Some of the bought & paid for media

[Booter]

The email has more nuance than the claims about it.

This marks an inflection point at CBC, which has not really paid much attention to such fine points in its coverage of other matters in past years. Dare I hope it is permanent?

That was my read as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

The email has more nuance than the claims about it.

This marks an inflection point at CBC, which has not really paid much attention to such fine points in its coverage of other matters in past years. Dare I hope it is permanent?

Neutral language is good.

 

[Good2Golf]

Neutral language is good.

But who is CBC to assess that Canada’s formal listing of Hamas as a terrorist organization (since what, 2002? [Chretien-era]) is invalid and that CBC would be within its (taxpayer heavily-subsidized) rights to change the verbiage dealing with Hamas to ‘militants’ from ‘terrorists?’

 

[Kirkhill]

But who is CBC to assess that Canada’s formal listing of Hamas as a terrorist organization (since what, 2002? [Chretien-era]) is invalid and that CBC would be within its (taxpayer heavily-subsidized) rights to change the verbiage dealing with Hamas to ‘militants’ from ‘terrorists?’

That's a good point. But on principle I would prefer that people steer away from pejorative descriptors.

What would be right, IMO, is that CBC make clear that HAMAS is defined by the Canadian government as a terrorist organization and that it and its supporters are proscribed.

 

[Kirkhill]

But who is CBC to assess that Canada’s formal listing of Hamas as a terrorist organization (since what, 2002? [Chretien-era]) is invalid and that CBC would be within its (taxpayer heavily-subsidized) rights to change the verbiage dealing with Hamas to ‘militants’ from ‘terrorists?’

But ....

James Cleverly confronts BBC live on air for failing to call Hamas ‘terrorists’

Foreign Secretary tells Sally Nugent on BBC Breakfast to stop describing the group as militants

www.telegraph.co.uk

James Cleverly told a BBC presenter live on air to call Hamas “terrorists”.

The Foreign Secretary confronted Sally Nugent on BBC Breakfast over the broadcaster’s refusal to use the term for the proscribed terrorist group after its attack on Israel.

The BBC has been describing Hamas as fighters, militants or political resistance, as its guidelines state that journalists should not call the attacks on Israel “terrorism”.

On Tuesday morning, Mr Cleverly told Ms Nugent: “Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation – I just want to make sure you recognise that in your reporting, these are not militants, they are terrorists.

“The murders that they have perpetrated in Israel, the kidnaps they have perpetrated and the threats of summary executions that will be televised and broadcast – these are all terrorist attacks and I would urge you to reflect that in your reporting.”

The BBC’s editorial guidelines, last updated in 2019, state that words relating to “terror” and “terrorism” are “emotive” and have “significant political overtones”.

It states that “we should not use the term ‘terrorist’ without attribution” as it is “a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”. It advises instead to use words such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent” and “militant”.

 

[Kirkhill]

And Trudeau and Poilievre at the same event

“The glorification of death and violence and terror has no place anywhere including especially here in Canada,” Mr. Trudeau told the packed gathering at a Jewish community centre.

“Hamas terrorists aren’t a resistance, they’re not freedom fighters, they are terrorists. And no one in Canada should be supporting them, much less celebrating them.”

The Prime Minister also reaffirmed Canada’s support for Israel and its right to defend itself in accordance with international law. “We stand with you tonight, tomorrow and everyday,” Mr. Trudeau said in concluding his remarks.

Speaking later at the rally, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Hamas is not a militant or activist organization. “It is a sadistic, demonic, genocidal terrorist death cult,” he said.

Trudeau condemns rallies in support of Hamas as Ottawa probes reports of three missing Canadians

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly asks Canadians in Israel to ‘shelter in place’ as Canada works with allies to determine how to protect its citizens

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Fishbone Jones]

CBC might be squeamish about offending people with perjoratives like terrorist, even though it's the governments own descriptor. However, given the sickening depravity and utter lack of human decency on the part of HAMAS, I think calling them totally inhuman savages, is both truthful and appropriate. Terrorist is too nice a term. Like demons and monsters of old, they need to be killed where they stand with zero mercy or concern. In that well worn phrase lies the answer for this garbage. Kill them all and let God sort them out.


