Fifth Estate - More CBC Leftist Propoganda
Brian Bagnall
impartial look at bias in the media, with examples of both leftist and
righty biases, actual statistics that Bernard Goldberg collected for
his book, etc...
Instead, it was just a rip-off of every point made in the lefty
documentary "Outfoxed". Only the CBC would purport to report on bias,
and then be biased in the very same program. Incredible what passes
for journalism on the CBC these days.
Predictably, the leftist CBC reporter snuggled right up to Phil
Donahue and Al Frankin and attacked Anne Coulter and some
right-of-center female Canadian radio jock at every chance he had. He
even uncovered some garbage about this Canadian woman's past (gee, I
thought a woman's past was sacred to leftist douchebags) - obviously
the CBC wants to destroy any opposing voices as quickly as they can,
and the best was is to play dirty apparently. Pretty f*cking typical.
For maybe 5 minutes during the whole program the reporter allowed
Bernard Goldberg to state his case. The rest of the time was just
showing the worst moments from Fox News over and over and over and
over again, then cutting to lefties like Al Frankin and Phil Donahue
to color whatever they just showed. Utter bullsh*t.
I swear to God, Al Frankin even started *crying* at one point because
he was just so darn patriotic. Then Anne Coulter called him out for
doing that little act many times before. She even knew the exact
moment he would tear up, and got it bang on. Smart woman.
The error made by the CBC reporter is to take a position on the issue.
A reporter *does not pick sides on what they report*. Instead, Mr. CBC
just assumes his lefty view is correct and starts pushing this view
that the introduction of right-of-center reporters (they used to be
all left-of-center, which apparently was all right) is going to hurt
everyone. His thesis is that these people are hurting us (show clip of
Al Frankin crying his beady little eyes out). I thought when political
discourse was heated and shouted and rude in the 60's it was just all
aok! Why are all these lefties worried now?
Communist Broadcasting Corporation hypocrisy at it's very best. The
lefty media here in Canada must be scared sh*tless to be hammering
away at Fox News so consistently.
- B
Glen Hallick
"Gimme Drugs" Limbaugh look reasonable! Hell she even makes Bill O'Rielly
tolerable. Holy fuck man if you take Coulter seriously then you are a LOT
dumber than what I have been you credit for. And so if this is case I most
sincerely and genuinely apologize for selling you so short.
Ann Colulter...she's like...well...the love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry
Falwell.
Glen
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:x4_Jd.15727$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
Turgeson
> lefty media here in Canada must be scared sh*tless to be hammering
> away at Fox News so consistently.
>
Crossposting whining shit-for-brains imbeciles like you think Ann Coulter
and Bill O'Reilly provide some kind of service to the media, when all they are
good for is a chuckle.
The US accepts immigrants, why haven't you moved there yet? No skills? No
education? Not willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Lots of room for right wing fascist pigs like you in the USA, take the first
flight out.
SPIDERMAN
cbc is leftist. fact.
fox news is right wing. fact.
i'd go with the cbc's view before fox, simply because they're not
corporately funded and don't have profit as their agenda. it's what makes
them (and the bbc) the world standard for credible news.
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:x4_Jd.15727$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
Paul R
> objectivity is impossible. fact.
100% true perfect objectivity maybe. But that doesn't stop good journalists
of integrity from trying to reach that goal.
> cbc is leftist. fact.
Bullshit. The CBC is certainly NOT leftist. You have never seen a leftist tv
station. The CBC is centrist. They put a lot of effort into making sure all
sides get heard.
In the media sea of right wing voices, the cbc may appear leftist, but
that's only the illusion of contrast.
> fox news is right wing. fact.
True. But they are not a news outlet. They are a propaganda outfit for
Rupert Murdoch and the bush government. Recall that they went to court to
get permission to lie, because they consider themselves an entertainment
network.
>
> i'd go with the cbc's view before fox, simply because they're not
> corporately funded and don't have profit as their agenda. it's what makes
> them (and the bbc) the world standard for credible news.
I agree with this. And this is also the reason why these networks are
considered centrist by all who know and understand journalism. Yes there are
lots of journalists who have leftist personal opinions, but there are also
lots of rightist journalists at those same stations. And both voices get
heard. Also, opinion and news are clearly delineated, which is a very
important aspect of objectivity that gets completely neglected by FOX and
others of it's ilk.
