Connect with us

Opinion

Resigning staff member writes open letter saying CBC has abandoned “journalistic integrity.”

Published

9 minute read

As 2021 wrapped up, so did the CBC chapter for journalist Tara Henley.  After 8 years with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Henley left to step out on her own. Here’s her open letter explaining why.

Click here to see this on Substack or read below to see her open letter.

Speaking Freely

Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

For months now, I’ve been getting complaints about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, where I’ve worked as a TV and radio producer, and occasional on-air columnist, for much of the past decade.

People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported. Or why our pop culture radio show’s coverage of the Dave Chappelle Netflix special failed to include any of the legions of fans, or comics, that did not find it offensive. Or why, exactly, taxpayers should be funding articles that scold Canadians for using words such as “brainstorm” and “lame.”

Everyone asks the same thing: What is going on at the CBC?

When I started at the national public broadcaster in 2013, the network produced some of the best journalism in the country. By the time I resigned last month, it embodied some of the worst trends in mainstream media. In a short period of time, the CBC went from being a trusted source of news to churning out clickbait that reads like a parody of the student press.

Those of us on the inside know just how swiftly — and how dramatically — the politics of the public broadcaster have shifted.

It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, frequently sparking tension by questioning identity politics. This happened in the span of about 18 months. My own politics did not change.

To work at the CBC in the current climate is to embrace cognitive dissonance and to abandon journalistic integrity.

It is to sign on, enthusiastically, to a radical political agenda that originated on Ivy League campuses in the United States and spread through American social media platforms that monetize outrage and stoke societal divisions. It is to pretend that the “woke” worldview is near universal — even if it is far from popular with those you know, and speak to, and interview, and read.

To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others.

To work at the CBC is to submit to job interviews that are not about qualifications or experience — but instead demand the parroting of orthodoxies, the demonstration of fealty to dogma.

It is to become less adversarial to government and corporations and more hostile to ordinary people with ideas that Twitter doesn’t like.

It is to endlessly document microaggressions but pay little attention to evictions; to spotlight company’s political platitudes but have little interest in wages or working conditions. It is to allow sweeping societal changes like lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and school closures to roll out — with little debate. To see billionaires amass extraordinary wealth and bureaucrats amass enormous power — with little scrutiny. And to watch the most vulnerable among us die of drug overdoses — with little comment.

It is to consent to the idea that a growing list of subjects are off the table, that dialogue itself can be harmful. That the big issues of our time are all already settled.

It is to capitulate to certainty, to shut down critical thinking, to stamp out curiosity. To keep one’s mouth shut, to not ask questions, to not rock the boat.

This, while the world burns.

How could good journalism possibly be done under such conditions? How could any of this possibly be healthy for society?

All of this raises larger questions about the direction that North America is headed. Questions about this new moment we are living through — and its impact on the body politic. On class divisions, and economic inequality. On education. On mental health. On literature, and comedy. On science. On liberalism, and democracy.

These questions keep me up at night.

I can no longer push them down. I will no longer hold them back. This Substack is an attempt to find some answers.

Share

I have been a journalist for 20 years, covering everything from hip-hop to news, food to current affairs. The through line has always been books, which I’ve engaged with at every stage of my career and at every outlet I’ve worked for. In 2020, I published my own book, Lean Out: A Meditation on the Madness of Modern Life, which was an instant bestseller in Canada.

Books have always opened new worlds for me, introduced me to new perspectives, and helped me to make sense of humanity. I need books now more than ever.

During lockdown, when I wasn’t covering COVID-19, I spent a lot of time interviewing authors for a new book I’m working on. Their boldness and insight and humour saved me from despair. These writers gave me ideas on how to move forward, and how to maintain hope. Most of all, they gave me the courage to stand up — and to speak out.

Here at Substack, I will continue the work of thinking through the current moment, focusing on non-fiction writing from around the world. I will post an essay on a books related topic every Monday, and a podcast conversation with a heterodox author every Wednesday. This will be free to all. A third post on Fridays will round up the most contrarian, controversial or overlooked new books and essays, and will be available to paid subscribers.

This work is entirely independent and entirely free from editorial control, allowing me to say the things that are not being said, and ask the questions that are not being asked. Lean Out is solely supported by subscribers. If you care about the world of ideas and value open inquiry, as I do, please consider a paid subscription.

And stay tuned for the first episode of the Lean Out podcast this Wednesday, featuring my conversation with Newsweek’s Batya Ungar-Sargon, author of Bad News: How Woke Media is Undermining Democracy.

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

National

Democracy Watch Blows the Whistle on Carney’s Ethics Sham

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Watchdog Group Exposes “Loophole-Filled, Unethical Smokescreens” in Prime Minister’s Blind Trust and Conflict Screen, Calls for Full Divestment

So here’s something the media doesn’t want to talk about because it shatters the entire illusion they’ve built around the man they now call Prime Minister: Mark Carney. The technocratic savior, the former banker with all the right globalist credentials, the guy who jets between Davos and Ottawa with a PowerPoint and a carbon tax. And yet, today buried under polite headlines and careful euphemisms a watchdog group in Canada finally said what should’ve been obvious to anyone paying attention.

Mark Carney’s ethics screen and his so-called “blind trust” are scams. Period.

