Obviously, balance is in the eye of the beholder. I've just read the reader's feedback. You've been slammed for pandering to the Tories and you've been slammed for pandering to the Liberals. Too funny.

Since you've equally upset both the left and the right, I figure the balance is just perfect.

By the way, my own personal view of reporting during the election campaign matches what you've said. To my mind, you were balanced all the way through.

For the most part, this election was covered better than any other I've been witness to. Actual platform agendas were discussed and debated, something that I hope develops into a pattern for all future elections. There was only one exception for me, which was the absolute grilling that Martin got from Mansbridge in the open forum and the lack there of for the other party leaders. Otherwise, considering the cheerleading done by news agencies in the U.S, I was relatively proud of the Canadian media coverage overall.

Seen through the prism of your own perception, CBC election coverage either reflected your point of view, or not. Polls aside, if CBC really wanted to know how the public perceived their broadcast, it would invite us to vote on which journalist we thought leaned one way or the other! There are tells, just like in poker, the way you think and feel reveals who you are. Clearly identified, maybe then we would have a more honest public discussion.

From my perspective, the election coverage was CNNish, although even they may not have gone with the mystery man and taxi thing! Really, much time spent on nothing much. Policy discussions were often more about style than substance. It appeared that CBC lacked the ability to visually present the various platforms. Lots of talk, but no visualization of what each party?s proposal would look like. There was a segment on the Nation giving time to each party to present their policy, but it ended up looking more like a slick commercial.

I would have liked the artists, journalist and documentary professionals at CBC to "show" the kind of Canada each of these parties is asking us to vote for. For example, what would proportional representation look like? Then we could talk?minus the pundits and more public forums, please!

Supporters of the Conservative Party and its leader can't complain about the CBC coverage they received - it was so positive and unquestioning that I considered that the CBC was trying to make sure that its funding would not be cancelled if a Conservative majority were elected. That CBC commentators would be amused that Fox news considers the CBC "left-wing" should not surprise anyone -- virtually all Canadian media, the Western Standard perhaps excluded, would be considered left-wing by virtually all American media. As for the comment by Mr. Stroumboulopoulos, I still don't know what kind of country I am going to be living in, and it makes me somewhat fearful.

The CBC will never be clear of suspicion as long as it is owned by the Government. The only cure is privatization. And yes, I do believe the CBC is slanted, and always has been, in favour of left wing political views. This isn't just about election coverage. Generally speaking, the CBC airs documentaries and news features that tend to build sympathy for socialist views, unionism, and more governmental powers.

Some will charge that the private sector is biased as well, but at least we have a choice of what to watch, and this choice determines the private networks funding levels. We have no choice about paying our taxes to support the CBC. Let the market decide.

How nice to see that the CBC provided content that was consistent with the tone proided by the National Post, a newspaper famed for it's balanced coverage of political issues. The question arises however that if the CBC provides coverage just like the rest of the media, why does CBC exist?

I don't think that far superior public broadcaster PBS measures it performance on that basis. CBC is dead, lets replace it with a real public broadcaster.

Your taking great care in waiting to broadcast the Schreiber story was matched by the ethics commissioner waiting until after the election to report on the Grewal taping incident.

If I were to give them the benefit of the doubt I would say that the RCMP was quite careless in announcing the income trust investigation in the middle of the campaign. However, I don't believe they deserve that benefit. I believe their timing was quite deliberate to the benefit of the Conservatives.

So the CBC's own report, "quantified the length of stories about each party, their leaders and the issues, and provided a weekly snapshot of the weight of coverage given to the major parties. The final breakdown was remarkably parallel to the popular vote." I'd be interested in other shareholders' view of using the popular vote results as a criterion in assessing the quality of coverage. In a democracy, it seems to me, it is better to approach something closer to equal time allotted to each party. Otherwise, the media merely participates in distributing the vote amongst existing major parties rather than providing voters with the information they need to fairly consider all the choices. This is a rather conservative role for media, where in contrast, what you might do is include as part of your role the opening up possibility for whatever new might be emerging. Some of the smaller parties might have platforms that are disturbing to me, and some have ideas worthy of real considerationbut I am always concerned that they are so often dismissed and treated with contempt only because the news policy -makers have decided they will not win. Its like Olympic coverage of only those who are expected to triumph - we miss a lot when that happens.