Paul
SPIDERMAN
>> fox news is right wing. fact.
>
> True. But they are not a news outlet. They are a propaganda outfit for
> Rupert Murdoch and the bush government. Recall that they went to court to
> get permission to lie, because they consider themselves an entertainment
> network.
>
that's not a joke?? that's real? holy fuck... anyone have a link for
that?
Paul R
"SPIDERMAN" <SPI...@WEB.COM> wrote in message
news:CaOdnY2Z86G...@rogers.com...
Believe it or not, it's true.
http://www.protectorganic.org/sasf/medialie.htm
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile5.cfm?REF=4
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
His Divine Shadow
> > i'd go with the cbc's view before fox, simply because they're not
> > corporately funded and don't have profit as their agenda. it's
what makes
> > them (and the bbc) the world standard for credible news.
>
>
> I agree with this. And this is also the reason why these networks are
> considered centrist by all who know and understand journalism. Yes
there are
> lots of journalists who have leftist personal opinions, but there are
also
> lots of rightist journalists at those same stations. And both voices
get
> heard. Also, opinion and news are clearly delineated, which is a very
> important aspect of objectivity that gets completely neglected by FOX
and
> others of it's ilk.
I find the biggest problem with all media is the creeping
editorialising. No one seems free of it, and I don't know what
journalism schools are teaching, but increasingly, all forms of media
seem unable or unwilling to keep opinion flavoured commentary out of
stories that purport to be factual relaying of an event.
Glen Hallick
> objectivity is impossible. fact.
> cbc is leftist. fact.
No. You will find that they do carry opinions from across the political
spectrum. Hell, The Morning show has Dennis Owens from the "Fantasy Centre
for Dellusional Policy" on once a week.
> fox news is right wing. fact.
For the most part, yes indeed.
>
> i'd go with the cbc's view before fox, simply because they're not
> corporately funded and don't have profit as their agenda. it's what makes
> them (and the bbc) the world standard for credible news.
Agreed.
SPIDERMAN
"Glen Hallick" <gNOSPAM...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:TwbKd.15849$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
>
> "SPIDERMAN" <SPI...@WEB.COM> wrote in message
> news:yuKdnbnHIKS...@rogers.com...
>> objectivity is impossible. fact.
>> cbc is leftist. fact.
>
> No. You will find that they do carry opinions from across the political
> spectrum. Hell, The Morning show has Dennis Owens from the "Fantasy Centre
> for Dellusional Policy" on once a week.
>
it's about context here. to a fox news lover, cbc is leftist. there is a
floating spectrum on which this all floats, and the spectrum is personal.
there is no gauge by which to measure 'left' and 'right' and 'centre'. it's
impossible. to me, as a left leaning liberal, i've seen enough of the right
wing and the centrist to feel that the cbc is slightly left of centre.
that's my opinion and perhaps i shouldn't have stated it as 'fact', when it
can only and ever be a personal fact, for anyone weighing in on the issue.
Danie|_ Swan
hiss...@bigmailbox.net says...
>
>Paul R wrote:
>
>> > i'd go with the cbc's view before fox, simply because they're not
>> > corporately funded and don't have profit as their agenda. it's
>what makes
>> > them (and the bbc) the world standard for credible news.
>>
>>
>> I agree with this. And this is also the reason why these networks are
>> considered centrist by all who know and understand journalism. Yes
>there are
>> lots of journalists who have leftist personal opinions, but there are
>also
>> lots of rightist journalists at those same stations. And both voices
>get
>> heard. Also, opinion and news are clearly delineated, which is a very
>> important aspect of objectivity that gets completely neglected by FOX
>and
>> others of it's ilk.
>
>I find the biggest problem with all media is the creeping
>editorialising.
I find the biggest problem with all media is the moronic audience. The problem
is marginally literate twits like yourself, products of the universally shitty
education system that churns out idiots who can read but not think.
>No one seems free of it, and I don't know what
>journalism schools are teaching, but increasingly, all forms of media
>seem unable or unwilling to keep opinion flavoured commentary out of
>stories that purport to be factual relaying of an event.
