Connect with us

Media

CBC journalist quits, accuses outlet of anti-Conservative bias and censorship

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Travis Dhanraj accused CBC of pushing a ‘radical political agenda,’ and his lawyer said that the network opposed him hosting ‘Conservative voices’ on his show.

CBC journalist Travis Dhanraj has resigned from his position, while accusing the outlet of anti-Conservative bias and ”performative diversity.”

In a July 7 letter sent to colleagues and obtained by various media outlets, Travis Dhanraj announced his departure from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) due to concerns over censorship.

“I am stepping down not by choice, but because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made it impossible for me to continue my work with integrity,” he wrote.

“After years of service — most recently as the host of Canada Tonight: With Travis Dhanraj — I have been systematically sidelined, retaliated against, and denied the editorial access and institutional support necessary to fulfill my public service role,” he declared.

Dhanraj, who worked as a CBC host and reporter for nearly a decade, revealed that the outlet perpetuated a toxic work environment, where speaking out against the approved narrative led to severe consequences.

Dhanraj accused CBC of having a “radical political agenda” that stifled fair reporting. Additionally, his lawyer, Kathryn Marshall, revealed that CBC disapproved of him booking “Conservative voices” on his show.

While CBC hails itself as a leader in “diversity” and supporting minority groups, according to Dhanraj, it’s all a facade.

“What happens behind the scenes at CBC too often contradicts what’s shown to the public,” he revealed.

In April 2024, Dhanraj, then host of CBC’s Canada Tonight, posted on X that his show had requested an interview with then-CBC President Catherine Tait to discuss new federal budget funding for the public broadcaster, but she declined.

“Internal booking and editorial protocols were weaponized to create structural barriers for some while empowering others—particularly a small circle of senior Ottawa-based journalists,” he explained.

According to Marshall, CBC launched an investigation into the X post, viewing it as critical of Tait’s decision to defend executive bonuses while the broadcaster was cutting frontline jobs. Dhanraj was also taken off air for a time.

Dhanraj revealed that in July 2024 he was “presented with (a non-disclosure agreement) tied to an investigation about a tweet about then CBC President Catherine Tait. It was designed not to protect privacy, but to sign away my voice. When I refused, I was further marginalized.”

Following the release of his letter, Dhanraj published a link on X to a Google form to gather support from Canadians.

“When the time is right, I’ll pull the curtain back,” he wrote on the form. “I’ll share everything…. I’ll tell you what is really happening inside the walls of your CBC.”

CBC has issued a statement denying Dhanraj’s claims, with CBC spokesperson Kerry Kelly stating that the Crown corporation “categorically rejects” his statement.

This is hardly the first time that CBC has been accused of editorial bias. Notably, the outlet receives the vast majority of its funding from the Liberal government.

This January, the watchdog for the CBC ruled that the state-funded outlet expressed a “blatant lack of balance” in its covering of a Catholic school trustee who opposed the LGBT agenda being foisted on children.

There have also been multiple instances of the outlet pushing what appears to be ideological content, including the creation of pro-LGBT material for kids, tacitly endorsing the gender mutilation of children, promoting euthanasia, and even seeming to justify the burning of mostly Catholic churches throughout the country.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canada’s privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne that there was no consultation on Bill C-8, which is touted by Liberals as a way to stop ‘unprecedented cyber-threats.’

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner admitted that he was never consulted on a recent bill introduced by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney that became law and would grant officials the power to ban anyone deemed a dissident from accessing the internet.

Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne said last week that in regard to Bill C-8, titled “An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts,” that there was no consultation.

“We are not consulted on specific pieces of legislation before they are tabled,” he told the House of Commons ethics committee, adding, “I don’t want privacy to be an obstacle to transparency.”

Bill C-8, which is now in its second reading in the House of Commons, was introduced in June by Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and has a provision in which the federal government could stop “any specified person” from accessing the internet.