The finding that issues were better covered than in the past fits with my own impression. However I still find that journalists avoid asking - or aren't well enough trained or informed to ask - the hard questions. We still are allowing candidates to get away with parroting general platform declarations and with simplistic responses.

As long as the CBC consumes taxpayer dollars, its independence will always be questioned. As a de facto extension of the bureaucracy, it is most assuredly biased to the centre-left: If it weren't for Big Government, Big Taxes and Big Programmes, well, where would they be?

All this said, it should be noted in fairness that CTV was just as bad in its coverage. For example, both CBC and CTV "lauded" Paul Martin's descent into "madness" as a good thing. "Martin's getting angry!"

Meanwhile, for some time, both the CBC and CTV ran stories about how Harper had to "cheer up" and not be angry about the state the country was in.

In general, this is what "journalism" has become as championed by the major Canadian networks: Shallow, biased cartoons of what's actually happening. Critical thought? Blasphemy.

People only seem to notice the bias against their chosen party and not the bias in their party's favour. I found the coverage to be quite balanced, and paid close attention to this phenomenon throughout the election. With regards to FOX news declaring the CBC as left wing: everything is to the left of the (very) far right. I agree with the previous statement about stories for ratings; I think 'the hour' with our good friend George S (won't even attempt that spelling B) is too soft: I need not hear stories about Paris Hilton mixed in with an otherwise tasteful blend of Canadian culture.

Come on Tony... You can do it... It's not that hard... Here, I'll say it with you... Grrreeennn paaarrrty. Good boy Tony!!! There, that was that wasn't so hard now was it?

Following the rules is not the issue causing so many of CBC's audience to write in and complain about their perception of a lack of representation or fairness. The very fact that so much effort has been spent by the CBC to tout their fairness over and over again simply shows that the CBC has not achieve the perception of appropriate representation and fairness.

Conservative supporters complaining about CBC bias is a Non sequitur. I don't think they would stop complaining even if the CBC was completely dismantled.

For me, these rebuttals of "See... We are following the rules" is all about the Green Party. I personally perceived the CBC to be lacking in positive Green Party coverage. Many huge Green Party breakthroughs went ignored including Jim Harris' speech to The Empire Club. I feel that CBC's participation of excluding Jim Harris from nationally televised debates was incorrect and unfair.

Under these circumstances, "following the rules" is not an answer I can accept. But feel free to find sympathy with at least one of the new cabinet ministers. I'm sure David Emerson can relate.

i just read the above article and i did download the study and will read it. simply put i don't buy it. if you did not air the peice on Mr. Molruney becuase you were aware of the impact on the election although the link was not direct then you may have had the ability to know what the effect of having a peice that essentialy discounted the man who founded medicare in Canada and cleverly discounted public health care dispite research from around the world that discounts for profit delivery of health care as being either cheeper of safer. I must also tell you that i have written cbc and was going to my computer just this morning to share with you an observation that has been troubling to me. at one time the place i went to for a balanced look at issues that are important to me was my beloved cbc. i don't do that anymore thought i will fight for the cbc but i have seen a change in my own behavior over the past year. when it comes to health care i don't go to cbc because i will get many things but not a balanced look at health care. so in conclusion. i do not buy what you are selling. i will continue to fight for public broadcasting but i am very disapointed in the direction that cbc is being pushed by a board that may not be supporters it. Deborah Jodoin

I must write. I have not YET read the reports - I will. But my personal comments need no ammending since I'm reporting on my reaction to your coverage of the Election and right or wrong it was my reaction.

As a measure of how upset I was over your coverage I can offer blood peressure data and my swowrn oath to never watch ......again.

The complaints: First, I'm sure the balance was fair. That is the easy part. It's like the butcher - they use a regulated balance; you want five pounds of hamburger you get five pounds. But what about the quality of the meat?

Examples: When Martin was on "Your Turn" (national news) Peter M."s first question was the 12th ad. He went after him like a cat on a mouse. Why?, and where are we going with this? We are going to show how Martin is incompetant, mean, hates veterans??? By coincidence the CBC had reported at some point that week that the NDP planned expenditures were $80 billion. Two night later they had to announce that they had it wrong and they were $17 billion. They make the correction and move on. But .... yada yada I could go on

Another example: the ad campaigns ... you just knew that this was going to be a story. It was a story Before the ad campaigns came out. So they have as campaigns. So they get personal So what. Tell me something I don't know. Don't tell me I should be offended because a party is running ads that they have every right to run.