>
oh bull shit, most of Michael Moore's reporting is 'factual' but it's still his
highly-stylized biased interpretation.
Turgeson
news:<UHbKd.15854$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net>
> Glen Hallick wrote:
>
> > Do you actually take some one like Ann Coulter seriously?
>
>
>
>
Ann got into an argument with the CBC reporter, trying to tell him that the
Canadian government sent troops into Vietnam. She was adamant about it, to the
point of telling the guy that he was wrong when he said that we never had.
(Canadians did serve in the US military during the Vietnam war period in
Vietnam, but they weren't sanctioned by the Canadian government).
She had me spitting my gut, she's comical.
SPIDERMAN
create is that we end up arguing about what type of grass is best to plant,
when it's not the grass that is the problem, it's the fact that we have a
lawn where there used to be a forest.
"Turgeson" <Turg...@barometer.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c63178fc...@news.individual.net...
Turgeson
> SPIDERMAN wrote:
>
> > objectivity is impossible. fact.
> > cbc is leftist. fact.
> > fox news is right wing. fact.
>
>
> Where do you come off calling them right wing ?
>
> Examples ??
>
The best evidence is the surveys which tell the story of how ignorant people
who get their news from FNN are. They were cited in the 5th Estate programme.
The rest of the evidence can be seen simply by watching FNN, which I have been
doing since they've had it on my cable package for the last 5-6 weeks. The
analysis and commentary are very bias to the right, the news reporting is not
as right wing as people made out.
Marvin Cohen
Turgeson
news:<gXbKd.155256$KO5.40149@clgrps13>
anyone who uses his movies as fact is a fool. His is mostly satire.
No Spam
> The rest of the evidence can be seen simply by watching FNN, which I have
> been
> doing since they've had it on my cable package for the last 5-6 weeks.
> The
> analysis and commentary are very bias to the right, the news reporting is
> not
> as right wing as people made out.
As compared to what, CBC/CTV/CNN/MSNBC?!?
The only real difference with FNN, and the rest of the
major American news services is they make no pretext
that they are anything other than mouthpieces for the whole
gamut of right wing hacks and apologists, complete
with inept window dressing "leftists" which now-a-days
seems to be only those slightly to the political left
of Benito Mousalini.
The distinction between MSNBC, FOX, CNN, NBC,
ABC, CBS, whatever is no greater than what exists
between the CBC and CTV news networks, and
the differences between the networks in each country
are just as transparent.
But the American system does have something that
Canada does not.At one time I used to find the argument
about the value of CBC and claims that it was left leaning to
be rather funny.
The reason being because all the broadcast packages are
custom tailored for geographic areas, even the so called
National news. The idea that CBC TV broadcasts exactly
the identical programing from coast to coast is a myth.
Even the CBC News network has regional cutaway
segments, and although I rarely watch it I suspect
the CTV version does too.
But it wasn't until I saw TVO and BCTV that I
realized just badly Canadians have been treated
by the media industry in so far as something so
bloody basic as news, and realized that it isn't any
wonder why there is such a broad disparity of
political views in this country.
We don't have a television news service that provides
the identical news and information to the entire
country, that reflects what is going on in this country,
much less being bias to a political point of view.
There is no equivalent of FNN, CNN, etc. Maybe
that is good, because maybe that's all that has saved
this country from turning into whatever kind of blood
thirsty, power mad savages that the Americans have
become.
A left or right bias to the CBC, hell it still isn't in the
same ball park as the kind of lunacy the Americans are
indulging in.
Turgeson
news:<rBdKd.191290$6l.63576@pd7tw2no>
> A left or right bias to the CBC, hell it still isn't in the
> same ball park as the kind of lunacy the Americans are
> indulging in.
>
>
leftist, the key is knowing that it's leftist and not accepting what they, or
the American networks say as the Gospel (heck! there were 4 Gospels, so that
doesn't describe it very well either!).
It's too bad that the majority can't afford to spend all that time absorbing
all sides of a story. We have jobs, chores, children to raise and other things
in our lives to do.
The Toronto newspapers are always a blast, sometimes there are 4 sides to every
story. :)
Turgeson
21st century? Sure, there's a global village, and lots of information.
Deciding on what's wheat and what's chafe is the problem now.
