• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Media Bias [Merged]

Rnager Ray-

No- that was good.  For anyone who has never lived west of the Rockies, BC politics can be damned near incomprehensible.  Even if you have lived in BC, they can be incomprehensible.
 
Government is accelerating the spending cuts but the CBC only asks for coments from the Unions. What about taxpayers, business, economists or other people who this will affect. Reducing the tax burden on Canadians (currenty standing at @ 41% of the average family of four when Federal, Provincial, Municipal taxes and fees are added up) might be considered a good thing in some circles...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/09/pol-deeper-governments-cuts.html

Federal cuts could be catastrophic, union says
Public Works, Foreign Affairs, Defence asked to cut more, more quickly
By Louise Elliott and Greg Weston, CBC News Posted: Jan 9, 2012 5:56 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 9, 2012 8:11 PM ET Read 368 comments368

The federal government is accelerating and deepening its plans to eliminate the deficit despite slow growth projections and a lacklustre job market.

Several major government departments have been asked to come up with a plan to cut spending by 10 per cent over the next two fiscal years — that is, by the end of 2013-14 — CBC News has learned.

That's a change from last year's budget, in which the government promised to find savings of five per cent in annual program spending by the end of 2014-15.

To achieve that, the government had originally asked all federal departments to find between five and 10 per cent worth of savings over three years.

Now senior government sources say the overall cut to program spending at the three-year mark will be higher: about 7.5 per cent of current spending levels.

Several major departments have been asked to participate in the accelerated cuts, including Public Works, National Defence, Foreign Affairs and CSIS.

Deputy ministers told to cut faster
Just before Christmas, the Conservative government's special Treasury Board sub-committee that was overseeing the cuts concluded its consultations with senior bureaucrats.

Sources say that during those consultations, Treasury Board President Tony Clement pulled some deputy ministers aside and told them they had to go further. They learned their departments were expected to find cuts of 10 per cent over two years.

Canada's largest public service union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, says Canadians should be worried.

President John Gordon says the original plan to cut five per cent over three years would have badly harmed services. He says going any deeper or faster could be catastrophic.

"That's going to be devastating to the services that are provided," he said.

Gordon pointed to ways in which Canadians are already feeling the loss of services — from long delays for Employment Insurance cheques to the loss of search and rescue services based in Newfoundland.

He says more severe cuts will make for an even grimmer outlook.

"All of those things are there. We've asked the question but we can't get answers. Nobody will speak about it. All they keep [saying] is, we'll hear when the budget comes out. Well that worries me," Gordon said.

He's heard many rumours that the government's target for the cuts has been getting larger. But because the consultations have all been behind closed doors, his union is unclear what the result will be.

Politically, the government may be trying to accelerate the worst of the cuts in order to give itself more than a year between the end of the cuts and the next federal election, slated for fall 2015.

That revised schedule would give the Conservatives some time to do damage control.
 
Living within our means can only be a good thing.  Personally I do not see why the CBC should be subsidized to compete against private industry.  This can NEVER be a good thing.  Certainly there is a place for a public broadcaster, but I would argue that their place would be to provide broadcast services to those regions where a private interest could not operate at a profit.
That said, as TV, radio and the internet continue their rapid merger, the day when the CBC is completely irrelevant is likely fast approaching.
 
I think some subsidies for CBC is a good thing, especially when they're providing local radio and news service to areas that wouldn't be profitable for a private broadcaster. However, that's where the money should stop. CBC national level programming (HNIC, TV sitcoms, etc) should stand on its own based on ad revenue like every other broadcaster, which is definitely not the case now.
 
exabedtech said:
Living within our means can only be a good thing.  Personally I do not see why the CBC should be subsidized to compete against private industry.  This can NEVER be a good thing.  Certainly there is a place for a public broadcaster, but I would argue that their place would be to provide broadcast services to those regions where a private interest could not operate at a profit.
That said, as TV, radio and the internet continue their rapid merger, the day when the CBC is completely irrelevant is likely fast approaching.

Been covered a few times in the almost 30 pages of this subject.
 
