Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
I agree but what is the significance of this? The CBC counterbalances these somehow? From my perspective as a listener that doesn't matter. I am just disappointed that the quality of stories on CBC radio isn't higher.
Creating two highly polarized sets of stations and listeners isn't healthy anyway even if it is somehow balanced on average.
My objection doesn't have much to do with bias either. I am okay with hearing from an ultra liberal or ultra conservative commentator assuming they have interesting things to say (although usually the more objective the commentator the less politically aligned they are!).
I also don't mind if it is teary-eyed but I like there to be some meat to the story. In too many cases the reporting is highly subjective and the only real takeaway is that someone should feel bad. This is true of a lot of journalism today. It amounts to:
- Identify two groups
- Show that they have different outcomes somehow. Ideally a group that gets more sympathy has worse outcomes.
- Q.E.D.
|
If anyone *actually* cares about a media landscape where all viewpoints are represented, then yes, it matters that there's one place on the radio dial where that content can land. I believe the counterbalance actually does matter in the big picture, although I also tend to tune out as a listener.
Besides, there's podcasts and web radio if all you really want is a group of yuppies trying their utmost to be inoffensive while they calmly debate policy from their ivory towers. That fills most of my workday.