Who gets 'platformed' by CBC News — and why

We use this editor's blog to explain our journalism and what's happening at CBC News. You can find more blogs here.

In the past year or so, there has been a sharp increase in the number of people writing to complain about how CBC News "platforms" certain viewpoints, people and organizations in our journalism.

The complaints come from across the political spectrum. Some are polite and thoughtfully worded. Some less so. They often include sentences like these recent examples:

"I'm writing to express my deep disappointment with your recent decision to platform …"

"I'm truly disgusted that CBC interviewed …"

"Stop giving airtime to … !!!"

"It's vile, disgusting and totally inappropriate to give this person a platform."

The list of those who should be excluded from our stories according to these complaints is wide and long: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and representatives of the Israel Defence Forces; Gaza's Health Ministry and representatives of Hamas; academics on all sides of the Middle East story; an anti-vaccination convoy participant; former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh; Canadian businessman and reality TV star Kevin O'Leary; a representative from UNICEF; Alberta separatists; gender-affirming care providers; U.S. President Donald Trump, members of his cabinet and his ambassador to Canada, to name a few recent examples.

Several people wrote to complain that we were "platforming" Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre after he lost the election and his seat in Parliament, even as he continued to speak for the party. "I am not willing for my tax dollars to be used to fund Pierre Poilievre having airtime to speak," said one typical note.

In each case, the critiques imply that inclusion of these voices in our journalism is somehow an endorsement of them by CBC News. We are told that by including certain ideas or figures in our news coverage, we "legitimize" or "normalize" them. And always there are concerns about balance and false equivalency in the perspectives we surface.

These complaints suggest to me that we have much more work to do to explain the mechanics of journalism and the principles of fairness, balance and impartiality under which we operate. (Also, that these journalistic principles are being stress-tested in an increasingly polarized world).

The job of a CBC News journalist is to report facts, to proportionately surface the variety of viewpoints that exist about those facts, to provide context and counter narratives where they exist, and to ensure credible analysis is in the mix. The goal is to give you a 360-degree view of a story so you can draw your own conclusions.

This can sometimes happen in a single story. More often than not, it happens over a number of stories, over time.

As I've written before, this approach does not mean that there are two sides to every story. Or that we uncritically regurgitate facts and information, giving equal space to every perspective at all times. While CBC's journalistic standards and practices mandate our coverage to balance differing points of view, they also acknowledge that balance is not a matter of precise equivalency or that differing points of view are treated equitably.

Nonetheless, we don't shy away from contrarian views or perspectives that challenge orthodoxy. To quote someone is not to endorse them or what they're saying. Rather, it's to contribute to your understanding of a story and all the angles. The best journalism often involves facts and viewpoints that challenge our own worldview, or alternatively, help clarify it.

Journalists like to joke that we know we're doing a good job when no one is happy with us. There's some truth to that.

But there's also lots of evidence to suggest that while overall trust in news has declined in recent years, the most trusted news organizations in the world and in Canada are still those that hold fast to principles of balance, fairness and impartiality. That means you will continue to hear a wide variety of perspectives in the stories CBC News covers, including views with which you might strongly disagree.

And as always, if you think we've failed to live up to our principles, there's an independent ombud to adjudicate your case.