All that would be needed is the OK from Minister of Industry Mélanie Joly for an individual to be denied internet service.

The federal government under Carney claims that the bill is a way to stop “unprecedented cyber-threats.”

The bill, as written, claims that the government would need the power to cut someone off from the internet, as it could be “necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, or degradation.”

While questioning Dufresne, Conservative MP Michael Barrett raised concerns that no warrant would be needed for agents to go after those officials who want to be banned from the internet or phone service.

“Without meaningful limits, bills like C-8 can hand the government secret, warrantless powers over Canadians’ communications,” he told the committee, adding the bill, as written is a “serious setback for privacy,” as well as a “setback for democracy.”

Dufresne said, “It’s not a legal obligation under the Privacy Act.”

Experts have warned that Bill C-8 is flawed and must be “fixed.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) blasted the bill as troublesome, saying it needs to “fix” the “dangerous flaws” in the bill before it becomes law.

“Experts and civil society have warned that the legislation would confer ministerial powers that could be used to deliberately or inadvertently compromise the security of encryption standards within telecommunications networks that people, governments, and businesses across Canada rely upon, every day,” the CCLA wrote in a recent press release.

Canada’s own intelligence commissioner has warned that the bill, if passed as is, would potentially not be constitutionally justified, as it would allow for warrantless seizure of a person’s sensitive information.

Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government has brought forth many new bills that, in effect, censor internet content as well as go after people’s ability to speak their minds.

Recently, Canadian Conservative Party MP Leslyn Lewis blasted another new Liberal “hate crime” bill, calling it a “dangerous” piece of legislation that she says will open the door for authorities to possibly prosecute Canadians’ speech deemed “hateful.”

She also criticized it for being silent regarding rising “Christian hate.”

Continue Reading

Media

Response to any budget sleight of hand will determine which audience media have decided to serve

Published on

The Rewrite

The Rewrite

Plus! CBC’s “Intifada Evan” shows the Ombudsman who’s boss and Rebel News puts another tick in the debates win column

Will media go along with the language shell game the government prefers or serve their readers with transparency and the Truth?

The nation’s media and its choice of words will be put to the test when Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government unveils its first budget three weeks from now.

The PM and his Finance Minister, Francois-Philippe Champagne have made it clear that they intend to recategorize capital spending as “investment” and perhaps view their deficit primarily only in terms of any financial shortfall in operational spending. The simplest way to explain the difference between capital and operational is that the former is the money a government would spend to buy or build new ships and aircraft and the latter is what you need every year to keep them afloat, in the air and staffed. If you don’t have enough cashflow to pay the costs of both of those and you have to borrow money to do so, that’s a deficit. Or at least it used to be.

The Rewrite depends on you.

Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Going forward – and to be fair we won’t know exactly what is coming until we see the budget – it appears Carney and company only intend to speak of the deficit in terms of operational budgets. All other spending, no matter its volume, is likely to be termed capital “investment.” They also appear to be moving subsidies into that category. Hopefully, if this plays out as it appears it will, media will still acknowledge how much the government is borrowing to cover the shortfall between revenue and expenses as at least one prominent analyst anticipates this year’s deficit will hit $100 billion – more than twice the $42 billion forecast by Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau.

The test for media will be to see whether – as so far appears to be the case – they will comply and comfortably go along with the language shell game the government prefers or the language that best serves their readers with transparency and the Truth.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has already raised concerns about the government’s creative accounting proposal.

“Finance Canada’s definition and categories expand the scope of capital investment beyond the current treatment of capital spending in the Public Accounts of Canada,” the PBO stated. “Based on our initial assessment, we find that the scope is overly expansive and exceeds international practice.”

The media’s decisions regarding whose language it uses – its readers’ or its government’s – will tell us a lot about newsroom cultures and priorities.


