This is a bit rich coming from the CBC. They're institutionally incapable of understanding the problem because they can't comprehend how their perception of themselves as an elite is illegitimate, imo.
Indeed, the CBC isn't an actual elite that could be defined by achievement, performance, accountability, history, or other merit, but they do groom the lower slopes of it. It's possible they have become more balanced as I tuned them out almost 10 years ago, and perhaps in the mean time they've investigated public service corruption, major party financing and election integrity, foreign influence operations, value for money in spending, threats to Canada's sovereignty and place in the world, challenged dominant narratives, and provided valuable and neutral insight into the culture conflicts of the day, but I'm willing to bet I haven't missed that much.
If you are in the U.S., CBC news is like if a Portland NPR affiliate had the budget of CNBC. Lots of very concerned and appropriately unattractive white people with cameras, descending from billion dollar office towers to hover around mystified minorities (who, quite reasonably, just shrug and go with it) demanding to know how they've been victimized by the Four Bads. (climate change, homophobia, racism, and sexism.) The CBC became the prosecutors in litigating for social justice, which I think many of them would be sincerely flattered to read, but to many Canadians, they are just activists posing as reporters.
This is in addition to that they are the state broadcaster whose mandate was to popularize Canada's increasingly homogenized federalism and (now post-) national identity. Their mandate isn't even reporting, it's narrative, and from a federalist perspective.
That view represents the consensus of a few neighbourhoods and schools, basically Queen's, McGill, and to a lesser extent, Carlton, and the international NGOs they all did their gap years at. It is widely regarded as an arm of the LPC. Their content is a formula of patronizing concern about what should be done about people who don't work for the government, or aren't paid in public money, and it manufactures sentimental conflict over different minority interest groups toward that end. While most media panders to outrage, the CBC's editorial tone exalts victimhood as a kind of new state religion.
I could just dismiss them as just another group of radicals with government jobs, but it's more complex than that in Canada. The CBC is something much weirder altogether.
That said, I agree with parts of what you said. CBC's opinions are not at all related to the normal experiences that Canadians have.
The news podcast is fine, and is better than the quality of most Canadian news (a low bar). I appreciate that they will steadily question the government in interviews; however, but for topics around science and technology, they simply don't have the background to really ferret out BS in the same way.
For instance, they will readily tell you "all of the vaccines are equally good at keeping you out of the hospital" - which is true - but they will not ask the more challenging follow-ups. For example, "if all vaccines prevent death, why is it so important for certain vaccines to be allocated exclusively to the elderly?". The answer to the later question is actually far more interesting, since it unveils bioethics questions that a listener may not agree with; but the CBC is invested in protecting the aura of the experts it agrees with.
The Japanese NHK is, without a question, far better than the CBC, despite its politicization and its recent change to be seen as "agreeing with the government". Other than the Ideas podcast and the News show, there is very little value that the CBC provides me (despite being a linguistic, racial and religious minority in a mixed-race marriage with another linguistic, racial and religious minority.)
I might vote for a political party that had a clearly defined plan to end CBC's divorce from the concerns of the average Canadian.
At least in the US you have a few different news sources all with their own bias. But the CBC is looked up somewhat as an institution and god damn Peter Mansbridge is a handsome man.
I’ve seen stories covered in the US media and on CBC and it’s apparent the CBC provides an even narrower viewpoint.
And don’t get me started on how most coverage of the US tends to have the conclusion “aren’t you glad we aren’t as bad as the US? may be you should stop complaining about our governments little missteps?”