That’s not hyperbole. That’s from Democracy Watch, one of the last remaining ethics organizations in the country that hasn’t been swallowed by the federal funding machine or bullied into silence by the PMO. In a statement released this week, they laid out—point by point—how Carney’s financial arrangement is not just flawed, but a “loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen.” Their words. And they’re right.

Let’s go through it.

Carney, who now controls the federal government, holds investments in over 550 companies. Five hundred and fifty. That includes stock options in Brookfield Asset Management, where he used to be vice-chair, and a major stake in Stripe, the Silicon Valley payment processor. Yet we’re told, by government and press alike, that all is well because he’s placed these assets in a “blind trust.” Sounds reassuring, doesn’t it?

But here’s the problem. It’s not blind. Not even close.

According to Democracy Watch, Carney knows exactly what’s in that trust. Why? Because he put the assets in himself, he chose his own trustee, and he was allowed to instruct the trustee not to sell anything. Read that again. He told the trustee: keep my investments intact. And that trustee? Free to give him updates.

So, what part of this is blind?

The answer is: none of it. And it gets worse. Carney holds stock options in Brookfield Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management—options that he cannot sell for years. Which means even if he wanted to claim ignorance, he can’t. He knows he owns them. Everyone knows he owns them. And now he’s making policy decisions that shape the very industries those companies operate in—climate policy, tech investment, financial regulation, you name it.

Let’s call this what it is. It’s a conflict of interest so massive it makes Justin Trudeau’s WE Charity scandal look like a lemonade stand. And yet, this isn’t even the worst part.

Carney’s ethics screen, the list of 103 companies he’s supposedly recused from dealing with—doesn’t cover the full 550+. It only applies to a fraction. But even among those 103, the federal Conflict of Interest Act contains a loophole so big you could drive a solar-powered Brookfield wind turbine through it.

It’s called the “general application” exemption. Under this clause, public office holders like, say, the Prime Minister; can fully participate in decisions that impact industries or economic sectors as a whole, so long as those decisions aren’t “targeted” at a specific company. So if Carney signs off on a $10 billion green tech fund that pumps value into Brookfield’s renewables portfolio? That’s legal. Because it’s general.

In fact, according to Democracy Watch, that loophole applies to “99% of the decisions” cabinet ministers make. So despite having personal investments tied to hundreds of companies, Carney can still sit in meetings, shape policy, and direct subsidies that increase the value of his trust, without technically breaking the rules.

Lets call this what it is, this is legalized insider dealing.

And remember this: every time a public official recuses themselves, they’re supposed to make a public declaration. That’s the law under Section 25(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act. But former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson—remember her?—helped invent a system of “ethics screens” that lets politicians bypass that requirement.

Set up a screen, tell the public you’re recused from everything, then quietly participate in decisions behind closed doors. No disclosure. No accountability. No paper trail.

Justice Parker, way back in 1987, warned us about this. In his landmark commission on conflicts of interest, he recommended banning blind trusts outright and requiring all top officials to sell their private investments. Why? Because it’s the only way to guarantee integrity. You cannot serve the public while holding shares in private companies that rise or fall based on your decisions. Period.

And yet here we are. The new Prime Minister. Over 550 investments. A fake blind trust. A self-policed ethics screen. And a legal loophole so wide open, it makes lobbying look quaint.

Now here’s the part no one will say out loud: this system is designed to be abused. It’s not broken. It’s working exactly as intended. The people writing the rules are the same ones benefiting from them. And Carney? He’s not breaking norms—he is the norm.

Democracy Watch is right. The only solution is for Carney to sell his investments, including his Brookfield stock options. End the charade. Choose public service over private profit. But he won’t. And the reason is simple: the swamp doesn’t drain itself.

This isn’t transparency. This isn’t accountability. This is how the ruling class launders power through legal technicalities, and then has the audacity to lecture you about ethics.

And if you still believe that a man who used to run a trillion-dollar fund, who sits on hundreds of corporate stakes, who appointed his own ethics babysitter and told them not to sell anything—that this man is governing in your interest?

Then I’ve got a “blind” trust to sell you.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

John Stossel

The Green Industrial Complex: Power, Panic, and Profits

Published on

From StosselTV

Media portray environmental groups as the underdog. In reality, they’re the big guys, and today they’re rolling in money.

What’s worse is how they use it.

First, they peddle scares. They say polar bears are disappearing. They aren’t. They claim bees are dying off. Also not true. They spread these lies to get MORE money.

“Hysteria generates donations,” explains science writer Jon Entine. “The oxygen for these organizations is money donated by people who think they’re doing good.” It’s why Big E now receives billions in donations.

It’s bad enough that they lie to us to get paid. But they also use their money to block progress. One group boasts, “In the past year our legal team has stopped thousands of miles of fossil fuel pipelines and dozens of large power plants.”

They even oppose solar and wind farms. “It’s a shame,” argues Cato Institute’s Travis Fischer, “When I think about what America could be … we could be so much more prosperous than we are.”

Our video covers more ways Big E blocks progress.

After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.

——————————————

Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.

Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20. Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.”

High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.

Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club.

Other honors include the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award.

———

To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://johnstossel.activehosted.com/f/1

—— —

Continue Reading

Trending

X