Small scale private broadcasters and community radio stations (and even TV stations) exist to serve tiny local markets. People can even create TV stations and radio studios in their houses and podcast to a potentially global audience (although it would be smarter to go door to door and tell people your URL). Studio quality equipment is now readily available and accessable to most consumers, so there is no reason that you, personally, cannot serve these audiences.

Really, the arguments to provide subsidy to the CBC are incredibly weak, and given the vanishingly small audience (@ 7% of the national audience), the lavish scale of the subsidies that do exist are not translating into audience growth, or even retention.
 
CBC's Ombudsman is outed by the truth. Time for him to resign:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/01/20120120-161743.html

Ford cleared of CBC's abuse claim

TERRY DAVIDSON | QMI AGENCY

TORONTO - Toronto police chief Bill Blair's account that Mayor Rob Ford didn't verbally abuse 911 dispatchers during a series of emergency calls made in October is "accurate," the provincial police commissioner says.

In a statement released Friday afternoon, Commissioner Chris Lewis says he listened to Toronto Police Service recordings of the emergency calls, and Blair's "statement (he) made in a public release on October 28... is an accurate interpretation of the content of the tapes."

Lewis' statement comes less than a month after CBC ombudsman Kirk LaPointe said he couldn't accept Blair's account of what is on those 911 recordings because Blair's objectivity was compromised because of Ford's role in setting the city's police budget.

It had been alleged via a leak to the CBC that after Ford was ambushed outside his home on the morning of Oct. 24 by the CBC comedy show This Hour has 22 Minutes, he went inside, called 911 several of times, and, yelling, proceeded to call the dispatchers "bitches," and also said, "I'm Rob f--ing Ford, the mayor of this city!"

Ford claimed he said no such thing, but admitted he used the "F-word" because he was frustrated.

Blair, after listening to the tapes, released a statement four days later, saying Ford didn't use the word "bitches" and "did not describe himself as the original account claimed."

The 911 recordings haven't been released.
 
From a wholly unexpected source, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CBC News, is a thoughtful report from someone I thought had forgotten how to think for himself:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/01/22/f-rfa-macdonald.html
Neil Macdonald: Media hatred and the rise of Newt Gingrich

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News

Last Updated: Jan 23, 2012

A few days ago, driving through South Carolina, I saw a billboard advertising a radio station that's part of the "Excellence in Broadcasting" network.

So, always seeking excellence, I tuned the dial to the station and found myself listening to Rush Limbaugh. "Excellence in Broadcasting" is a term Limbaugh modestly invented for his own show.

For those of you who have never heard Limbaugh, he's an iconic entertainer who addresses his huge audience through a bullhorn from the far right end of the Republican Party.

That day, he was angry at the "Republican establishment media" for attacks on Newt Gingrich, who Limbaugh evidently feels is the only Republican in the nomination race able to beat Barack Obama.

I had to think about that one. I hadn't realized there was a left-right spectrum within the conservative media, but it makes sense. It also helps explain the quirky rise of someone like Gingrich to the top of the Republican food chain.

'Selective exposure'

This country's political discourse is angry and discordant, like a malfunctioning television left on at full volume.

It's soaked with religion and race, and it obsesses over trivialities — are Muslims bringing Shariah law to America? — while ignoring matters of real importance. (I have yet to hear any serious public discussion of the unravelling euro, and whether that contagion will spread to America.)

To properly understand this place, I think, you have to listen to all the participants in the echo chamber: the screamers on the left, the howlers on the right and everything in between.

Evidently, though, Americans increasingly believe the opposite.

According to a study by professors at Stanford University and UCLA, more and more people here are cocooning themselves in media they know will cater to their particular biases.

The professors call it “selective exposure.”

Liberals apparently tend to stick with left-leaning MSNBC, websites like Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, National Public Radio (which I actually find more priggishly balanced than any other news outlet), and CNN.

The big draw for Conservatives is Fox News Channel and Limbaugh. They also gravitate to newsmax.com, the Washington Times, Glenn Beck’s new channel, and of course the galaxy of right-wing shows on talk radio, a medium conservatives seem to own.

The result, of course, is a political discourse in which progressives and conservatives increasingly just yell at each other, having long ago ceased listening.

Blame the messenger

The phenomenon also has another consequence: blaming the messenger.

