EXCLUSIVE: Leaked audio of CBC disciplinary meeting with former TV host Travis Dhanraj
Travis Dhanraj, once the host of a CBC television news show called Canada Tonight with Travis Dhanraj, resigned earlier this month with fiery letters accusing the CBC of 'tokenism masquerading as diversity, problematic political coverage protocols, and the erosion of editorial independence.'
His letters, one to CBC leadership and another to CBC colleagues, were made public and created controversy, including over perceived political imbalance in news coverage at the publicly funded broadcaster. Last week, Conservative Members of Parliament called for a public hearing into Dhanraj's 'damning allegations' on workplace culture and biased reporting.
CBC has denied Dhanraj's criticisms made in his letters.
More than a year before his still reverberating resignation, however, a disciplinary meeting for Dhanraj was convened by CBC shortly after he made a social media post on April 19, 2024. His post on X said: 'At a time when the public broadcaster is under increasing scrutiny and when transparency is needed.' CBC's president Catherine Tait had been asked to appear on his show. 'We wanted to discuss new budget funding, what it means for jobs & the corporation's strategic priorities ahead. Our request was declined. This is unfortunate.'
The disciplinary meeting preceded his removal from on-air duties for the CBC News Network show that bore his name.
Dhanraj declined to comment on the recording or the meeting, referring questions to his lawyer, Kathryn Marshall. Marshall confirmed the recording National Post has is an authentic portion of a longer disciplinary meeting between Dhanraj and CBC officials.
CBC did not dispute the disciplinary meeting or recording.
The CBC manager speaking in the recording is identified as Andree Lau, senior director of digital publishing and streaming. Lau's LinkedIn page describes her job as overseeing the strategic and editorial direction of CBC News Network as well as other CBC news properties.
In the recording she appears to equate a CBC journalist reporting something critical about the CBC with a potential breach of journalistic conflict of interest ethics, on the grounds that a CBC journalist has a personal stake in the broadcaster's success.
The recording excerpt begins with Dhanraj explaining the circumstances of his post about Tait.
'The new budget funding was publicly put out in the budget on Tuesday. It was widely reported on, by not only CBC but other broadcasters. There is nothing in the tweet that is insider information,' Dhanraj says.
Lau replies: 'With exception of a unionized employee criticizing their employer; that is an employee who has a personal stake in the matter whose job is part of it…. The issue is, you know, does this post meet the standards of integrity, does it meet the conflict of interest under code of conduct.'
Dhanraj says: 'I firmly stand by the fact that it does.'
Asks Lau: 'Do you understand the concern with this post as it relates to the principle of integrity?'
Dhanraj: 'No, I really don't. I don't, and again, Andree, I find it problematic that we are in a meeting where we are discussing something that is in the interests of the corporation. So, I, I'm not seeing the separation right now between the journalism and the interest of the corporation. I see how it would be in the interest of the corporation for this tweet not to be out, but I don't see how, journalistically, it's not sound…'
An unidentified union representative then asks for context on how the appearance request to Tait came about. 'I didn't watch the show that night,' he says.
'We had an editorial discussion,' Dhanraj says, 'as to whether or not now was the correct time, since there was a development, a significant development with the release of the federal budget and the new money, to put a request in for Catherine Tait. We had been discussing putting a request in for some time and we thought there was a news hook to it because of the new development….'
I find it problematic that we are in a meeting where we are discussing something that is in the interests of the corporation
Lau: '… What is your understanding of the protocol and considerations when CBC journalists are covering the CBC?'
'It, it's the J.S.P. statement again,' Dhanraj says, likely referencing CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices.
'Clear editorial separation,' Lau says.
Dhanraj: 'So those who have the interest of the corporation should not be influencing reporters.'
Lau: 'Yes.'
Dhanraj: 'And if that is happening, well, that kind of goes against some core fundamentals of the public broadcaster.'
Lau then says there are other aspects of the JSP involved. In a sentence in which some words are unclear on the recording, she says 'the principle of integrity and the perception of who has a stake in the matter,' finishing with 'perceived impartiality because, as I mentioned, you are an employee, and you are criticizing your employer.'
The Post does not have a recording of the entire meeting.
Chuck Thompson, CBC's head of public affairs, said the meeting was about more than just Dhanraj's social media post, for which Dhanraj was 'never formally disciplined for.'
'The discussions in April with Mr. Dhanraj were about a range of issues outside the tweet; there was a particular emphasis on CBC News policies about conflicts of interest, violations of journalistic standards and protocols on how we report on ourselves.
'Mr. Dhanraj violated these policies and was asked about them by his manager with his union representative present. He also secretly recorded the meeting after agreeing not to,' Thompson said.
Lau could not be reached for comment prior to publication. An email sent to her on Friday was returned with an automated out of office message; a detailed message to her cell phone was not responded to. A CBC official had said they would alert Lau to the Post's request.
Marshall, Dhanraj's lawyer, said what is heard in the recording is 'disturbing.'
'It shows that Travis was intimidated for simply doing his job as a journalist. He was hauled into a meeting with human resources, his boss, and the union. The purpose of the meeting, I think, was to intimidate him, scare him and pressure him, making it clear to him that he's not to do that, that he is not to post anything or say anything as a journalist that could be embarrassing to the public broadcaster,' Marshall said.
'This is deeply concerning. I think it demonstrates that CBC, in that moment, was far more interested in preserving its own reputation than allowing their journalists to do their jobs.'
'It shows that the CBC corporation has a disturbing level of control over their journalists and is involved in the types of stories that the journalists are covering or not covering. I think that speaks to significant concerns of bias and a lack of objectivity within the corporation.'
