This article published on Feb 19th was entitled an "analysis":
Liberals denounce and agree with Tory motion condemning Israel boycotters
All parties agree BDS tactics against Israel bad policy, but that's about all they agree on
But there is no analysis in it. Basically it simply points out the incongruity of the Liberals supporting a motion that they do not really agree with.
But if CBC really intended to inform Canadians on BDS, which it most assuredly does not want to do, a true analysis of the situation reported on in this article would, as a minimum, address two questions:
1) What exactly is BDS? Why do so many good people including Canadian Jews support it? Instead the article repeats two times the criticism of its denouncers that BDS is the "new face anti-Semitism". This claim is not only wrong, it is absurd. It would be like describing Mahatma Ghandi's Hindu and Muslim non-violent boycotts of British colonialism as "Anti-Christian. It would be absurd, and I doubt CBC would have repeated such a ludicrous claim without in the same breath rejecting it as they do here with this ridiculous anti-Semitism claim.
Also there is this line about the Liberals:
Justin Trudeau's Liberals have actually been quite consistent in publicly opposing BDS, a movement begun by the Palestinians 11 years ago as an alternative to armed struggle.
If Liberals are rejecting a non-violent alternative to armed struggle, does this mean they are endorsing violence? CBC should delve in to that a bit deeper.
2) Why do Canadian politicians feel obliged to attack Canadians in support of a foreign government. This motion is a direct attack on the free speech of Canadians. It does not serve and only harms Canadians. CBC should be asking why the Liberals are so afraid of protecting Canadians.
It is obvious this is because of the inordinate and unhealthy power of the Israeli lobby in Canada, and CBC does not want to say this. Actually CBC is a fully-fledged member in good standing in this Israel Lobby.
And that is why this article that claims to be an "analysis" cannot have any real analysis in it.