But that's just my opinion as an unsophisticated onlooker.

 

[YZT580]

But who is CBC to assess that Canada’s formal listing of Hamas as a terrorist organization (since what, 2002? [Chretien-era]) is invalid and that CBC would be within its (taxpayer heavily-subsidized) rights to change the verbiage dealing with Hamas to ‘militants’ from ‘terrorists?’

All titles are emotive. The name used conjures up an image. That is the purpose of vocabulary: it paints a word picture. Militant implies an individual in rebellion or participating in an armed confrontation who is not a trained soldier or part of an army. We are insulting a true militant by labeling the thugs, murderers, rapists who participated in the crimes on Saturday by gracing them with the same term. I can potentially empathize with a militant. By not calling them out for what they are the CBC and the BBC are whitewashing their crimes and providing an excuse for those who participated in the rallies over the weekend.

 

[Booter]

Perhaps “HAMAS rapists” is better- everyone is satisfied. It keeps with policy- it’s not politicized. It’s just an objective observation easily verified.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It states that “we should not use the term ‘terrorist’ without attribution” as it is “a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”. It advises instead to use words such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent” and “militant”.

What happens is that in common vernacular the words "bomber", "attacker", etc end up meaning the same as "terrorist", because people are obliged to use them when they mean "terrorist" as opposed to, say, "common criminal".

 

[Kirkhill]

Once upon a time people gathered every week to listen to a man they paid, in a pulpit in building they bought, to hear him tell them things they wanted to hear.

Then along came the printing press and people paid for the information they wanted to see and they could read the information at their leisure and pass it around. That information was published intermittently initially but eventually publishers could afford to feed their clients the information they wanted on an increasingly frequent basis. Magazines were published annually, then quarterly, then monthly, then weekly and in some places daily. The publishers also made money by selling advertisements, effectively endorsing products for their loyal readers.

Once the telegraph appeared then The Telegraph appeared, along with all of its competitors and people started getting fresh information from all around the world with their breakfast and an evening update in time for supper. Again people bought the information they wanted.

When radio came along the information became available with a switch. And people could tune into the steady stream of information whenever they wanted. And they tuned into the voices they wanted to hear while listening to commercials that paid the salaries of the people they listened to.

Television was radio with a moving picture. Other than that it was identical to radio. People listened to those channels telling them the things they wanted to hear.

Cable followed the same model.

As has the internet.

But the difference with the internet is that everybody is now a publisher. There are no preachers, publishers, editors, anchormen filtering the information.

The world has become an ancient meeting house where everyone has a voice and there is no preacher. The Society of Friends comes to mind. The Quakers met weekly, as did all their neighbours, but in Quaker meeting houses their was no preacher. Everyone was a preacher. Their system worked because self-imposed discipline was valued. And aberrant behaviour resulted in shunning and exile.

.....

For centuries, if not millennia, governing authorities have been keen to have their message be the one that is heard by the public. That worked really well if somebody had a monopoly. The original monopoly was on the preachers in the pulpit. The government had one point of contact that ensured that all the preachers would be supporting government policy. That system failed when the monopoly splintered and many preachers went rogue developing their own congregations.

....

So what are we to make of headlines like these?

The Tragic Victimhood of "Disinformation Experts"

Hey, digital censors are people, too.

www.racket.news

The public doesn’t understand the risks of a Trump victory. That’s the media’s fault | Margaret Sullivan

With democracy in the balance, the press must relay the crucial importance of this election and the dangers of a Trump win

www.theguardian.com

US Media Cut Ties With Hamas-Linked Journalist, But Questions Remain

American media outlets cut ties Thursday with a freelance photojournalist accused of having links to Hamas, but questions remain about their knowledge of those alleged associations.

freebeacon.com

Did Vivek Just Make the Corrupt Media the 2024 Issue?| @amacforamerica

Did Vivek Ramaswamy just crack the code for defeating the Democrat Party’s smear machine and the corrupt media?

amac.us

Israel berates New York Times, CNN, Reuters, AP over Hamas attack photographers

Israel accuses foreign media of having forewarning of Hamas’ attacks through freelance photographers in Gaza.

www.politico.eu

.....