Thompson said late Friday that Dhanraj is still a CBC employee although currently on leave.
Marshall said CBC has still not accepted Dhanraj's resignation despite him voicing his clear intent and, in fact, are still paying him.
'I want to be very clear: The CBC doesn't get to hold him hostage. This is a free country. He's allowed to resign.'
Marshall said Dhanraj is pressing a human rights lawsuit against CBC over his departure.
• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | X: AD_Humphreys
CBC host resigns, saying he could not continue at public broadcaster 'with integrity'
Conservatives call for investigation into CBC after journalist resigns over 'performative diversity, tokenism'
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
8 minutes ago
- CBS News
New exhibit explores the impact and legacy of the Hollywood blacklist
New York — The central question in 1947, as the House Un-American Activities Committee investigated alleged Communist influence in Hollywood, was: "Are you a member of the Communist Party?" Chaired by Republican Rep. John Parnell Thomas of New Jersey, the committee eventually led to a Hollywood blacklist, now the focus of a new exhibit at the New York Historical Society. "The exhibit really tells the story of the Hollywood Ten," Louise Mirrer, president of the New York Historical Society, told CBS News, of a group of 10 Hollywood writers and directors. "And the charge was for the Hollywood Ten, that they were making movies that espoused the Communist point of view." The Hollywood Ten refused to answer the committee's questions. They were held in contempt of Congress, each sentenced from anywhere between six months to a year in prison, and blacklisted by studio executives. "I think it had an enormous effect," Anne Lessy, who helped curate the exhibit, told CBS News of the impact of the blacklist. "If you wanted to be a part of the film industry, you essentially forfeited your privacy and your right to your own political ideas and affiliations." Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood Ten, spent 10 months in prison. His daughter, Mitzi, was 5 years old at the time. Her drawings and letters to him are on display in the exhibit, as well as testimony from those who named suspected Communists. "In an effort to save themselves, their careers and their reputations, many, you know, creatives felt compelled to name names, which is what the committee wanted," Lessy said. Even Walt Disney famously testified before the committee. "Walt Disney very much objected to labor organizing that had taken place in his studios and blamed it on Communist infiltration," Lessy said. "And then you also have Ronald Reagan, who at the time, was president of the Screen Actors Guild. While he didn't name names in public, he did to the committee's investigator. And he went on to very much endorse the anti-Communist crusade." The blacklist later expanded to include classically trained pianist Hazel Scott, the first Black entertainer to have a nationally syndicated TV show. But the show was canceled after she was named in an anti-Communist pamphlet. Once out of prison, Trumbo used pseudonyms to write the Academy Award-winning films "The Brave One" and "Roman Holiday." "So it took about four the Academy Awards to finally recognize Dalton Trumbo," Lessy said. " was seen as the beginning of eroding of the committee's power." The impact of the Red Scare also extended beyond Hollywood. "A number of regular Americans got caught up in this anti-Communist fervor, members of labor unions, high school teachers," Lessy said. "College professors also came under scrutiny. There was a well-known publication called Red Channels that would provide very detailed information on a wide range of creatives. And so even just your name appearing in one of these publications was enough to get you blacklisted." By the 1960s, as the Red Scare had faded, so too did the blacklist's power. And in 1975, the House Un-American Activities Committee was abolished. "I think it [the Hollywood blacklist] raises important questions about how to protect a robust democracy," Lessy said. "How do we protect our rights and freedoms, particularly freedom of you hold unpopular views, should you be punished? Should you lose your job? These are all questions we should be wrestling with."
Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
With Columbia as a model, White House seeks fines in potential deals with Harvard and others
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is pursuing heavy fines from Harvard and other universities as part of potential settlements to end investigations into campus antisemitism, using the deal it struck with Columbia University as a template, according to an administration official familiar with the matter. Fines have become a staple of proposed deals in talks with Harvard and other schools, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The new strategy was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. Federal civil rights investigations into schools and universities almost always have been resolved through voluntary settlements, yet they rarely include financial penalties. The Biden administration reached dozens of such deals with universities and none included fines. Columbia's settlement with the Trump administration included a $200 million fine in exchange for regaining access to federal funding and closing investigations accusing Columbia of tolerating harassment of Jewish students and employees. The agreement announced Wednesday also orders Columbia to ensure its admissions and hiring decisions are 'merit-based' with no consideration of race, to hire more Jewish studies faculty, and to reduce the university's reliance on international students, among other changes. It places Columbia under the watch of an independent monitor and requires regular disclosures to the government. The agreement deal includes a clause forbidding the government from directly dictating decisions on hiring, admissions or academics. Columbia leaders said it preserves the university's autonomy while restoring the flow of federal money. The Trump administration is investigating dozens of universities over allegations that they failed to address campus antisemitism amid the Israel-Hamas war, and several institutions have faced federal funding freezes, like those at Columbia and Harvard. The federal government has frozen more than $1 billion at Cornell University, along with $790 million at Northwestern University. In announcing the Columbia settlement, administration officials described it as a template for other universities. Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a 'roadmap' for colleges looking to regain public trust, saying it would 'ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.' As Trump departed the White House on Friday, he told reporters that Harvard 'wants to settle' but that Columbia 'handled it better.' The president said he's optimistic his administration will prevail in Harvard's legal challenge — at least on appeal — and he suggested Harvard may never regain the level of federal funding it received in the past. 'The bottom line is we're not going to give any more money to Harvard,' he said. 'We want to spread the wealth.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
Dems use Epstein files to deflect, but this isn't a ‘crisis' for Trump, says political analyst
Panelists Byron York and Matt Towery discuss the Democratic Party's attempts to deflect and point fingers at President Donald Trump on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
