CBC controversy over Trump’s annexation threats reveals a broader crisis in journalism

So everyone’s mad at CBC.

With U.S. President Donald Trump spouting threatening, unwelcome rhetoric about annexing Canada, the Canadian public broadcaster responded in part by scheduling an episode of Cross-Country Checkup titled “51st State: A Cross-Border Conversation”. The episode’s central question? “What does Canada as the 51st state mean to you?” 

In the wake of overwhelming outrage, CBC rephrased the question: “What do you think of Trump’s comments about Canada becoming the 51st state?” The change did little to quell the controversy, which has sparked petitions, op-eds, and an ongoing wave of hostility toward the CBC at an already precarious time in its existence. Efforts by network editors to defend their decision were mostly met with rolled eyes and further rage. 

Many criticized the CBC for devoting an entire episode to Trump’s intimidating, ridiculous bluster, arguing the discussion would help validate that bluster. It entertained the idea of Canadian annexation not as an existential threat to our country, but as a sort of idle thought-exercise, with seemingly little care given to the hurt and threatened feelings of Canadians who don’t take kindly to the idea of a dispassionate intellectual conversation in which the elimination of Canada is treated as a reasonable possibility. 

People read a great deal of privilege into CBC producers’ defensive comments: at a time when Canadians are feeling vulnerable and threatened by the chaotic actions of the Trump administration, they saw in CBC producers a certain ho-hum sense of ‘doesn’t affect me’. Instead of a simple apology, Canadians were told we “misinterpreted” the question and that it may have “struck a nerve.” The episode was denounced as clickbait and sensationalism, but sensationalistic clickbait that lent an alarming validity to a dangerous and unacceptable idea.

A lot of trans people felt a deep sense of ironic deja-vu watching the controversy play out. The CBC’s decision to entertain a dangerous and false premise as a reasonable thought exercise—proceeding with a casual conversation about eliminating an entire group’s hard-won, hard-forged and very real identity—is an act trans people experience with stunning regularity from mainstream media.

Media in the U.S. and U.K. have been the worst culprits of this, but this kind of dangerous ‘both-sides’ journalism has been seeping into Canadian media as well. “Are Danielle Smith’s gender identity policies good for children?” National Post columnists asked in 2024, in one of several editorial interventions that were really about attacking trans rights. Those policies have been roundly denounced by every credible medical and human rights organization, yet the National Post lends them undeserved credibility under the guise of posing a seemingly innocent question.

“Why can’t we say women anymore?” asks a Toronto Star columnist, posing another ‘innocent question’ as a method of opening the door to an attack on trans rights (news flash: no one is opposed to saying women any more, trans people least of all. Read all about it here!).

“The battle over gender therapy” is the title used by the New York Times in presenting a flawed article suggesting the medical community is divided over trans health care (it’s not; all credible medical organizations support gender-affirming care).

Good journalists have deconstructed and refuted a lot of the harmful media coverage, and human rights groups have fired back against this type of irresponsible media work. In 2023 GLAAD published a detailed report on the problem, demonstrating how this type of journalism—using “just asking questions” and “both sides language” as justification—is dangerous and actually used to fuel and justify real political action. As the report indicates, these types of media pieces are frequently cited in lawsuits and legislation as justification for anti-trans laws. Will President Trump cite the Cross Country Checkup episode in a hypothetical future declaration of war on Canada?

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey's blatantly unconstitutional order imposing new restrictions on gender affirming care for trans people of all ages cites coverage from the New York Times in justifying an 18 month waiting period for receiving care pic.twitter.com/AINdnQrDtT

— Ari Drennen (@AriDrennen) April 13, 2023

“Just because something can be debated doesn’t mean it should be,” writes trans attorney Chase Strangio. “Those so-called debates have very significant material consequences.”

This, no doubt, is part of what worried Canadians about CBC’s Cross Country Checkup program. What impact would hosting this public debate have on fueling Trump’s imperialist fantasies of annexing Canada? What effect would it have on our ability to protect and defend our country’s sovereignty and survival? When U.S. politicians hear our national broadcaster calmly musing over the possibility of Canada becoming the 51^st state, how might that influence their responses to Trump’s outrageous bluster?

Imagine a Ukrainian radio station hosting a call-in show: “What if we surrendered to Russia?” and positing it as just a thought exercise. 

Even the method used by CBC in the Cross Country Checkup episode echoed the playbook for bad media coverage of trans issues. Less than 12 minutes into the show, the co-hosts read comments from a listener who appeared supportive of the idea, conveying the impression that their show topic was indeed reasonable, and that there are mixed opinions on the matter worth airing. I’m sure that in a country of 40 million people it’s not hard to find a few opinions that support the idea of annexation (just like it’s not impossible to find a trans person who regrets their transition, despite a less-than 1 per cent regret rate for gender-affirming surgery that is lower than almost any other medical procedure). But that doesn’t mean these voices reflect informed, representative perspectives. Inserting them into the program creates a false sense of balance, an inaccurate impression that this is a valid two-sided debate, when it is not. This is what Simone Unwalla, in a superb critique of media coverage of trans issues, has aptly described as “the self-serving fiction of neutrality.” 

There’s a lesson here for journalists, but it’s not just about Canadian identity. It’s a broader lesson about how to do good (or bad) journalism in the modern world, and about the way we have discussions about identity. No one feels comfortable hearing or participating in a discussion where their very core identity is put forward as a subject for debate. 

Responsible journalism shouldn’t debate the validity of someone’s identity and whether or not it’s a reasonable thing, whether that identity is Canadian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, transgender, or anything else. Responsible journalism needs to proceed from a position of respect for all identities. Responsible journalism helps us understand each other’s identities and what they mean to us. Responsible journalism has a responsibility and duty to the public it serves, but this kind of irresponsible journalism—whether about trans peoples’ rights to exist or about Canadians’ rights to exist—in fact threatens and endangers members of that public.

Sadly, CBC hasn’t indicated that it heard the message — granted, the public outrage put them in a difficult position. Broadly speaking, journalistic integrity should not be influenced by public opinion, and responsible journalism does include exploring difficult issues and unpopular ideas. Just because the public doesn’t like an idea doesn’t mean journalists don’t have a responsibility to explore it. So I’m not surprised CBC reacted by doubling down; they probably felt their journalistic integrity would be at risk if they cancelled the show due to listener objections.

But they’re mistaken. What CBC and other media need to realize is there’s a profound difference between exploring difficult or unpopular ideas, and treating someone’s very identity and existence as a topic for abstract debate. Those are not the same things. Our identities are very real, and the role of responsible and courageous journalism is to help us understand each other’s identities, not debate their existence.

Even journalists get it wrong. There’s nothing wrong with admitting a mistake and apologizing; sometimes an apology for bad journalism is the best way of upholding journalistic integrity. But the broader lesson here is not just that we shouldn’t indulge Trump’s imperialism — it’s that we need mainstream journalism to do a better job of respecting our identities. And that means all of our identities.