My sense? The world is as it ever was. You can't trust the preachers. Ultimately it is up to the individual to decide their own course of action. "We all go to hell at in our own way."

 

[QV]

All titles are emotive. The name used conjures up an image. That is the purpose of vocabulary: it paints a word picture. Militant implies an individual in rebellion or participating in an armed confrontation who is not a trained soldier or part of an army. We are insulting a true militant by labeling the thugs, murderers, rapists who participated in the crimes on Saturday by gracing them with the same term. I can potentially empathize with a militant. By not calling them out for what they are the CBC and the BBC are whitewashing their crimes and providing an excuse for those who participated in the rallies over the weekend.

I'm seeing reports that major news organizations had affiliated reporters embedded with Hamas on their raid on October 7th... Israel has specifically stated those "journalists" are also on their to-do list.

Perhaps this is why some news agencies are trying to whitewash the events by mislabeling these terrorists.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Perhaps this is why some news agencies are trying to whitewash the events by mislabeling these terrorists.

No, that's just the playbook/doctrine. They've been wrongfooted this time by the ferocity of the opening attack and haven't been able to adapt (or are simply unwilling) to the jarring moral shift that - for once - invites direct comparisons with events leading up to and during WW II. It's always been, "That's horrible, but...". The more time passes, the more they will dismiss the uneasy feeling that they are not really on "the right side of history" this time, and the longer and more demanding the passages containing "buts" will be.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, that's just the playbook/doctrine. They've been wrongfooted this time by the ferocity of the opening attack and haven't been able to adapt (or are simply unwilling) to the jarring moral shift that - for once - invites direct comparisons with events leading up to and during WW II. It's always been, "That's horrible, but...". The more time passes, the more they will dismiss the uneasy feeling that they are not really on "the right side of history" this time, and the longer and more demanding the passages containing "buts" will be.

Walter Duranty and the New York Times come to mind.

Walter Duranty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1932, Duranty received a Pulitzer Prize for a series of reports about the Soviet Union, eleven of which were published in June 1931. He was later criticized for his subsequent denial of the widespread famine (1930–1933) in the USSR,[1] most particularly the Holodomor. Beginning in 1990, there were calls for the Pulitzer board to revoke Duranty's prize. The Pulitzer Board declined to revoke the award and in 2003 said the articles which it examined in making the award did not contain "clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception".[2]

 

[YZT580]

Once upon a time people gathered every week to listen to a man they paid, in a pulpit in building they bought, to hear him tell them things they wanted to hear.

Then along came the printing press and people paid for the information they wanted to see and they could read the information at their leisure and pass it around. That information was published intermittently initially but eventually publishers could afford to feed their clients the information they wanted on an increasingly frequent basis. Magazines were published annually, then quarterly, then monthly, then weekly and in some places daily. The publishers also made money by selling advertisements, effectively endorsing products for their loyal readers.

Once the telegraph appeared then The Telegraph appeared, along with all of its competitors and people started getting fresh information from all around the world with their breakfast and an evening update in time for supper. Again people bought the information they wanted.

When radio came along the information became available with a switch. And people could tune into the steady stream of information whenever they wanted. And they tuned into the voices they wanted to hear while listening to commercials that paid the salaries of the people they listened to.

Television was radio with a moving picture. Other than that it was identical to radio. People listened to those channels telling them the things they wanted to hear.

Cable followed the same model.

As has the internet.

But the difference with the internet is that everybody is now a publisher. There are no preachers, publishers, editors, anchormen filtering the information.

The world has become an ancient meeting house where everyone has a voice and there is no preacher. The Society of Friends comes to mind. The Quakers met weekly, as did all their neighbours, but in Quaker meeting houses their was no preacher. Everyone was a preacher. Their system worked because self-imposed discipline was valued. And aberrant behaviour resulted in shunning and exile.

