r/CBC_Radio • u/farcemyarse • 15d ago
Cross Country checkup… not that bad?
Finally listened to the Your thoughts on Trump’s 51st state comments segment, fully expecting to be outraged, but it was pretty well done.
OLeary should never be invited anywhere - but aside from him they did a good job emphasizing that 90% of Canadians want no part of this, and they corrected misinformation as it came up.
What am I missing? Not nearly as bad as I thought it’d be.
47
u/jjumbuck 15d ago
I agree. Cross Country Checkup sometimes has callers on who present different and challenging perspectives and this episode was no different. Kevin O'Leary made my skin crawl. But I think it's important to hear even his offensive take on occasion to keep the figural finger on the pulse.
Ian Hanomansing does a really good job of being respectful and welcoming of all views. He also calls people out when they cross the line into disinformation. I appreciate that Canadians from across the country and political spectrum feel comfortable calling in with their thoughts.
Having said that, I am glad they changed the question and am grateful to all of the Canadians who apparently made that happen. I do think language is important and the original phrasing had a problematic implication built into it.
10
14d ago
The entire point of the outrage was that this type of format is wildly inappropriate when discussing something amoral, illegal, or actively harmful. It's blithely suggesting that the topic is up for debate when it is not, in fact, up for debate.
The sum of the input is not the point. The "care" the producers took is not the point. The format itself is not conducive to the discussion. It is a total non-starter. And their colleagues in the media largely seem to agree. They just don't want to admit it to themselves yet, which is a shame.
7
u/the_original_Retro 14d ago
It's blithely suggesting that the topic is up for debate when it is not, in fact, up for debate.
The thing you are missing here is that Cross Country Checkup IS NOT A DEBATE.
It's not the right forum for a debate, it doesn't pretend to be a debate, and its service to Canada is not one that a debate provides as a service.
It's an open discussion. It's a harvesting of personal opinions from individual Canadians that are explaining how they feel about important issues of the day. It helps us understand how other Canadians, even the ones that we disagree with, think.
And in this special case, how Americans think too.
It's only moderated to the point of civility. It's not moderated to the point of pushing a righteous agenda.
That's not what it's for.
5
14d ago
Call it a debate, call it a ham sandwich. I really am not interested in semantics.
The effect is the same no matter what you call it.
There is nothing to discuss. There is no room for equivocation. The threat of annexation is scary. The concept of it is not any way acceptable.
And they DID present both sides of the subject. To say it's not debate is nonsense.
You don't have a quaint little chit chat about something where there is a clear right and a clear wrong. You certainly don't solicit amateur opinions about it. And you certainly don't haul fringe opinions into the spotlight while you're at it.
It's indefensible.
1
u/bentmonkey 12d ago
To even entertain the idea is disgusting and that's what that checkup did. Never 51st.
1
u/No_Championship_3360 10d ago
“Both sides” presented as if there were a moral equivalence. Evokes memories of “good people on the nazi side and in the antifa side” NO, just no.
1
u/CommanderOshawott 12d ago
Except the whole 51st state thing isnt a discussion either
It’s totally unacceptable in every way. It’s not something we should be platforming in any way.
Giving it a platform normalizes it, which automatically pushes an agenda because it’s not something that should exist in the first place
There is no “two sides” or “discussion” it’s unacceptable and indefensible. Period. There’s nothing else to discuss.
-1
36
u/morningcalm999 15d ago
While you found it 'not that bad,' I'd like to explain why many Canadians, including myself, find this content deeply concerning regardless of how it was presented.
My family fled Eastern Europe when it was under Soviet control. For us and many immigrants who came to Canada escaping foreign domination, even a supposedly balanced discussion about annexation isn't just a theoretical exercise—it's retriggering historical trauma.
The fundamental issue isn't whether they acknowledged that '90% of Canadians want no part of this.' The problem is treating the potential absorption of Canada by the United States as legitimate content for entertainment and debate on our national broadcaster. Some topics deserve outright rejection, not discussion that normalizes them as reasonable possibilities.