The CBC’s Evan Dyer is one of those reporters who has refused to take the advice of the Mother Corp’s Ombudsman. Last year, Jack Nagler, now retired, had reviewed complaints about a social media post by Samira Modyeddin concerning the arrest of a Palestinian activist who had threatened to kill Jews and drink their blood.

“This is a healthy reminder for those journalists who feel compelled to weigh in on controversial news stories,” Nagler wrote in his July, 2024 report, before concluding that, “It might be helpful to think about social media the way you would about cutting a piece of wood.

“Measure twice and post once.”

Dyer, who’s too clever by half on X and has been nicknamed “Intifada Evan” by critics, apparently disagrees. In my view, earning noms de plume for bias is not something to which journalists should aspire. Many news organizations agree, which is why they expect their reporters to restrict social media activity to the posting of their own and related work. That way, they aren’t broadcasting their personal biases to the world and damaging public trust in their employer.

Dismissive of Nagler’s advice and oblivious to the fact a Radio-Canada journo, Elisa Serret, had recently been suspended for an antisemitic rant, Dyer had this to say about the news that Bari Weiss had sold her The Free Press to Paramount and been appointed head of CBS News:

“Bari Weiss will be editor-in-chief of CBS News and report directly to David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, the world’s top private donor to the IDF (Israel Defence Force). Kenneth Weinstein, former CEO of the Hudson Institute, will monitor for “bias” as demanded by FCC commissioner Brendan Carr.”

Or, as some might have read it, “one Jew reports to another Jew, son of a Jew who donates to defend Israel while another Jew monitors the Jews.”

Whether Dyer was told to delete this post or chose on his own to remove it is unknown. But it didn’t disappear fast enough to prevent several critics who took frame grabs that were shared widely and with a powerful blend of enthusiasm and condemnation. The comment of Vivian Bercovici, former Canadian ambassador to Israel, provided a good summary:

“Darn Jooz, eh Evan? They control everything. Banks. Weather. All of it. Qatar? An innocent bystander engaged in good works the world over.”

Sue-Ann Levy added “Hey @EvanDyerCBC … is there a place at CBC HQ where I should pick up my yellow star?”

There was no word at the time of writing whether Dyer had been disciplined but as I write this (he has blocked me) he is still Tweeting away.

In so doing. he has certainly shown that the office of the CBC Ombudsman can be ignored at will and without consequence. Perhaps other of his colleagues will similarly assert themselves.

Share


Readers will recall that Rebel News caused quite a stir at the leaders’ debates during last spring’s federal election – so much so that media were not allowed to ask questions following the English version. That was due to the ruckus that had ensued within the press corps when Rebel staked out the front of the queue after the French debate and asked questions that shocked legacy media, the CBC in particular. The most notorious exchange involved CBC’s Adrienne Arsenault and Rosemary Barton, who accused the Rebel representative of spreading far right misinformation. CBC later issued a correction after Barton stated “yes, there have been remains of Indigenous children found at various places around the country.”

Well, it looks like there’s going to be a sequel. According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the Leaders’ Debate Commission has thrown in the towel when it comes to defining a journalist. As Blacklock’s reported:

“The Debates Commission said it consulted numerous media on methods of accreditation including the Canadian Association of Journalists, CBC, CPAC, Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Independent Press Gallery that accredits Rebel News. “There was no consensus,” it wrote.

“Nor was there a consensus on what constitutes a media organization, what defines journalism or who is a journalist,” said the report. “Stakeholders noted journalism is not a regulated profession like law or medicine and there is no legal definition of journalism that could be upheld in court.”


Last week I promised to bring forward more on the responses of media that refuse to take government subsidies. Turns out other events took priority and I had columns to write for both The Hub and The Line. I will try to find time to squeeze in an extra column. Readers will also notice a new DONATE button has been added. This allows you to buy The Rewrite a cup of coffee or, if you are feeling generous, a beer, but doesn’t constitute a subscription. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours and my thanks to you for your support and encouragement.

Donate

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)

Subscribe to The Rewrite.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X