.....

For centuries, if not millennia, governing authorities have been keen to have their message be the one that is heard by the public. That worked really well if somebody had a monopoly. The original monopoly was on the preachers in the pulpit. The government had one point of contact that ensured that all the preachers would be supporting government policy. That system failed when the monopoly splintered and many preachers went rogue developing their own congregations.

....

So what are we to make of headlines like these?

The Tragic Victimhood of "Disinformation Experts"

Hey, digital censors are people, too.

www.racket.news

The public doesn’t understand the risks of a Trump victory. That’s the media’s fault | Margaret Sullivan

With democracy in the balance, the press must relay the crucial importance of this election and the dangers of a Trump win

www.theguardian.com

US Media Cut Ties With Hamas-Linked Journalist, But Questions Remain

American media outlets cut ties Thursday with a freelance photojournalist accused of having links to Hamas, but questions remain about their knowledge of those alleged associations.

freebeacon.com

Did Vivek Just Make the Corrupt Media the 2024 Issue?| @amacforamerica

Did Vivek Ramaswamy just crack the code for defeating the Democrat Party’s smear machine and the corrupt media?

amac.us

Israel berates New York Times, CNN, Reuters, AP over Hamas attack photographers

Israel accuses foreign media of having forewarning of Hamas’ attacks through freelance photographers in Gaza.

www.politico.eu

.....

My sense? The world is as it ever was. You can't trust the preachers. Ultimately it is up to the individual to decide their own course of action. "We all go to hell at in our own way."

that's depressing. You must drink from a half empty glass. In order to decide a course of action information is needed which comes from one of your 'preachers' which necessitates finding an information source that you consider reliable and using their information. The Apostle Paul (yes the one from the Bible) stated that every individual should take the information he hears or reads or whatever and test it to ensure that it is accurate and only then to act on it and, by the way, he told them to verify the information that he was providing as well. Good advise to live by and the half full glass folks are all going to Heaven in their own way. Cheers.

 

[OldSolduer]

Canadians are sheltered and soft - physically and mentally. That huge water obstacle we call the Atlantic can and has been breached by air travel and the proliferation of crap spread by the Internet.
Softening of language and "tut tutting" from those who occupy ivory towers has contributed to this.

 

[Kirkhill]

that's depressing. You must drink from a half empty glass. In order to decide a course of action information is needed which comes from one of your 'preachers' which necessitates finding an information source that you consider reliable and using their information. The Apostle Paul (yes the one from the Bible) stated that every individual should take the information he hears or reads or whatever and test it to ensure that it is accurate and only then to act on it and, by the way, he told them to verify the information that he was providing as well. Good advise to live by and the half full glass folks are all going to Heaven in their own way. Cheers.

Half full or half empty I think we are both agreeing that while the individual may choose to repose trust in others ultimately the individual is responsible for the individual.

 

[ModlrMike]

Canadians are sheltered and soft - physically and mentally. That huge water obstacle we call the Atlantic can and has been breached by air travel and the proliferation of crap spread by the Internet.
Softening of language and "tut tutting" from those who occupy ivory towers has contributed to this.

Most Canadians are one power outage away from curling up on the floor in the fetal position whilst starving to death.

 

[YZT580]

Half full or half empty I think we are both agreeing that while the individual may choose to repose trust in others ultimately the individual is responsible for the individual.

end of discussion, totally agree

 

[Furniture]

No, that's just the playbook/doctrine. They've been wrongfooted this time by the ferocity of the opening attack and haven't been able to adapt (or are simply unwilling) to the jarring moral shift that - for once - invites direct comparisons with events leading up to and during WW II. It's always been, "That's horrible, but...". The more time passes, the more they will dismiss the uneasy feeling that they are not really on "the right side of history" this time, and the longer and more demanding the passages containing "buts" will be.

I think a lot of the "left" bought into the "poor oppressed Palestinian" narrative, and are now forced to ignore the real world, or re-examine their position.

Those that are re-examining their position are likely to signal "pro-Palestine" until they firm up their discomfort with the reality of Hamas and their supporters.