CBC journalists may have been “too timid” in seeking differing perspectives on public health measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the CBC ombudsman.
Ombudsman Jack Nagler made the comments in a Dec. 30, 2024, response to a viewer complaint over CBC News’ coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The viewer accused the broadcaster of relying primarily on experts who supported the views of public health officials, saying it had failed to present opposing perspectives.
Nagler said while he does not find that CBC reporters failed to follow the broadcaster’s ethical standards, it could have given more exposure to a broader range of ideas during the pandemic.
“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,” he wrote. “But that does not mean it was wrong to give credence to experts showcased on its various programs.”
He also said that Canadians should not rely on the CBC alone if they want to be “fully informed.”
Related Stories
”I would say that even if CBC were perfect, it is unwise to rely on any single news source if you want to be fully informed,” he said in his response.
Nagler also said that many Canadians have slipped into “news silos” and “information bubbles” and as a result “aren’t hearing enough information that conflicts with our preexisting views.”
”And when we do, too often we reject it out of hand,” he added.
He advised Canadians to read, watch and listen to a wide variety of news sources.
”And don’t assume that any source – even CBC News – is going to tell you everything you need to know,” he said.
In his response, Nagler also said that he did not find any evidence the CBC was deliberately presenting one point of view.
“If I had found in the course of my investigation that there was any kind of concerted effort to thwart reporting of a particular point of view, I would be disturbed. But I did not,” he wrote.
He also acknowledged he found some instances where the broadcaster had “slipped up.”
Nagler noted he had responded to one such instance in September 2024 about how the CBC had defined ‘woke’ in a 2023 article.
The complaint in that case said that there is a lack of consensus on the meaning of the term, and that this was not acknowledged in the article.
“Whether it’s fair or not, it is impossible to question the reality that there are competing views of what it means to be ‘woke,’” Neglar said in his response.
”Even though the rest of the article was well done, and even though I do not agree with your additional argument that this was CBC taking sides on an issue, the bottom line of this review is that there was a violation of standards.”
He said shortly after the article in question had been published, CBC provided internal guidance to journalists that the word ‘woke’ should only be used with attribution.
”That struck me as a healthy stand to take,” he said.
In his Dec. 30, 2024, response, Nagler said that instances like that were “generally one-offs” and the the broadcaster showed a willingness to improve.
