I happen to think most media are fundamentally broken because they are 1) activists masquerading as journalists on both sides
I think we may differ here fundamentally on what journalism is; I oppose one-sided cheerleading, or reporting that omits facts unfavourable to one's ideological or partisan viewpoint; but I absolutely think journalists should have a view point; "Truth to Power" ; holding those who hold power, politically or otherwise to account.
2) rely on advertising dollars,
Eliminating advertising is a great idea, that will be 400M added to CBC's budget.
3) use clickbait for attention
Agreed, it happens, they aren't BlogTO, LOL, but it happens more than it should.
4) appeal to the lowest common denominator on both left and right. Social media has further exacerbated the problem with the most extreme views getting the most attention.
I regularly shake my head/fist at the stupidity published in the National Compost, Globe, etc. And I've got a good track record of statements here that I see the problem as crossing party/ideological lines.
Don't get me wrong, I agree there's plenty of room for quality improvement; I'm just not clear on how de-funding CBC achieves that.
The dollar amount on activism is not the issue. The issue is the activist slant informing much of the reporting across the entire platform, at least for the news section.
The dollar amount is the issue when you say 'de-fund'; that's money we're talking about, and de-funding cancels everything, it cancels music, kids programs, local tv in remote areas, drama, comedy, news, sports all of it. You want to de-fund all that over how 1% of the money is spent? That would seem to define the term 'over-reaction'.
***
Also let's take a look at what CBC News home page is leading with right now, and see how click-bait or bias the headlines read:
So far, not overly partisan or ideological to me. Not uber-click-baitey......what's below that?
A bit too much human-interest flotsum for my taste, but only the refugee headline could really read as having any sort of policy agenda to it, and even then, that's not a given, it could merely
be more human interest, but arguably its purpose to make people feel good about refugees being admitted to Canada; but I can't say that's a bad thing per se.
****
One more for good measure, going straight down the page in order:
I don't think this represents what you suggest to any great degree.
That's not to suggest there aren't material areas of quality improvement required; but you make their journalism sound like toxic waste, that doesn't seem to be born out in cursory examination.