And on the TV side, Hamilton's CHCH carried the speech/presser and also stayed live with the Q & A afterwards.

I'm trying very hard not to take a political side here, so what you're about to read is based not on my beliefs but strictly on what I heard on Sunday afternoon. I decided to listen to an hour and a half or so of CBC's "Cross Country Check-Up" where the question was, "Who do you trust in the ongoing SNC-Lavalin dispute: Justin Trudeau or JWR?"

Various callers expressed their opinions, but in the 90 mins. or so that I listened, there was only one - out of at least say, 25-30 callers - who said they no longer sided with the P.M. and would not vote Liberal in the next election. And that person's opinion was read only via a short tweet. All the others said, despite their misgivings, they would vote for the ruling Grits again in October.   

There was not a single person who said they would switch to the Conservatives and several callers insisted that Andrew Scheer was 'pure evil' and must be stopped. 

O.K., it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you're on. I don't care if you love JT or hate him or if you think the Conservatives are the best thing since sliced bread. But it seems absolutely impossible that you could have a national talk show and not get one single caller supporting a right leaning party.

Not one in two hours! 

I also listened for an hour or more last week with a similar topic, and again, not one person anywhere in the entire country of approx. 37 million said the Conservatives would get their vote. 

It's not that they likely didn't call. But I suspect they never got put on air.  I'm well aware these calls are heavily screened by the producers and if I'm not mistaken, they ask for a caller's name, location and phone number before they can get on air. I'm no fan of Mr. Scheer, but strictly as a matter of balance, I find it impossible to believe not a single person in the listening audience would consider voting for him. Recent polls would seem to indicate otherwise.

If the CBC was ever to try and prove they're not a mouthpiece for the Liberals, they certainly failed for two weeks in a row. Frankly, for an organization that insists it presents balanced coverage in its programming and news, this was just embarrassing.

I don't think you're being argumentative at all. Your POV is perfectly reasonable. I think you're right that this was certainly a limited sample (although I've heard similar examples on some of their Ontario-only shows at noon.)  And I also concur that the majority of people tuning in and phoning in were sympathetic to the Liberals and that might explain some of the content.

But then you might have to ask yourself why our national network seems to attract that specific audience. Recent studies show people are polarized now and tend to tune in to the media that agrees with their point of view. (Which is why I have so much trouble with both CNN and Fox.) My contention is that we shouldn't really know that about the CBC if they were doing their journalism properly. 

I might also note that I don't have quite the same issue with CBC Radio news, which seems a bit more balanced on average.(Although I will always maintain they should have covered both the JWR and the Gerald Butts addresses, as matters of national interest.) But even given all those concessions, I find it unbelievable that not a single Conservative (or NDP for that matter) supporter got on air during that two hour show. It's simply not credible that not a single one of them called in, unless someone behind the scenes stacked the deck. And frankly it hurt the show. 

To conclude, it might surprise you to find out that my real problem with what I heard isn't that the show was all-Liberal-all-the-time. I would feel the exact same way if the only ones they allowed on air were Conservative supporters. 

I'm looking for balance, fairness and differing points of view. I just didn't hear any of those three vital tenets of journalism on the air Sunday afternoon. And as taxpayer who doles out a fee to keep them on air (albeit reluctantly) that's a serious problem.

I guess I'm old fashioned that way. I was taught you have to have as many sides represented as possible. Only then can the reader/listener/viewer make up his/her mind. Sadly, it doesn't seem to work that way anymore, which may be why I have trouble watching Fox, CNN or MSNBC.

Speaking of which, remember that Kentucky school kid in the MAGA hat who got caught smirking at the native elder during that protest in Washington a few weeks ago? He claims the coverage was unfair and biased, that reporters jumped to conclusions and that he's since received death threats. I heard tonight  his family, in addition to suing The Washington Post, is now going after CNN as well for some outrageous amount of money.

I'm afraid this will never end and my wish for getting all sides on a story will be consigned to the scrap heap of history...Where's Walter Cronkite when you need him?????