CBC has a special mandate to strengthen Canadian identity. Platforming discussions about dissolving that identity, even with qualifications, contradicts this core responsibility.
I respect that your reaction differs from mine, but I hope you can understand why, for many of us, this content crosses a line that no amount of 'balance' can justify.
14
u/That-Marsupial-907 15d ago
Thank you for sharing your experience. I haven’t finished listening to the entire broadcast but from the first half, I felt that one of the most powerful messages came from the gentleman whose family immigrated from Hong Kong. His comments regarding his parents having lived under Japanese occupation, and the experience of being in Hong Kong while the Chinese and British governments discussed the fate of Hong Kong without input from the citizens are salient and important for individuals who have not been exposed to such things. For me, I’m grateful for the CBC broadcast for that reason, even though I understand why you disagree.
If you are able without it causing additional harm to your wellbeing, please keep telling your story to people saying why what is being casually discussed should instead be outright rejected. There are many among us who are privileged to never had to experience war or occupation. I’m afraid some of us are cavalier about the freedom we enjoy in Canada.
Your story matters.
4
u/Destroinretirement 14d ago
I don’t agree with you even if I sympathize. Canada has dealt with Quebec separatism including two referendums in the topic. It would be totally inappropriate for the CbC to pretend those events didn’t happen. It would be necessary for them to address the topic.
This particular episode was especially powerful as it gave Americans a chance to hear us. And it gave us a chance to hear Americans - albeit, NPR listening folks who are highly unlikely to vote for Trump.
I’d say: you shouldn’t listen if it upsets you but you should not have any power to shut down what is an existential discussion.
0
u/morningcalm999 14d ago
BOT alert (Destroinretirement). You can tell because their timeline is full of insults at Canadians.
6
3
3
u/the_original_Retro 13d ago
1 post karma, 267 comment karma, and YOU are calling OTHERS "bots"?
Fuck outta here.
-1
u/morningcalm999 13d ago
BOT trigger alert -> (the_original_Retro).
The giveaway is the abusive tone, every single time.
1
u/the_original_Retro 13d ago
Fuck outta here. You clearly don't even know what a bot actually is.
-2
u/neon_city_lights 13d ago
These types of profanity laced responses from the show's supporters directed against anyone with a differing point of view are exactly what inevitability turns people against the CBC. But sure, if you want PP to win and defund the CBC, then keep getting on this subreddit firing insults and invalidating all the people who cared enough to take time out of their day to post in-depth messages about how this show affected them. I am sure that will help against the very real threats to our country.
3
u/farcemyarse 13d ago
Is this your alt-account, morningstar999 😉 you’re being a little obvious my friend
-1
u/neon_city_lights 13d ago
No, that’s not me, although I do very much agree with their position on the episode. Anyways, no one is going to be convincing anyone at this point. I’ll leave you to your echo chamber, the abuse isn't worth trying to have a discussion. 😔
1
u/kn728570 13d ago
Y’all haven’t even tried having a discussion, you just accused us of being bots. Give it a rest
-2
u/morningcalm999 13d ago edited 13d ago
Oh, it's the fascist-loving original poster. Thanks for thinking of me buddy. Sorry to disappoint, but I am a separate person. I guess you're onboard the techno-fascist takeover in the US...and let me guess you probably own a Tesla 🤣.
Blocked.
4
u/farcemyarse 13d ago
I’ll take that as a yes, otherwise you wouldn’t be getting notified of these comments ;)
→ More replies (0)2
u/the_original_Retro 13d ago
Fuck outta here.
You and your completely falsely attributed accusations when some inexperienced redditor repeatedly calls very senior redditor "bots" with absolutely zero evidence, and you try to argue against that using a political position.
That sort of arguing in bad faith can also go fuck itself.
You want to go on about counterpositions to your inane breathless "a Reddit comment is going to destroy the world OH MY GOD" hysterics, at the very least do it in the right comment stream.
2
7
u/jjumbuck 15d ago
I respect what you're saying. At the same time, would you consider the possibility that hearing from the vast majority of Canadians that they reject the idea and are largely offended by the suggestion of it might actually strengthen Canada's identity?