A far cry from when my parents were alive during the second world war.
I find that people gravitate to what they want to hear, which is something that
he predicted.
Jon Flamming
Ann Coulter is pretty much a farce of her own design. She protrays
herself as this blonde, loud-mouth, who stretches the truth, but still
manages to get on *serious* news programs. (FNN excluded)
About the only time anyone took Ann Coulter seriously was when she was
going to run for a Congressional seat in Virginia. It was then that any
number of Republicans took a second look at her and gave her a pass.
Given that she intended to seek the nomination driven entirely by her
celebrity, just as Oliver North did, the Republicans decided that she
would edo more harm that good if she held public office.
>
<l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzareliars.com >
She's also ONE hot babe. There's lots of Ann mask's sold, which LIEbrawls
put on their wive's before having sex.
<l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzareliars.com >
There are too many of you brainless left-wing loonies in Canada...get the
fuck out to France or Germany.
<l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzareliars.com >
More likely just plain bullshit.
<l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzareliars.com >
While on the CBC, whenever politics or economics is involved, the
predominant LEFT wing bias is obvious.
Turgeson
news:<DheKd.52770$Qb.26359@edtnps89>
is just as bad as someone who looks at the CBC for their exclusive source of
news and opinion. Nothing else.
Everyone has a right to an opinion, everyone has a right to ignorance.
Turgeson
>
> There are too many of you brainless left-wing loonies in Canada...get the
> fuck out to France or Germany.
>
should hold governance over the majority.
You're right, there are many Liberals in Canada, and NDP supporters too.
I voted Conservative in the St. Pauls riding, but I'm not like you and trying
to tell everyone in Ontario and the Maritimes to fuck off and leave Canada, any
more than I'm willing to drive to Quebec City and tell them to fuck off and
leave because I don't like the Bloc.
Turgeson
semblance of an Adams apple and a body that makes "Twiggy" look like Elizabeth
Hurley. I think that she's the counter part of Franken. She's tongue in
cheek with her comments, but the left wing looney tunes think she's serious.
She's a joke. Nice eyes though.
Turgeson
> || Michael Moore is not a news network or a reporter. In fact, I think
> || that anyone who uses his movies as fact is a fool. His is mostly
> || satire.
>
> More likely just plain bullshit.
>
>
>
>
Cherry had a career as a hockey player. :)
Danie|_ Swan
Turg...@barometer.net says...
>
>
>Michael Moore is not a news network or a reporter.
Wrong, he is a reporter who happens to have been more successful than most.
Sort of a Geraldo Rivera type who claims to use his 'sense of humor' to good
effect...
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:
"At 22 he founded the alternative weekly magazine The Flint Voice (which soon
changed its name to The Michigan Voice). In 1986, when Moore became the editor
of Mother Jones, a political magazine, he moved to California and the Voice was
shut down. After five months at Mother Jones, he was fired when he disapproved
of an article he thought unfairly critical of the Sandinista government in
Nicaragua. He sued for wrongful dismissal, resulting in an out-of-court
settlement for $58,000 which provided partial funding for his first film
project, Roger and Me."
Turgeson
of reference.
My IP address was banned from Wilkpedia because it was once in the possession
of a person who wrote crap in Wilkpedia. Wilpedia isn't a Encyclopedia.
I would advise you to avoid using Wilkpedia in the future for references like
you just did.
Turgeson
being a reporter with the Georgia Straight. It's meaningless now.
SPIDERMAN
disagree.
<l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzarelwankers.com >
Neocons are more intelligent that the usual potsmoker leftie LIEbrawl.
<l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzarelwankers.com >
Moore is a professional asswipe.
Turgeson
message: news:<WXeKd.52791$Qb.2862@edtnps89>
years ago.
You're no better than a banjo playing, retrograde turd from the Osark Mountains
who forgot his roots. You remind me of Pearson.
Turgeson
Limbaugh as the "voice of America".
It appears that Canada is inheriting the lower values of our American cousins.
<l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzarelwankers.com >
It's OZARK!
Carter
> L. Viss l.v...@graceland.com wrote in message:
> news:<UHbKd.15854$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net>
>
>>Glen Hallick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Do you actually take some one like Ann Coulter seriously?