Another - popcorn and beer - politically incorrect - so what? But the space wasted on this was a waste.

Yeah, the news was balanced but did I get quality information that put the issues in focus and made me an informed voter when I went into the booth - no. And, of course there is a very simple explanation - the audience you play to feeds on Survivor etc.

I disagree with your assertion that the election coverage was balanced and fair. Perhaps the length of stories was equal, but the content and slant most certainly was not!

Time after time, you provided partial information to Canadians. Over and over you played the clip of Harper asking Martin just how many criminal investigations his government was under, without trying to educate the public on who was behind all of these allegations, and the convenience of their timing. You allowed old Liberal scandals to dominate, but failed to bring up any old Tory scandals. Why NOT have aired the Fifth Estate piece during the campaign? Had it been a Liberal scandal, no doubt you would have.

You should have been exposing Stephen Harper and his Reform members for what they are, extreme right-wing homophobics with a hidden agenda. Why didn't you do some REAL investigative reporting, pull all the Reform redneck candidates out from wherever they had been hidden and muzzled during the campaign, and remind Canadians that we would be in IRAQ right now, had Harper been PM this past term. That gay marriage rights are in danger, that this is NOT the Conservative Party, this is the REFORM party!!! Your coverage after the debate was really disappointing. After Duceppe stated during the debate that the Conservatives were involved in the Options "scandal", you completely left that information out of your coverage, instead slanting it to incriminate the Liberals once again.

The icing on the cake was Sunday evening, 22nd January, where you gave Harper a nice bit of positive coverage, then showed your over-played clip of Paul Martin's flat tires from WAY back in December...nice touch. Do you think you're funny?

To be honest, I am tired of writing to the CBC. You are now no better than CTV, and I have lost all faith in your ability to provide balanced coverage. Thanks for helping Canadians elect the most embarrassing and inept government we've had in a long time! God help Canada!

I actually burst out laughing when I read this story. The anti-conservative bias from your network is legendary and was very much in evidence during the election. It was particularily evident on the news hour with the young fellow with the unpronouncable name making comments such as " and if the Conservatives win who knows what kind of Country we will have". I watched your Sunday morning news team express disbelief that Fox news in the US had noted that CBC had a decidedly left wing bias. It was comical. Anyway, I am sure that you are quite happy with a report, no doubt commissioned and paid for by yourselves, has cleared CBC of any bias. What a surprise!!!!

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment; if adhered to, the standards it advocates would certainly bring the CBC to new levels of critical inquiry, relevance and excellence. Generally I find that the CBC's coverage is more "positive" and covers more substantive issues than many media outlets (Global News comes to mind). However, the recent focus on the Mexican murder scandal on both CBC.ca and Newsworld is at odds with such ideals. This story does not deserve the attention it is getting. It is a repeat of the "missing teen in Aruba" story that kidnapped CNN and the collective American brain for far too long . Yes, it drew ratings, but at what cost? CBC, you can do better.

I was happy with the election coverage. For the first time I felt like the media were forcing politicians to get at the issues. I would enjoy even more focus and tough questioning next time around.

CBC's coverage was excellent. I can't remember ever reading so much about actual issues. CBC accurately saw what has been missing in much of the news coverage and made major steps to fill that need.

CBC was also not displaying any real bias at all. I'm a strong supporter of one political party and always watch for bias in favour or against but didn't really see much. I even kept waiting for some bad stuff about the guys I really didn't like, but again there was only the stuff that actually happened.

Though I'd like to see CBC adopt my political principiles, I guess I'll settle for this. Seriously, CBC is contributing to the health of our democracy. I would like to see a little more about minor third parties (Christian Heritage, the two Communist parties, Canadian Action Party and others). I'm not likely to vote for any of those but it is interesting to read about.

Cancelling the biography of Tommy Douglas which was already scheduled to be aired during the election campaign was a clear example of bias. It was pulled by CBC in order not to influence voters towards a certain poltical party. As it was scheduled month before to be aired it should not have been pulled. CBC did air an anti-medicare documentary during the election campaign. The contradiction is obvious and CBC is far from unbiased in this example. Canadians need information to make their decisions.