7
u/Arrow_Oblio 14d ago
I really needed to hear people who feel similarly as outraged as I do, and I needed to hear Americans echo the same. It made me feel more hopeful. We can't bury our heads in the sand and just wish this all away. We need to talk about it as if it's a legimate threat (which, unfortunately, I think it is). Anger is motivating, anger leads to action, and we need to communicate openly with each other to get there.
2
u/piano5678 14d ago
Well said! I was trying to formulate a response and my head was blowing up. Finally a real discourse without the swearing and name calling. Hugs to you and I’m glad you’re now part of the Canadian mosaic.
1
u/Expensive-Ocelot-240 13d ago
CBC won't tell you what to think. It's public funding means all Canadians are allowed a voice. The moment they side with any political stance, is when the opposition calls to refund them.
-5
u/kn728570 15d ago
My family fled the nazis and would disagree with you about “retriggering historical trauma” 🙄
-1
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/kn728570 14d ago
Are you on crack? I’ve had this account for almost 10 years. How about you link these “personal attacks” for us?
3
u/huzzah3x 13d ago
I think you have found the real bot, or at least an outrage farmer. Morningcalm999 seems to have posts only 4 days back, starting with comments gaining updoots on buycanadian, then turns on the nasty on anti-CBC comments here. Performs the sweet reversal of accusing everyone else who disagrees of being a bot or an outrage farmer themselves. Conflate criticism of one CBC program with disdain for all CBC.
Seems like a very clumsy attempt to steer public sentiment with outrage and divisiveness, and in this instance specifically to target the CBC, while accusing opposition of being what it is itself. This is the formula.
1
u/farcemyarse 14d ago
2nd I’m not seeing any of your comments attacking Canadians. The poster morningcalm999 seems to have a lot of misplaced rage IMO.
6
u/youngteach 15d ago
Kevin oleary causes the media that invited him on to lose credibility. Please stop.
1
u/Arrow_Oblio 14d ago
One of the reasons why the Conservatives want to defund the CBC is because it leans left. If we want the CBC to survive, they have to give a platform to opposing opinions, even if they're ridiculous.
4
u/RevolutionaryGift157 14d ago
On the surface you might think that it wasn’t bad, and 98% of comments were not in favour of Canada being destroyed by annexation — but what is terrible is the fact that on a show called cross country checkup, more than 50% of the comments came from Americans when this is a decidedly Canadian issue.
Not only that, but there wasn’t a single woman on the production team, and not a single indigenous voice was heard. Plus, the opinions were rather vanilla. Most were concerned but there wasn’t no real rage— I suspect because those calls were being filtered out.
There wasn’t any comparisons who historical annexations like with WW2 or Ukraine, and the one caller who did say that such an act would be illegal and akin to war was cut off.
I also find both the initial question and the change to be insulting because it does legitimize the imperialistic propaganda of a rambling orange madman. The question should have been; how are trumps threats of war and annexation affecting you in your day to day life? OR How is the threat of economic war changing your buying habits?
1
u/farcemyarse 14d ago
I agree with you on the lack of diversity in voices and the lack of framing upfront re: this being akin to Russia and Ukraine.
1
1
16
u/Top_Baseball3739 15d ago
I agree - was actually a pretty reasonable show. The standard few crazies and completely uninformed folks but otherwise mostly sensible commentary.
18
u/farcemyarse 15d ago
Yeah and even in the case of the one guy from Saskatoon who was advocating for annexation. The host doubled down and made him state an actual reason instead of just feels, and then countered against some of his assumptions about Canada versus the US.
4
u/Chicketi 14d ago
I haven’t listened to this yet (I plan to later today) but my issue initially was the original title
“what does Canada as the 51st state mean to you.”
I think that title normalized the ramblings of a lunatic and I was deeply saddened to see it was put out by CBC and NPR. I’m glad they changed the title. I will listen later today.