Just as liberals I know seem to loathe people like Limbaugh, I've often heard conservatives tell me through clenched teeth that I'm clearly part of a mainstream media plot to destroy their leaders.

(Progressives see the same sort of dark forces operating against them. Remember Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" during her campaigning days.)

Gingrich cannily tapped into this media-hatred lode when he was asked during the candidates' debate Thursday night about allegations, by one of his ex-wives, that he had wanted to legitimize his philandering by getting her to agree to an "open marriage."

Given that Gingrich was, and remains, a warrior for "family values," and given that the whole country was talking about the interview, and given how negative and nasty all the candidates' campaigns have become, it seemed a fair question.

But Gingrich turned it into an attack on the left-leaning "elite" media, who, he said, were working together to ensure Obama’s election.

His ex-wife's remarks on ABC News, he said, were all just part of that campaign, and he was "appalled."

Life in the cocoon

The audience, mostly Christian conservatives, went nuts. Gingrich was finally shining a national spotlight on one of their most treasured Limbaugh-esque theories.

Pundits immediately predicted, correctly it turned out, that it would help push him over the top in South Carolina on Saturday.

The wildly cheering crowd was happy to overlook Gingrich's affairs, and clearly didn’t give a fig about his colossal hypocrisy.

This is, after all, a man who, while vigorously pursuing another woman, led the effort to impeach Bill Clinton after it was discovered Clinton had been having an affair with a White House intern.

(Incidentally, I don't recall Gingrich or any other conservatives ever scolding the so-called elite media for going after the lurid details of Clinton's infidelities.)

But it has long since reached the point in this country where facts have ceased to matter.

Only in America, I think, is it possible to run against the media, and the California study offers one good reason why: Americans voluntarily living in an endless feedback loop designed to prop up their own conceptions and misconceptions.

Constant jibes

Consider some of the reasons why many conservatives despise Obama: He has no moral compass, they say. Well, this is a family man in a long-term, apparently stable marriage that has not a whiff of scandal. In that respect, Obama more closely resembles George W. Bush than Gingrich, who now talks of seeking God's forgiveness for his extramarital adventures.

Another trope: Obama constantly apologizes for America abroad. There is no record of Obama ever having done so, unless you're truly paranoid about his early olive branch to the Islamic world, or furious about his reflection that while he believes America is "exceptional," most other countries regard themselves the same way.

Then there are the constant jibes that he's a socialist (despite having consistently coddled Wall Street with bailout money and tax cuts) and soft on terrorists (tell that to Osama bin Laden or the hundreds killed by this administration’s steeply accelerated program of drone strikes abroad).

Likewise, anyone who spends his or her time entirely inside the MSNBC or Daily Kos universe probably believes Mitt Romney is a parasitic corporate predator, Ron Paul is a libertarian nut case and Rick Santorum wants to turn America into an Iran-like theocracy. Gingrich is written off as a bloviating narcissist.

It’s all foolishness of course. All four of the remaining Republican candidates say worthwhile things, as does Obama.

But listening to the other side makes thinking more complicated, and can upset one's life inside the cocoon.

It's much easier to self-reinforce, and bare your teeth. But it is unserious, and no way to pick a leader.


Macdonald gets it pretty much right, in my opinion; we, almost all of us, live in (mostly self-imposed) "cocoons" assuming that nearly everything on CBC is biased against Conservatives and conservatives and that almost everything in the blogosphere and AM talk radio is biased against Liberals and liberals; neither assumption is true, of course, but it makes us feel better to hold that these views are, self evidently, true.

It is, I believe, a demonstrable fact that the line which once existed between news and opinion has gotten very blurred - mainly, I think, because the media is responding to its market and is giving us what we want.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
It is, I believe, a demonstrable fact that the line which once existed between news and opinion has gotten very blurred - mainly, I think, because the media is responding to its market and is giving us what we want.

ER that's very true. News is based on fact - in fact, news is facts, not opinions.

A podcaster I listen to (he is an American who loves to chastize the Democrats and Republicans with equal enthusiasm) said it best when he said "we get fed cake when someone should be making us eat our meat and vegetables" or words to that effect. He was talking about the huge US deficit, but he could be talking about what the media "feeds" us as well.

