A National Broadcaster Must Be Non-Partisan on All Issues, Especially Immigration
A significant part of the Canadian population does not understand what is happening on the immigration issue. The obvious question that should be asked is “WHY?”
All our major political parties have contributed to this lack of understanding by refusing to admit publicly that Canada’s immigration intake (an average of 250,000 per year for the past 23 years) is both abnormal and unnecessary.
In addition, all of our political parties have refused to acknowledge that most of this intake, as well as Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker program, has caused significant negative consequences for Canadians.
Almost all of our media either do not understand what is happening on the immigration issue or are involved in partisan reporting in favour of the immigration status quo. In other words, the media’s behaviour when dealing with the immigration issue is very similar to that of Canada’s political parties.
The CBC which receives close to $1 Billion yearly from Canadian taxpayers (to inform Canadians about their country and the world) has long taken a partisan, pro-status quo position on the immigration issue.
Although the CBC does some very good work on some issues, its work on the immigration issue testifies that it works diligently to mis-inform and deceive Canadians. This undermines much of the CBC’s good work and makes CBC listeners and viewers inevitably ask : “What is the CBC distorting, omitting or suppressing on other issues?”
The CBC may not have the majority of Canadians as listeners or viewers, but its large tax-payer resources enable it to exist in publicly-paid for buildings and to use state-of-the-art broadcast facilities. There, it can disseminate material, conduct research and do many things which the majority of other Canadian media cannot afford to do. The Canadian media who do not have access to these public resources often re-broadcast material from the news items that the CBC broadcasts. In re-broadcasting partisan CBC views, they magnify the damage done by the CBC.
The CBC is currently boasting that it has increased its share of Canadian listeners and viewers. Its partisan stance in favour of the immigration status quo continues and intensifies.
The CBC’s stance goes on in spite of its own policy, 2.2.17 which is titled “Political activity”. That policy clearly states that “The CBC / Radio-Canada must remain and appear to remain impartial in carrying out its professional duties to the Canadian Public. It is essential that the CBC / Radio-Canada neither holds, nor appears to hold, a position on any matter of public concern or controversy.”
There is absolutely no doubt that many CBC reporters, hosts, producers and executives have taken a partisan stand in favour of the immigration status quo. Even a tiny sample of what the CBC does any day of the week on radio or television would show that the CBC acts as the virtual propaganda arm of Canada’s high immigration lobby.
Supposedly, the public can register complaints about CBC partisan activity with the CBC Ombudsman’s office. Accordingly, the public should expect the CBC’s Ombudsman to be a non-partisan arbitrator of complaints about CBC partisan behaviour. However, any member of the public who has complained to the Ombudsman’s office soon discovers that the Ombudsman, for example, dismisses all immigration-related complaints and gives almost robotic approval to virtually everything that the CBC broadcasts.
In recent judgements of four immigration-related complaints, CBC Ombudsman Kirk Lapointe and his successor, Esther Enkin, ruled that the CBC had not violated CBC policies. They ruled this way, in spite of the fact that the four cases in question were examples of CBC’s clear violation of its 2.2.17 “Political activity” policy. Dozens of complaints could easily be registered every week across Canada of CBC partisan activity on the immigration issue. Anyone who has witnessed what is going on would see that the past and current Ombudsman go through mental contortions to justify all CBC work, no matter how outrageously partisan.
Like the CBC’s partisan policy of turning Canada’s public radio and television over to Canada’s immigration lobby, the CBC’s Ombudsman office is corrupt to the core. That office needs to be replaced by a completely independent complaints office because the CBC Ombudsman’s office is a clear failure, The Canadian Radio and Television Commission should be given this responsibility. In addition, because the CBC is extremely partisan, clearly violating its own policy on “Political Activity”, and therefore abusing its role, the CRTC should be given the power to dismiss CBC employees who practice partisan behaviour. At present, members of the Canadian public, which subsidizes the CBC, have no one to turn to when the CBC treats them with contempt.
To begin the process, and in the interest of fairness, the CRTC should collect data on the partisan activity of the CBC and Radio Canada over just the past year. It will be easy to find a large amount of extremely damning evidence. The CRTC should make full use of its existing power. It has the authority to grant the CBC a licence to broadcast.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence which supports the notion that the CRTC, to begin with, should add significant restrictions to any CBC licence it has granted or will grant to the CBC. Among those new rules should be a requirement that the CBC be non-partisan on the immigration issue. If the CRTC looks only at the past month of CBC broadcasting, it will easily be able to justify an immediate censuring of the CBC . To ensure that the CBC remains held to account for its future behaviour, and to ensure that CBC listeners and viewers receive non-partisan coverage of the immigration issue (but other issues as well), the CRTC should introduce as soon as possible whatever other measures it considers necessary .
For similar behaviour by the BBC in the UK, please read the following :
BBC biased towards pro-immigration lobby, says study
The BBC is biased toward the pro-immigration lobby while ignoring those with opposing views, a study has claimed.
By Melanie Hall
The Telegraph, May 29, 2013