In his new book, "The CBC: How Canada’s Public Broadcaster Lost Its Voice (And How to Get It Back)," David Cayley critiques the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's (CBC) approach to journalism during the COVID-19 pandemic. Released on September 16, 2025, the book reflects on Cayley’s more than 40 years of experience with the broadcaster. He argues that the CBC has shifted from being an open forum for diverse opinions to a platform that suppresses dissenting views.

Cayley highlights an incident from March 22, 2020, when CBC News Network interviewed Dr. Richard Schabas, a former chief medical officer of health in Ontario. Schabas, who had been a trusted public health source for over three decades, expressed skepticism about certain COVID-19 measures, including lockdowns. His interview was removed from the CBC's website shortly after it aired. CBC News Managing Editor Tracey Seeley informed her colleagues that Schabas's views were akin to those of a "climate change denier" and labeled him an "outlier."

This incident exemplifies what Cayley describes as the CBC's troubling trend of excluding scientific dissent from public discourse. He notes that the network presented a narrative that leaders were "following science," despite the fact that the scientific understanding of COVID-19 was still evolving and contested.

Cayley also discusses the debate surrounding the effectiveness of masks in preventing virus transmission. He references a paper by retired physicist Dennis G. Rancourt, who concluded that "masks don’t work" based on existing evidence. This conclusion was echoed by a meta-analysis published in January 2023, which reviewed 78 randomized trials. Initially, both the World Health Organization and Canada’s chief public health officer, Theresa Tam, shared the view that masks were ineffective, but later changed their stance without new evidence.

Cayley argues that the shift in public health messaging reflects a broader issue of how fear was ritualized during the pandemic, with masking becoming a symbol of compliance rather than a scientifically validated measure. He contends that this approach has led to a narrow interpretation of public health that prioritizes conformity over open debate.