Oh and OJ is Khloe Kardashian's dad - there is your cake for the day. ;)
 
I don't know that there really is that much difference in the dissemination of news today than there was two hundred years ago.  Once upon a time the State and the Church agreed on the message and then preached it to the congregation (true of both Episcopalians and Presbyterians).  The control over the message was broken by the printing press, which allowed pamphleteers to spread their own gospel.  They continued in business by selling what their subscribers wanted.  In Britain that has resulted in Tribal Newspapers like the Telegraph and the Guardian.  In that market place everyone accepts that the news is biased and if you want to get and unbiased opinion you had better buy both papers and form it yourself.  Most people don't do that however.  As you rightly note it is much easier and more comforting to be told you are right.

The notion of the truthful, neutral messenger seems to have arisen with the rise of radio and television (and perhaps in small towns that could only support one paper).  In Britain, and in Canada, the state broadcaster allowed the State to co-opt the pulpit once again, and intentionally and consciously set out to shape the national character.  In the US that was never allowed to happen, but the messengers were kept to the neutral ground by market forces.  In order to pay off their investment the had to maintain their market share by upsetting as few people as possible.

But as time goes by and the cost of getting a message out goes down - Cable TV, Satellite TV, Radio, Printers, Faxes and of course the internet, facebook, twitter.... then the pamphleteers are back in business.  A couple of hundred years ago that was considered to be a good thing by the Americans.  I believe that they saw that in the same terms as they saw the imposition of a grid-locked system of government as a good thing.  It imposed a system of checks and balances on leaders and followers alike.  Better to have a multitude of congregations than to have 300,000,000 souls all singing "Onward Yahweh's Mujaheddin" in chorus.

The folks in Brussels and Davos are still trying to impose order on Chaos.  They have not come to terms with Entropy.  And yet levelling will eventually happen, either in an orderly fashion or catastrophically.  Currently a lot of folks seem to be headed towards a catastrophic levelling.
 
From my cocoon - Niel MacDonald has never met an Israeli or an American that was likeable or as brilliant as he is.
 
Interesting absence of a story today on CBC. 

While there are hundreds of web pages reporting this, there was nothing on the CBC website.  But they were able to report on this, this and this.


Just found it odd that it wasn't anywhere to be found on their web page is all....
 
Why would they? It's a story about an American anniversary, which has little to do with Canada. Nothing, actually.

The only story actually reported on their news service was about Tim's cup sizes. Which I think was probably a quarter of Twitter traffic in Canada, so something apparently people were talking about. The other link was from a politics blog pertaining to an ongoing by-election, and the final bit about Kandahar pertains to CBC Radio One's Dispatches show, not news.

Technoviking said:
Interesting absence of a story today on CBC. 

While there are hundreds of web pages reporting this, there was nothing on the CBC website.  But they were able to report on this, this and this.


Just found it odd that it wasn't anywhere to be found on their web page is all....
 
Technoviking said:
Interesting absence of a story today on CBC. 

While there are hundreds of web pages reporting this, there was nothing on the CBC website.  But they were able to report on this, this and this.


Just found it odd that it wasn't anywhere to be found on their web page is all....

Nothing odd at all about it.

While CBC isn't above sticking their nose into America's opinions, that's what it is. American.

The Pro-life - Pro-choice debate, while important for some in this country, just doesn't have the weight to carry it as a story here. People would just skip over the article, so it makes it a waste of advertising space.
 
recceguy said:
Nothing odd at all about it.

While CBC isn't above sticking their nose into America's opinions, that's what it is. American.

The Pro-life - Pro-choice debate, while important for some in this country, just doesn't have the weight to carry it as a story here. People would just skip over the article, so it makes it a waste of advertising space.

Someone screenshot this! We're agreeing! (well, sort of)
 
A documentry which puts it all together:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/26/the-cbcs-propaganda-war/print/

The CBC’s Propaganda War
Posted By Bruce Bawer On January 26, 2012 @ 12:06 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 33 Comments

The only thing worse than having the biases of the mainstream media inflicted upon you on a daily basis is having to subsidize it.  For Americans, to be sure, the rip-off isn’t so terrible: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, gets $430 million a year from the federal government, which comes to only a couple of bucks per household.  In Britain, by contrast, the BBC license fee is now £145.50 ($226) annually per TV-owning family.  And in Canada, the CBC receives more than $1.5 billion a year from the Canadian government, which amounts to upwards of $100 per household.

