more specific, try actually being more specific.

-2

u/Historical-Poetry230 Oct 20 '21

That's fine but obviously people feel like they are fairly analysing and critizing all policies equally.

13

u/SunPraiser_ Oct 20 '21

I remember last year CBC ripping into Ford over refusing to add paid sick days, but no word on Horgan doing the exact same thing.

24

u/Justleftofcentrerigh Ontario Oct 20 '21

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/paid-sick-days-bc-covid-19-1.6022178

The problem with Ford was... that he took 2 days away that Wynne pushed through, then when asked about COVID SICK days, Ford said no.... then buckled and said yes.

1

u/NotInsane_Yet Oct 20 '21

Or ripping on Ford for vaccine passports having a QR code option despite it being the same in most provinces and also optional.

-1

u/Mysterious_Mouse_388 Oct 20 '21

CBC was anti passport in Ontario? but the librals are pro passport, so are you trying to make a contrarian point?

4

u/NotInsane_Yet Oct 20 '21

Nope. CBC was anti Doug Ford's version of a passport.

-2

u/2cats2hats Oct 20 '21

I wish there were more fair reporting/media in this country.

I don't give a shit about media bias personally. But I DO care about media bias from a taxpayer-funded media outlet.

0

u/elgrantooo Oct 21 '21

I’ll never cease to be amazed at how readily r/Canada welcomes using their tax money to fund a corporation to lie to them.

3

u/2cats2hats Oct 21 '21

Yup, the downvotes tell me this. Screwy!

13

u/RealSonyPony Oct 20 '21

How long until Rex retires?

12

u/VoteForMartinKendell Oct 20 '21

Even when he dies, Rex has written enough Mad Lib stories for the next 50 years.

[politician] is trying to [verb] Canadians using [scandalous activity].

6

u/kudatah Oct 20 '21

He makes his living as a mouthpiece for the oil industry. If he stops giving pro-oil op-eds, he loses a lot of money from them

11

u/ManfredTheCat Oct 20 '21

He's been dead for 11 years and his writing reflects that.

14

u/Anlysia Oct 20 '21

Rex Murphy -- billionaire mouthpiece -- bothered by someone else encroaching on his territory.

-5

u/2cats2hats Oct 20 '21

He isn't wrong about CBC pandering to the left. Call him whatever you want he isn't wrong here.

15

u/Anlysia Oct 20 '21

Is it "pandering" or is it "the majority of the country has left-leanng views"?

I would say the Post Media empire is "pandering" to the right-leaning minority demands to see their views represented everywhere despite the fact that they are already over-represented.

-4

u/2cats2hats Oct 20 '21

Is it "pandering" or is it "the majority of the country has left-leanng views"?

Why is this relevant, exactly? This implies the "minority" should have their voices heard less.

the Post Media empire is "pandering" to the right

Fine with me. It's not a taxpayer-funded media outlet.

5

u/TraditionalGap1 Oct 20 '21

I mean, yes.

The minority should have their voices heard less. That's why the PPC wasn't in the debates. That's why the Greens weren't in debates until recently.

The taxpayer funded media outlet should broadly reflect the makeup of the electorate, which (sadly for NatPo and Rex) skews a bit left.

1

u/2cats2hats Oct 20 '21

Yup, and I get downvoted pointing this all out. Reddit can be so omnipotent and narrow-minded at times.... Thanks.

7

u/Rayeon-XXX Oct 20 '21

Don't listen to what they say watch what they do.

0

u/GameDoesntStop Oct 20 '21

Like suing the Liberals’ main opposition (publicly and baselessly) days before a close election.

13

u/BigNickDipples Verified Oct 20 '21

Okay boomer.

9

u/ABinturong Oct 20 '21

I'll be damned if I'll let Rex tell me what's what. Privileged talking head turned disconnectd troglodyte. No thanks, bud.

-3

u/shiver-yer-timbers Oct 20 '21

I'll be damned if I'll let Rex tell me what's what.

That's what the CBC is for

6

u/Timbit42 New Brunswick Oct 20 '21

That's not what any media source is for.

-1

u/elgrantooo Oct 20 '21

I remember in 05-06 somewhere around there when Paul Martin was calling for a ban on handguns CBC ran a piece on the amount of police officers killed by handguns and the stats just didn’t seem right for Canada. I looked into where they drew the statistics from and they were 100% right all of the cases they referenced were police officers killed by handguns, that they removed from their holsters and shot themselves with.

That piece completely misrepresented the data to support a liberal talking piece and did a MAJOR disservice to the actual problem of police suicide.

That is when I realized that CBC is just maple flavoured PRAVDA.

2

u/elgrantooo Oct 20 '21

Lol downvotes. It’s a thing that happened.

