Talk:CBC News

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CBC News article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Canada: Television Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian television.

Media High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Journalism Top‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Lack of Verification

This page hardly has any verification to the information on the article. Would someone find verification please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrokid77666 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with the lack of verification, much of the information was not cited or verified. For example, the first paragraph does not have a citation as to the fact that CBC News was founded in 1941. Also, there may be some bias surrounding some of the sources as some are created by news outlets such as Huffington Post. Frmjenn (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede (also spelled lead) section is not required to have any references. All of its content should be supported in the article. See MOS:LEAD. The founding date is not currently supported in the article, and I'm not sure if it ever was. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a problem for a decade. I've now tagged the problematic sentences. Walter deleted the tags, without proper reason. I therefore reverted. If this continues, I will consider instead deleting the non-referenced material per our rules. We are not a collection of uncited text - that is not how wp works. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0EC:BE1B:EA2A:45AD (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has now - without reason/edit summary, reverted my tags once again. Can someone suggest an admin who might help here? User:Spilia4, User:Aquillion, User:GorillaWarfare? 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0EC:BE1B:EA2A:45AD (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare supposed discussion

@GorillaWarfare: claimed that there is a discussion about these drive-by taggings. I see no such discussion and these are WP:BLUE issues that were tagged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See above. From looking at the tags, these are not WP:BLUE issues at all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GW. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A0EC:BE1B:EA2A:45AD (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of bias

I noticed obvious issues with the article yesterday so have edited it, but only read the talk page archives today to see if a previous discussion happened. There was a previous discussion so I'll add more information explaining my changes.

Other parties were also sued for copyright, cherry picking the conservative party for a long paragraph is undue.
If there's something to report about the conservative party trying to shut down CBC, that's what WP should report and it possibly doesn't belong in that section.
There was mention of personal criticism but when reading independent sources about it one can easily determine that CBC is not the problem. WP would then report about that rather than promoting the person's claims and that's undue as well a disservice to the person anyway.

I would even suggest merging the section into a single paragraph, considering that what remains is a general impression of public opinion. —Paleo Neonate – 15:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

banned on instagram?

article says it is available on instagram but it is blocked in Canada. I think it makes sense to mention that?! Skfd (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CBC publicly funded

They are a publicly funded broadcaster. This isn’t even a dispute.stop removing it from the description https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/impact-and-accountability/finance/annual-reports/ar-2021-2022/financial-sustainability/revenue-and-other-funds 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:1910:EEB8:265C:6FBF (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That belongs in the main article on CBC. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still publicly funded. Stop disruptive editing practices 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:CCBB:9580:7CA0:BE17 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given any reason as to why having this information is incorrect. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:4DBF:E123:E411:9741 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bias allegations

The CBC has been rated left leaning by all prominent bias rating organizations such as allsides, Media bias fact check, and Ad fontes media

CBC Ombudsman Jack Nagler said “if you want to be fully informed” It is unwise for CBC TV viewers to rely on the network calling it “two timed” in failing to acknowledge differing points of view in its news coverage: “We aren’t hearing enough information that conflicts with our pre-existing views, and when we do, too often we reject it out of hand.” https://www.blacklocks.ca/unwise-to-rely-on-cbc-tv/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B0FF:84F8:E4C3:3828 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That link is login-locked, a full article with that quote is here on MSN

And it's misleading. If you read the actual context, the full quote is this: “If I were writing as a media critic rather than ombudsman I might say that CBC was too timid about giving exposure to some of the sentiments in Canadian society during the height of the pandemic,” added Nagler. “That does not mean it was wrong to give credence to experts.” Fireant314 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I didn’t realize this. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:2CFC:F9F4:4DD9:B31C (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are unreliable per the WP:RSP summary of the the WP:RSN discussions. --Hipal (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a specific link to the discussion, The ones I’ve found reinforces allsides as a reliable source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Is_Allsides.com_a_reliable_source? 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:24C0:85AE:4701:D1AE (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, actually: "Skimming the many discussions about it, they all seem to conclude it's unreliable. I agree with the other conclusion, that it's probably never due mention." Wellington Bay (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MBFC and WP:ADFONTES indicate they are clearly not reliable.
WP:ALLSIDES indicates it shouldn't be used in this case because their rating for CBC states AllSides has low or initial confidence in this bias rating. If it was a high-confidence rating, then we could consider using it. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]