>>
>>Does ANYONE take Ann Coulter seriously :-)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ann got into an argument with the CBC reporter, trying to tell him that the
> Canadian government sent troops into Vietnam. She was adamant about it, to the
> point of telling the guy that he was wrong when he said that we never had.
>
> (Canadians did serve in the US military during the Vietnam war period in
> Vietnam, but they weren't sanctioned by the Canadian government).
>
> She had me spitting my gut, she's comical.
Did she explain that the troops Canada sent to Vietnam were sent
as observers vice combatants? No? I guess, like the CBC
reporter and you, she was unaware of that.
Carter
Mountain Goat
wrote:
I think the tone of the debate was Coulter claiming they were combat
troops (like the Australians). The Canadians were part of the
International Commission for Control and Supervision (ICCS) – Vietnam
(1973-1974). This mission followed the Paris Peace Treaty of 1972, and
monitored the cease-fire and return of prisoners in Vietnam. Canada
participated in this mission during 1973 and contributed a warship and
military observers, totalling 248 personnel.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/eng/defence/peace_pastsupops_e.htm
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist "
-Salman Rushdie
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King
"A gentleman is a man who can disagree without being disagreeable." Anon
"Revolution in Politics is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment." Ambrose Bierce
"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts"
- Mark Twain
His Divine Shadow
Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>>> I agree with this. And this is also the reason why these networks are
>>> considered centrist by all who know and understand journalism. Yes there are
>>> lots of journalists who have leftist personal opinions, but there are also
>>> lots of rightist journalists at those same stations. And both voices get
>>> heard. Also, opinion and news are clearly delineated, which is a very
>>> important aspect of objectivity that gets completely neglected by FOX and
>>> others of it's ilk.
>>
>> I find the biggest problem with all media is the creeping
>> editorialising.
>
> I find the biggest problem with all media is the moronic audience.
Then kill yourself.
>> No one seems free of it, and I don't know what
>> journalism schools are teaching, but increasingly, all forms of media
>> seem unable or unwilling to keep opinion flavoured commentary out of
>> stories that purport to be factual relaying of an event.
>>
>
> oh bull shit,
Oh, get bent.
> most of Michael Moore's reporting is 'factual' but it's still
> his highly-stylized biased interpretation.
That's the fucking point now isn't? Apparently you are a marginally literate
twit who can read but not think.
--
VVV
His Shadow
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one,
He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear."
Thomas Jefferson
His Divine Shadow
Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
> "Turgeson" <Turg...@barometer.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c631cbfa...@news.individual.net...
>
>> The rest of the evidence can be seen simply by watching FNN, which I have
>> been
>> doing since they've had it on my cable package for the last 5-6 weeks.
>> The
>> analysis and commentary are very bias to the right, the news reporting is
>> not
>> as right wing as people made out.
>
> As compared to what, CBC/CTV/CNN/MSNBC?!?
>
> The only real difference with FNN, and the rest of the
> major American news services is they make no pretext
> that they are anything other than mouthpieces for the whole
> gamut of right wing hacks and apologists, complete
> with inept window dressing "leftists" which now-a-days
> seems to be only those slightly to the political left
> of Benito Mousalini.
Noam Chomsky has it pegged. You just have to watch Crossfire to see it in
action.
Well, not for much longer. Crossfire, that is.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/january/0106_cnn_crossfire_cancelled.shtml
--
VVV
His Shadow
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives
people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the
presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the
range of the debate."
Noam Chomsky
His Divine Shadow
the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
Shadow.
> ||
> || The rest of the evidence can be seen simply by watching FNN, which I
> || have been doing since they've had it on my cable package for the
> || last 5-6 weeks. The analysis and commentary are very bias to the
> || right, the news reporting is not as right wing as people made out.
>
> While on the CBC, whenever politics or economics is involved, the
> predominant LEFT wing bias is obvious.
Not as obvious as the vacuum in your skull.
--
VVV
His Shadow
"I don't get it. The parts of the country that get directly pissed on by the
current administration are its biggest supporters. Gay marriage? They keep
the gays corralled in one bar on the dangerous side of town. Terrorist
attacks? The whole area looks like it already GOT attacked. It's weird ‹ I
feel like me and my friends have been mockingly lip-synching to Kelly
Clarkson, showing each other how hip and above it we are, while outside the
whole country turned into one giant meth lab, run by people who believe in
angels."
