By all accounts, the CBC should have anticipated some turbulence heading into a heated federal election. But what unfolded was a wave of public dissatisfaction that even the CBC’s ombudsman, Maxime Bertrand, admitted was unprecedented in scope and intensity.
In her May 6 post, Bertrand revealed that the volume of complaints to her office in April alone surpassed the total from the preceding three months combined. While part of this surge stemmed from what she called “orchestrated campaigns”—referring to targeted complaints against CBC personality Rosemary Barton—much of the unrest was rooted in broader concerns about the broadcaster’s coverage of the election itself.
The nature of the complaints was striking in its diversity. Some viewers accused CBC of carrying water for the Liberal Party, while others were just as convinced that the Conservatives were being shown undue favor. That kind of polarization might normally suggest balanced reporting—if both sides are angry, maybe the broadcaster is doing something right. But in CBC’s case, it felt more like no one trusted the messenger at all.
Take the story about Liberal staffers planting buttons with inflammatory slogans at a conservative conference. This wasn’t speculation or rumor—it was confirmed and eventually acknowledged by the Liberal leader, who called the stunt “totally unacceptable.” And yet, even with facts in hand, viewers complained that the article lacked clarity and damaged the Liberal campaign, raising questions about whether the CBC was being too heavy-handed in its pursuit of a scoop, or too timid in how it presented it.
Then there was the fallout from the leaders’ debates, particularly in the media scrum afterward. Barton’s comments about “very right-wing media” and Cochrane’s suggestion that the debate commission “needs to be accountable” struck many viewers as petty, unprofessional, and, perhaps most dangerously, biased. That perception was only amplified when the English-language debate scrum was canceled altogether—an act that, to many, felt like a denial of access and transparency.
It didn’t help that Barton once again became a lightning rod during a post-debate segment, referring to the “remains of indigenous children” when the actual discoveries were anomalies or potential graves. While CBC did issue a correction, it came quietly and was criticized for lacking the same prominence as the original statement.
The broader issue here isn’t about a single gaffe or even partisan leanings—it’s about trust. When CBC journalists make offhanded comments that come off as dismissive or biased, it gives ammunition to those who already question the integrity of public broadcasting. And when corrections or clarifications are slow, obscure, or insufficiently visible, it erodes that trust even further.
Live broadcasts are, as Bertrand rightly pointed out, “perilous.” Mistakes happen. But the CBC’s real challenge now is regaining the confidence of viewers across the political spectrum. Because if Canadians can’t trust their public broadcaster to cover elections fairly, the integrity of our democratic process itself comes into question.
The CBC must reflect hard on how it communicates—not just what it reports, but how it frames its narratives, engages with criticism, and holds itself accountable. In an era where misinformation spreads like wildfire, credibility isn’t a luxury. It’s the whole game.