And what, exactly, are Canadian taxpayers paying for?  That’s the question asked – and very illuminatingly answered – by a new documentary, This Hour Could Have 10,000 Minutes: The Biases of the CBC, produced by James Cohen and Fred Litwin.  (The title is a reference to “This Hour Has 22 Minutes,” a long-running CBC series specializing in political satire.)  Focusing on two main topics – anti-Israel bias and anti-conservative bias – the documentary consists almost entirely of CBC clips (most but not all of them from news programs) in which we can see these biases in action.  To judge by this compilation, the CBC is perhaps even more slanted than the infamously partial BBC – and, perhaps, even more brazen about it.

Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In the documentary we see excerpts from a CBC report on the second Gaza “Freedom Flotilla” that consists entirely of interviews with flotilla participants – all of whom represent it as a virtuous and innocuous aid mission and condemn Israel’s actions against the previous flotilla as absolutely unjustified.  At no point does the CBC provide even a brief reminder that there is, in fact, another side to the story.  (As the documentary asks: “Is this reporting?  Or stenography?”)

In one report, the CBC describes the Jewish Defense League, untruthfully, as a terrorist group that’s banned in Canada.  In another report, on Hamas’s struggle with Fatah and takeover of Gaza, the CBC includes file footage of Israeli soldiers firing at terrorists – images that have nothing to do with the story in question.  In both cases, the CBC was compelled to issue on-air apologies. (This documentary, in fact, is packed with on-air apologies for this sort of thing.)

We’re shown a clip in which an interviewer lets nutty ex-Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a 9/11 Truther, rant away about Israel – and doesn’t challenge her when she accuses Israel of committing a “massacre” of “unarmed humanitarian activists.” And we’re shown another clip in which the despicable George Galloway is treated with fawning respect by interviewer George Stroumboulopoulos, who describes him as being banned from Canada (he’s not) and who agrees with Galloway that it’s “ridiculous” to consider him a terrorist.  (To clarify this issue, the documentary makers show a clip from Arab TV in which Galloway is seen handing money over to Hamas – and bragging about it.)

Not only is the CBC systematically anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian.  Its journalists introduce Israel and Palestine into stories that are utterly unrelated to Israel and Palestine, comparing aggressors with Israel and victims with Palestinians, the more firmly to fix in viewers’ minds the notion that Israelis are, indeed, the incarnation of evil and Palestinians as pure as the driven snow.

In a story about Somalis fleeing from belligerent Islamists in North Africa, for example, a CBC reporter says that “the Somalis are becoming the Palestinians of Africa.” In a story about Egypt’s use of its emergency laws to quell uprisings, another CBC reporter, in an apparent effort to make Egypt’s actions sound less harsh, points out that “Israel has an emergency law too,” which he proceeds to describe at length – even though those laws have nothing whatsoever to do with the events he’s reporting on.

The CBC, as the documentary points out, “can use any story to show how awful Israel is.” In a report on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the CBC manages to work in an absurd comparison between the Soviets’ wall and Israel’s security fence: “For some people, the Berlin anniversary is a reminder of their own divisions.  Today a group of Palestinian activists took down a slab of the security barrier that separates Israel and the West Bank.” (The report also describes the barrier as an “electronic fence,” which it isn’t.)

Cohen and Litwin don’t just take on CBC’s news programs.  On the CBC, as they tell us (and show us), “even the game shows have a political bias.”  On one such show, for example, contestants are asked: “Which city in Palestine is recognized to be a place of pilgrimage for Christians, Jews and Muslims?” Answer: Jerusalem.

Needless to say, a major staple of CBC programming is reflexive anti-Americanism.  The CBC regularly provides a forum to people who argue that Islamic violence is the fault of American foreign policy.  Republicans get especially disrespectful treatment: in one clip, CBC columnist Heather Mallick makes snide personal remarks about John McCain and calls Sarah Palin a “porn actress” type who appeals to “the white trash vote.”