Patton Oswalt
His Divine Shadow
the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
Shadow.
> Turgeson wrote:
Not if you are the example SFB.
--
VVV
His Shadow
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to
prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and
are right."
H. L. Mencken
Carter
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:27:28 -0330, Carter <PerA...@AdAstra.ca>
>>Did she explain that the troops Canada sent to Vietnam were sent
>>as observers vice combatants? No? I guess, like the CBC
>>reporter and you, she was unaware of that.
>>
>
> I think the tone of the debate was Coulter claiming they were combat
> troops (like the Australians).
That may be, I didn't see the exchange. It would be interesting
to know if Canada's contribution to the ICCS was even mentioned.
I suspect that neither Coulter nor the CBC reporter were even
aware of it.
The Canadians were part of the
> International Commission for Control and Supervision (ICCS) – Vietnam
> (1973-1974). This mission followed the Paris Peace Treaty of 1972, and
> monitored the cease-fire and return of prisoners in Vietnam. Canada
> participated in this mission during 1973 and contributed a warship and
> military observers, totalling 248 personnel.
Yes I know I was a serving member at the time. I was also a
serving member at the time of the action in a place known as the
Medak Pocket. I doubt that any Americans are aware of that and I
know that very few Canadians are. It was something that for some
reason Canada's public broadcaster never saw fit to tell
Canadians about. One wonders why.
Carter
homepc
In the US lying on the air and distorting news reports is technically not
against any law, rule or regulation. Yup, Fox is just the kind of news
station I want to pay attention to.
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:x4_Jd.15727$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
>I was expecting the Fifth Estates "Sticks and Stones" report to be an
>impartial look at bias in the media, with examples of both leftist and
>righty biases, actual statistics that Bernard Goldberg collected for his
>book, etc...
>
> Instead, it was just a rip-off of every point made in the lefty
> documentary "Outfoxed". Only the CBC would purport to report on bias, and
> then be biased in the very same program. Incredible what passes for
> journalism on the CBC these days.
>
> Predictably, the leftist CBC reporter snuggled right up to Phil Donahue
> and Al Frankin and attacked Anne Coulter and some right-of-center female
> Canadian radio jock at every chance he had. He even uncovered some garbage
> about this Canadian woman's past (gee, I thought a woman's past was sacred
> to leftist douchebags) - obviously the CBC wants to destroy any opposing
> voices as quickly as they can, and the best was is to play dirty
> apparently. Pretty f*cking typical.
>
> For maybe 5 minutes during the whole program the reporter allowed Bernard
> Goldberg to state his case. The rest of the time was just showing the
> worst moments from Fox News over and over and over and over again, then
> cutting to lefties like Al Frankin and Phil Donahue to color whatever they
> just showed. Utter bullsh*t.
>
> I swear to God, Al Frankin even started *crying* at one point because he
> was just so darn patriotic. Then Anne Coulter called him out for doing
> that little act many times before. She even knew the exact moment he would
> tear up, and got it bang on. Smart woman.
>
> The error made by the CBC reporter is to take a position on the issue. A
> reporter *does not pick sides on what they report*. Instead, Mr. CBC just
> assumes his lefty view is correct and starts pushing this view that the
> introduction of right-of-center reporters (they used to be all
> left-of-center, which apparently was all right) is going to hurt everyone.
> His thesis is that these people are hurting us (show clip of Al Frankin
> crying his beady little eyes out). I thought when political discourse was
> heated and shouted and rude in the 60's it was just all aok! Why are all
> these lefties worried now?
>
> Communist Broadcasting Corporation hypocrisy at it's very best. The lefty
> media here in Canada must be scared sh*tless to be hammering away at Fox
> News so consistently.
>
> - B
>
JMD
news:b5ydnZjIcam...@rogers.com...
>
> That may be, I didn't see the exchange. It would be interesting to know
> if Canada's contribution to the ICCS was even mentioned. I suspect that
> neither Coulter nor the CBC reporter were even aware of it.