-10

u/maladjustedCanadian Oct 20 '21

Ageist ad hominems aside, this is a very important point that was made.

if it cannot be distinguished from the government’s own position, if it could very easily be seen as a bulletin from any activist, global warming advocacy or activist group, how can it seriously be considered a statement about “journalism” or proper news coverage?

To put it bluntly, the question is, is CBC a national news organization for ALL Canadians or do these guys believe in their vanguard position as organ of Liberal Party and even more specific, Trudeau and his current team?

We dont have a debate on climate change, we have fear inducing process to arrive at the conclusion - and perhaps a plan - already drawn.

21

u/MSevenzer Oct 20 '21

There is no debate about human accelerated climate change. It's happening and denying it is wrong. Not even an opinion, it's a factually incorrect statement to deny it.

What there is debate about is where do we go? Doing nothing isn't an option, and Liberals are doing the very very very bare minimum while the other parties aren't really even trying right now.

-14

u/maladjustedCanadian Oct 20 '21

There is no debate about human accelerated climate change.

What there is debate about is where do we go?

In order to know what to do one needs to discuss the details of "human accelerated climate change".

There's a difference between we all die in a month vs. we might get all dead in 300 years.

17

u/Starscream262 Oct 20 '21

It's already starting to impact agriculture, and at an accelerated rate, including here in Canada. It's starting to have an impact on commerce. It's starting to have an impact on people dying in their homes of heat exposure, even here in Canada. Here in BC, we had a pretty sizable town burn to the ground as it became the hottest place in the history of Canada as far as we keep records for.

This thing is real, and is impacting people's lives today.

8

u/MSevenzer Oct 20 '21

It's ramping up too.

A single event is noteworthy but not a concern in the long run. But then you look at the extreme weather events across the country in the last 20-30 years you see more every year.

And it's exactly as the science describes which is the scary part. These types of disasters are just going to be increasingly more common putting strain on everyone.

3

u/Starscream262 Oct 20 '21

So yea, it's not "humans will be extinct tomorrow!", but it's going to make life harder, and more and more people will die from it, and agriculture is going to suffer. A lot.

1

u/No-Wonder1139 Oct 20 '21

Ironic coming from the post.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '21

[removed]

4

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '21

[removed]

-23

u/GrumpyCanadiens Oct 20 '21

Woke media propaganda. That’s funded by neo liberals.

7

u/Morbid_CAD Oct 20 '21

-11

u/GrumpyCanadiens Oct 20 '21

Thanks. Yes we all know that liberals are for the rich and the elites. Thanks for strengthening my argument.

6

u/Morbid_CAD Oct 20 '21

So your advocating for a socialist party of canada?

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '21

[removed]

2

u/raius83 Oct 20 '21

They aren't your tax dollars.

-1

u/GrumpyCanadiens Oct 20 '21

Who funds the cbc?

6

u/raius83 Oct 20 '21

You sound like those idiots who scream at public sector employee's that they pay their salary. The taxes you pay aren't ear marked for anything, you do not pay for the CBC. On the flip side someone who's against police funding doesn't pay for the police either.

0

u/GrumpyCanadiens Oct 20 '21

Who funds the cbc?

0

u/GrumpyCanadiens Oct 20 '21

Weird how you can’t answer that question eh? Thanks for proving my point. Defund the cbc

1

u/raius83 Oct 20 '21

Thankfully your opinion is immaterial. The CBC won't be defunded just because you're having a hissy fit about paying taxes.

→ More replies

1

u/darth_vadester Ontario Oct 20 '21

Liberals are neocons, so what are you talking about?

-13

u/shiver-yer-timbers Oct 20 '21

On climate change??

and on everything else too..

-6

u/InsufficientlyClever Ontario Oct 20 '21

While I'm generally not a fan of Rex Murphy, (and National Post notwithstanding)

Has the CBC abandoned both curiosity and the responsibility to question,
which are the very essence of journalism? For emphasis, let me make the
absolutely simple point — the first duty of journalism is to ask
questions, to inquire, to challenge. Where in that statement above is
there even a breath of the need to question, inquire or challenge?

he is spot-on here. When it comes to contentious or partisan issues, CBC has done little but to repeat the government position under the guise of reporting, rather than journalism.

3

u/Holiday-Hustle Oct 20 '21

I think the issue is that we shouldn’t be treating climate change, which 99.9% of scientists believe is real and caused by humans, as a partisan issue.

0

u/Oiltrash8912 Oct 21 '21

Shut down line 5, it’s the most dangerous pipeline.

-4

u/micfrachi59 Oct 20 '21

The CBC is a government department that competes with other government departments for financing and does so with consistent and deliberate attacks on those ministries.

0

u/SecretRoom2594 Oct 21 '21

Once upon a time, way back I liked Rex Murphy.