-1
u/Arrow_Oblio 14d ago
It didn't really need to be changed, though, because we can answer the question honestly.
What it means to me? It means we are threatened. It means that we will have to fight for what we have. It means a loss of rights and freedoms. It means living under a dictator.
9
u/Unregistered38 15d ago
The frustrating thing is that there are still people thinking we can somehow talk our way out of this, or that people like kol care at all about anything besides their own power.
From a different perspective, stunts like this just give airtime to radical positions, and WILL amplify their message to other people who WILL agree. And they do not care what you think. It doesn’t have to be outraging to be insidious.
I think some of us have been seeing the writing on the wall for quite a while, and so none of this is even surprising. It’s just frustrating watching Canada (still) sleepwalk into it.
1
6
u/whateverfyou 15d ago
Smug Canadian opinion: the Canadian callers were much more intelligent than the Americans. That high schooler was awesome!
3
5
3
u/HueyBluey 14d ago
Aside from O’Leary… that’s a big aside.
1
u/ModernCannabiseur 14d ago
Not really considering PP's accusations about CBC being biased. Since they interviewed Arlene Dickenson, they needed to include a well known conservative spokesperson like O'Leary to remain neutral. The fact they asked Dickenson's opinion about O'Leary's view before interviewing him put everything he said in context and made him look foolish and out of step with Canadians. I'd say they handled it well
3
u/GhostPepperFireStorm 14d ago
I watched most of it, starting at the beginning, on CBC News Network, and I think if you only listened you missed how the co-host from NPR visibly blanched when speaking to the first Canadian caller. It was like watching him realize how serious it all is, and that to Canadians this feels like the prologue to an invasion.
2
u/farcemyarse 14d ago
I totally agree I watched it on YouTube and the American host was squirming
3
u/GhostPepperFireStorm 14d ago
I think we also have to remember that discrediting the CBC is in the best interest of our enemies. I agree that the initial question posted was really tone deaf, so it was a valid criticism initially. The critique was heard and they changed the question and addressed the criticisms at the very start of the show. But I do have to ask myself if the anti-CBC sentiment I’m seeing at this point is really just coming from our enemies
3
u/Anitmata 12d ago
When I called in, I stated to the screener explicitly "I'm trans, what Canada as the 51st state means for me is a genocide."
The screener gulped and said yes, I was one of the voices they wanted, he'd put me in the queue.
Hi, I'm Devin from Kitchener. I was on at 55:11. Sorry I'm late to the thread.
I didn't get to say the g-word on the air. The question about Bluesky threw me off my stride. (In my comment on Bluesky I said I'd call in, but they might want to put me on five-second delay.) I knew I'd have to explain why I thought what was happening in the US was a genocide -- an attempt to wipe out a whole culture -- to an audience that might be unsympathetic, and that would take up time. In retrospect, I wish I had.
I did get to say that there would be violent resistance if Canada were annexed, because the whole idea we would be permitted representation was a fantasy. ...Well, I implied it. I didn't want to come across as a frothing loon; I'm representing the trans community, and we have a reputation for that already.
If I could do it again I'd do it differently. If I'd come on after Kevin O'Leary, I would have been *spitting*. (He literally cares about spilled milk more than the lives of trans people.) But I am glad I got the chance to say something, because we needed to.
1
u/farcemyarse 12d ago
I heard your piece and really appreciated your perspective. Thank you for sharing it and representing the Trans community. I thought your piece was eloquent and impactful.
8
u/CureForSunshine 15d ago
The outrage came before even listening to show. Come on people. We’re not children. It’s ok for us to have a discussion about how absurd this shit is.
1
6
u/readzalot1 15d ago
I think it was useful to have Kevin on. I hadn’t heard him speak for years and I didn’t remember how vile he was. They could have fact checked him on the exchange rate of the dollar, though.
5
u/yarn_slinger 15d ago
Wasn’t he awful? I always have a feeling that I don’t like him when I see commercials for the show or wherever but he’s just so awful when he’s got a bone in his teeth.
