Why is this sub just CBC news stories? Does a bot add them all? They are mostly empty with no comments. Makes for a strange feed.

Edit: I think I just need to figure out which way to sort my feed. Sorting by hot gives me almost all CBC.

Edit 2: CBC is great. I am commenting on the state of c/Canada, not the quality of CBC

  • Gazing2863
    26·
    2 years ago

    I think a mix of both sides is best tbh. Wonder if using the description that is included with link posts would be a good spot to include a couple sources from differing views.

    • MapleEngineerEnglish
      12·
      2 years ago

      I like a mix of sources between left of center (CBC) and slight right (National Post) with highly factual reporting. Ideally I want something on this list with very highly factual reporting and high credibility. Anything below highly factual or outside of the band between left center and right center I’m not interested in.

      The National Post opinion section is a dumpster fire of right wing bullshit.

      • MyFeetOwnMySoulEnglish
        11·
        2 years ago

        Omg, NatPosts comment section is a sight to behold.

        I happened onto my first one this week, and this one guy posted like 4 veild rape threats towards Justin Trudeau in under 15 minutes. Not to mention all the similar previous comments he made on the same post

        Like I get it, he’s hawt, but keep it in your pants.

        • MapleEngineerEnglish
          41·
          2 years ago

          The NatPo comment section is a fascist echo chamber populated by convoy tantrumists, anti-vaxers, anti-maskers, racists, white supremacists, christofascists, and neo-nazis.

          The NatPo opinion section is a propaganda wing of the christofascist wing of the Conservative party. It was so bad that the neo-fascist bot herders that ran r/canada flagged it as [Opinion Piece]. When even they recognize it as right wing propaganda you know it’s bad.

      • tartraEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        Exactly!

        A mix of different perspectives isn’t the issue.

        A mix of different facts, with one sourced and cited and the other just being angry opinions, is the issue. Those shouldn’t be equated with each other - not just because that angry opinions are cheap to pump. They can easily drown out researched articles.

        That’s not to say opinions aren’t important! Many, many real-life experiences get ignored, overlooked, or purposely cast aside, and anecdotal accounts and subjective experiences are all we have. But I take issue with something presenting itself as a factual source of information when it only has very shaky citations, or when it has no citations and brushes it off like, “Well, everyone should know this, and if you don’t, you’re in on it.”

        NatPo is propaganda parading itself as news, and that’s dangerous to put on the same level as news outlets that actually research their stories.

        • Gazing2863English
          3·
          2 years ago

          I’d argue most major news networks are propaganda parading itself as news. CBC may be more of an exception since they have government funding, though they do still have advertisers and to some degree lose some element of control because of that.

          Things like cellphones and internet are a big proponent of most Canadians lives, and the antics that Bell and Rogers gets up to are rarely reported on, or if they are reported on, there is a lot of omissions. It’s no surprise why considering Bell and Rogers own a lot of the news networks.

          I’d say a good chunk of Canadian and American news is pretty heavily controlled by mega corporations.

          • tartraEnglish
            3·
            2 years ago

            I agree to a large extent! I would add onto that by saying government funding also acts as advertising dollars would, but that because the government has put some value onto transparency and has to be elected, Canadians can have a better chance to identify where the unspoken bias is based on who’s got the wallet.

            I would also say that because of all their funding and because of their need to establish themselves as a reliable source of news, CBC has to put a ton of effort into reporting on news that many would call ‘useful’ so that there’s more of a benefit of doubt extended to them when they don’t report on telecoms.

            All that to say “let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater,” but the genuinely useful articles and journalistic standards that exist for CBC do also operate in an environment that serves whoever’s funding it. They’re an excellent starting point for awareness, so I’m happy to see their stuff shared, but I’d never recommend having their word be law on what’s “worth” reporting or sometimes even the angle they’re taking while they report on it.