The CBC is, of course, also hostile to Canada’s own Conservative Party.  The documentary showcases a shameless piece of trickery by the network, in which a clip of Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper is taken out of context to make it look as if he’s putting down Canada’s Muslim community.  After showing us the CBC version of Harper’s statement, Cohen and Litwin present us with the uncut version, which makes it clear that Harper was making a respectful comment about both Jews and Muslims.  On this occasion, too, the CBC was forced to apologize.

The CBC bias against the Conservatives manifests itself on all kinds of shows and in all kinds of ways.  In one clip, a weather girl makes snide remarks about Conservative policy.  On a comedy show, an actor imitating Harper wishes viewers “a happy gun-toting, anti-abortion, heterosexual new year.” Another “comedy” program actually includes a sketch in which the actors shoot at Harper and George W. Bush.  Skits mocking the left are few and far between.

We see a CBC interviewer giving Michael Moore a royal welcome, hailing him as a “right-wing bogeyman” and praising his “memorable Oscar acceptance speech.” (Moore repays the compliment, calling the CBC “a national treasure.”)  By contrast, when Ayaan Hirsi Ali expresses her love of America in an interview with Avi Lewis, he laughs at her with breathtaking condescension and accuses her of embracing pro-American clichés.  (She responds smoothly: “You grew up in freedom and you can spit on freedom.”)

In another clip, a CBC interviewer calls Hirsi Ali “right-wing,” to which Hirsi Ali, who’s promoting a book, replies: “What is right-wing about anything I have written in that book?” The interviewer doesn’t back off: if she isn’t right-wing, why has she taken a job at the American Enterprise Institute?  On the CBC, to be associated with any conservative institution is to be guilty of an offense that requires an explanation.

This Hour Could Have 10,000 Minutes was first shown in Ottawa last November and was followed by a panel discussion among several journalists and media critics.  That discussion is included on the DVD.  One of the panelists points out that CBC journalists are the upper class of the Canadian news media: for instance, they earn 39% more than their non-CBC colleagues, have larger camera crews, and are accorded a disproportionate amount of space in the parliamentary press gallery.  Another panelist notes that even though the CBC’s viewership numbers keep going down, its government subsidies continue to climb.

Canada is an important country – more important than many Americans realize, with an economy bigger than Russia’s and Spain’s – and the fact that Canadian taxpayers are shelling out good money to get slanted news matters.  For Canadians, a documentary like this one performs a valuable service, bringing together some of the more outrageous moments in recent CBC history and providing the corporation’s critics with a solid piece of ammunition.  For those of us living outside of Canada, the documentary is no less valuable, giving us an instructive dose of the kind of disinformation Canadians are fed every day – and helping us to understand, among other things, just why there’s so much knee-jerk contempt for the U.S. and Israel in America’s neighbor to the north.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/26/the-cbcs-propaganda-war/
 
Thucydides said:
A documentry which puts it all together:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/26/the-cbcs-propaganda-war/print/

Maybe I missed something. When did criticizing Israeli policy somehow become illegal, or immoral, or unjustifiable, or whatever it is this article suggests it?
 
Redeye said:
Maybe I missed something. When did criticizing Israeli policy somehow become illegal, or immoral, or unjustifiable, or whatever it is this article suggests it?

It's certainly not illegal, but when it's a news program (like the Fifth Estate) or just regular news, one would hope that both sides of the story would be told IOT allow the viewer to make their own informed choices of who's side to favour.

When it comes to OpEd shows like George S, they can have at 'er with their opinions but they should still be truthful.
 
Strike said:
It's certainly not illegal, but when it's a news program (like the Fifth Estate) or just regular news, one would hope that both sides of the story would be told IOT allow the viewer to make their own informed choices of who's side to favour.

That's fair. I recall that their coverage, for example, or the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict was relatively clear and presented both sides. In fact, as I recall, it was pretty favourable to Israel.

Strike said:
When it comes to OpEd shows like George S, they can have at 'er with their opinions but they should still be truthful.

Also correct - there is a duty to report accurately. It applies not only to them, but everyone, of course. We still have laws in this country about reporting false news, fortunately.
 
CBC is under attack in the House of Commons today, with 4 petitions brought forward; they only had 4000 signatures though.
 
Back
Top