>
> The Canadians were part of the
>> International Commission for Control and Supervision (ICCS) – Vietnam
>> (1973-1974). This mission followed the Paris Peace Treaty of 1972, and
>> monitored the cease-fire and return of prisoners in Vietnam. Canada
>> participated in this mission during 1973 and contributed a warship and
>> military observers, totalling 248 personnel.
>
> Yes I know I was a serving member at the time. I was also a serving
> member at the time of the action in a place known as the Medak Pocket. I
> doubt that any Americans are aware of that and I know that very few
> Canadians are. It was something that for some reason Canada's public
> broadcaster never saw fit to tell Canadians about. One wonders why.
The Ottawa Citizen did run a story on the 1993 Medak Pocket battle involving
2PPCLI several years ago, about 1998 if I recall. It has been referred to
several times since in books by people like Scott Taylor. But I can only
suspect why it was hushed up at the time. Probably to avoid disrupting that
nice simple Canadian reverie that our soldiers really don't really fight,
they just do peacekeeping.
This would be the same kind of thinking that caused DND to lie about the
death of a Cpl. Gunter earlier the same year when his APC was deliberately
targeted by an armour-piercing Serb or Croat round. DND called it an
accident. When your military really aren't expected to fight, just do
peacekeeping and generally act like boy scouts, you can justify sending them
abroad with inferior and insufficient equipment.
Whatever the reason, the Medak hush-up dishonoured the Canadian soldiers,
some of them reservists, who acquitted themselves honourably in that fight
despite being out-numbered and outgunned.
John Dowell
Carter
> "Carter" <PerA...@AdAstra.ca> wrote in message
> news:b5ydnZjIcam...@rogers.com...
>
>>That may be, I didn't see the exchange. It would be interesting to know
>>if Canada's contribution to the ICCS was even mentioned. I suspect that
>>neither Coulter nor the CBC reporter were even aware of it.
>>
>> The Canadians were part of the
>>
>>>International Commission for Control and Supervision (ICCS) – Vietnam
>>>(1973-1974). This mission followed the Paris Peace Treaty of 1972, and
>>>monitored the cease-fire and return of prisoners in Vietnam. Canada
>>>participated in this mission during 1973 and contributed a warship and
>>>military observers, totalling 248 personnel.
>>
>>Yes I know I was a serving member at the time. I was also a serving
>>member at the time of the action in a place known as the Medak Pocket. I
>>doubt that any Americans are aware of that and I know that very few
>>Canadians are. It was something that for some reason Canada's public
>>broadcaster never saw fit to tell Canadians about. One wonders why.
>
> ========================
> The Ottawa Citizen did run a story on the 1993 Medak Pocket battle involving
> 2PPCLI several years ago, about 1998 if I recall.
Yes, five years after the incident.
It has been referred to
> several times since in books by people like Scott Taylor. But I can only
> suspect why it was hushed up at the time. Probably to avoid disrupting that
> nice simple Canadian reverie that our soldiers really don't really fight,
> they just do peacekeeping.
>
> This would be the same kind of thinking that caused DND to lie about the
> death of a Cpl. Gunter earlier the same year when his APC was deliberately
> targeted by an armour-piercing Serb or Croat round. DND called it an
> accident. When your military really aren't expected to fight, just do
> peacekeeping and generally act like boy scouts, you can justify sending them
> abroad with inferior and insufficient equipment.
>
> Whatever the reason, the Medak hush-up dishonoured the Canadian soldiers,
> some of them reservists, who acquitted themselves honourably in that fight
> despite being out-numbered and outgunned.
I think you have it correct John.
Carter
Danie|_ Swan
says...
>
>On 1/27/05 1:13 PM, Danie|_ Swan's useable flesh will be contributed to the
>Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>
>
>>>> I agree with this. And this is also the reason why these networks are
>>>> considered centrist by all who know and understand journalism. Yes there
are
>>>> lots of journalists who have leftist personal opinions, but there are also
>>>> lots of rightist journalists at those same stations. And both voices get
>>>> heard. Also, opinion and news are clearly delineated, which is a very
>>>> important aspect of objectivity that gets completely neglected by FOX and
>>>> others of it's ilk.
>>>
>>> I find the biggest problem with all media is the creeping
>>> editorialising.
>>
>> I find the biggest problem with all media is the moronic audience.
>
>Then kill yourself.