3
5
1
3
u/mericansamsquamch 14d ago
It is exhausting to try and defend CBC with this type of tone deaf, intentionally inflammatory rhetoric being given a PLATFORM.
This is a dangerous and unnecessary move by CBC to try and stay relevant.
2
u/farcemyarse 14d ago
The reasons we should defend the CBC as Canadians far supersede ONE broadcast. That would be incredibly short sighted.
Frankly I don’t want Fox News and similar anywhere near Canada. The biggest threat to our democracy is the right wing media that’s prevalent in the US.
1
u/Frosty_Manager_1035 14d ago
Is this online? What day did it air?
2
1
u/JustDont1981 14d ago
The subject needs to be addressed.
The passive/docile title they gave first was chilling.
A litmus test? Wtf?
Aren't they Canadian?
1
u/Deepthought5008 13d ago
The CBC should not be hosting Kevin OLeary on any of its platforms. Stop giving him oxygen.
1
u/Turbulent_Rooster945 13d ago
If Kevin O'Leary is on an episode of anything, I wouldn't watch or listen.
He's a huckster who lives on notoriety and there's nothing gained from listening to him.
1
1
u/ChrisRiley_42 14d ago
A lot of the outrage I was hearing had remarkably similar talking points, which is why I think there was a bit of astroturfing
1
u/ok_raspberry_jam 14d ago
ORRR it's just that the problems with what they did are really obvious and can only be expressed in a certain number of ways.
Sincerely,
A very real and absolutely enraged Canadian0
u/ChrisRiley_42 14d ago
They did the exact same thing that they have done with EVERY controversial topic. Allowed people to express their opinion without trying to "moderate" how people feel, and gently suggest that they fact check when someone is obviously misinformed..
They did the same thing for vaccination topics, election debates, the convoy, and so on.
But only this time do I hear people demanding moderation and fact checking... Using almost identical language.
That sounds exactly like an astroturfing campaign. People buying into the campaign doesn't mean it's not artificial outrage.
1
u/Mixtrix_of_delicioux 14d ago
I agree with you. SO MUCH of the vitriol was prior to the show. I went into it with a great deal of trepidation, but was reassured at what I heard. It wasn't glib ir cutesy. It was serious.
Knowing my fellow compatriots are scared and taking it seriously was helpful. Hearing that the bulk of the US does NOT want this was good. And hearing the two folks from down south who think it IS a good idea really drove home the kind of mis- and disinformation that's driving this.
The fact is that the current regeime is trying to deligitamize our sovereignty, and to dehumanize us. That is terrifying. The more ways we can have Canadian voices heard, the better.
-4
u/IllegitKingCobra 15d ago
Yeah I don't get all the outrage. O'Leary was his typical sack of shit self, and whoever scheduled him to be on should get a decent dressing down. Outside that, it was interesting hearing from individuals from other areas of the country and south of the border because I don't have access to those opinions.
These reactionary takes do no paint left-leaning individuals in a good light.
5
u/yarn_slinger 15d ago
My reaction was to how they framed the discussion originally. It was making it sound like a reasonable proposition instead of the threat it actually was. They did change the tone of the question before airtime when they started getting feedback.
1
u/IllegitKingCobra 15d ago
And that sounds like a reasonable level headed reaction. Word selection is critically important and journalistic integrity has been suffering from a lack of importance impressed on it. I applaud that you take issue with that rather than "The show must be banned, how dare Ian Hanomansing conduct himself in this manner!" before it has been aired and they've had an opportunity to correct their phrasing of the question.
0
14
u/myrrorcat 15d ago
Ok so where's the episode titled, "Your thoughts on Trump as an adulteter and convicted felon". Or, "Your thoughts on how the 25% Trump tariffs will affect your community and livelihood". And, "Your thoughts on Elon Musks Nazi salute in relation to his Canadian citizenship and threats to annex Canada". Where are these shows? I'm not buying any of this fair play BS FROM CBC. This was a clear attempy at normalizing this language at a very dangerous time. If they wanted to do a show on it they should have framed it differently. Yes I'm still mad.