Why? It's a problem that bothers you, not me. So I guess you should be begging
me to put you out of your misery.
>
>>> No one seems free of it, and I don't know what
>>> journalism schools are teaching, but increasingly, all forms of media
>>> seem unable or unwilling to keep opinion flavoured commentary out of
>>> stories that purport to be factual relaying of an event.
>>>
>>
>> oh bull shit,
>
>Oh, get bent.
>
>> most of Michael Moore's reporting is 'factual' but it's still
>> his highly-stylized biased interpretation.
>
>That's the fucking point now isn't?
Well yes, but I made that point, it wasn't the point you made. Your claim was
that a lack of 'factual' reporting is why you always feel like such an angsty
bitch, and that if that void were filled, it would fix life, the universe, and
everything. That's based on the faulty premise that there is a lack of factual
reporting. There isn't a lack of factual reporting, as evidenced by the few
recent scandals relating to non-factual reporting (ie Dan Rather/CBS and Jayson
Blair).
Barney
writtennews:MPG.1c633e9ed...@news.individual.net:
>>
> Anyone who thinks that Moore is a serious documentary maker must
> think that Don Cherry had a career as a hockey player. :)
>
Or worse yet. That you are capable of thinking on your own. You don't
look but claim to see. There needs more evidence to conclude you are
even aware. What part of Moore's films did you see? Which chapter of
which book do you disagree with?
--
Barney __________________________
Talk is cheap! Thats why I can afford it.
Barney
writtennews:MPG.1c633c84b...@news.individual.net:
>
> The key is to be aware of that. Anyone who considers FNN "fair
> and balanced" is just as bad as someone who looks at the CBC for
> their exclusive source of news and opinion. Nothing else.
>
> Everyone has a right to an opinion, everyone has a right to
> ignorance.
>
Good point. The credibility of CBC is because it's Canadian but not
necessarily good format. Fox on the other hand? It all depends on which
country you want to have a limted veiw of.
Danie|_ Swan
hiss...@bigmailbox.net says...
>
>I find the biggest problem with all media is the creeping
>journalism schools are teaching, but increasingly, all forms of media
>seem unable or unwilling to keep opinion flavoured commentary out of
>stories that purport to be factual relaying of an event.
>
Well if this is such a widespread practice, I'm sure you'll have no problem
coming up with an actual example. Surely you're not suggesting that nobody do
any 'editorializing', since that would be akin to suggesting that people stop
thinking. So maybe you are saying that you want editorials to be accompanied
by disclaimers indicating that they are editorials, much like they currently
require for advertisements. You might have a point there, but I think the
problem would be your inability to differentiate between columnists and
reporters, or between commentators and reporters. Columnists in newspapers
often don't preface their articles as opinion pieces because it's assumed their
readers are familiar with what a columnist is. Your statements indicate that
they might be wrong. I doubt you're alone on this, I've noticed a lot of
people who are confused by the hyper-state of today's media. But I'm not
really sure it's the responsibility of journalism schools to educate the public
on how to consume media, and that if they were to do that, that it would be
particularly productive.
Barney
writtennews:MPG.1c6342cb3...@news.individual.net:
> I would advise you to avoid using Wilkpedia in the future for
> references like you just did.
>
>
Certainly because you don't agree with it. Perhaps your own library of
facts can be the only opinion one should look at. You don't like Moore
and hence any referance in his favour has to be wrong. Any referance
specifically about Moore and without bias still has to be wrong. You
probably never heard the term "Taken with a grain of salt"
Barney
writtennews:MPG.1c63439f...@news.individual.net:
> Oh! and the fact that he was a reporter in 1986 is as relevant as
> Bob Geldof being a reporter with the Georgia Straight. It's
> meaningless now.
Meaningless only if neither are not reporters now. There is no time
limit on the career.
Barney
writtennews:uYeKd.52793$Qb.52329@edtnps89:
> Moore is a professional asswipe.
>
Are you suggesting you never wipe yours. If you don't agree with him
say so, but give the details of your argument. Your broad statement
shows no knowledge of the subject.
Specifically, tell us on what points you disagree with Moore.
His Divine Shadow
> Communist Broadcasting Corporation hypocrisy at it's very best. The
> lefty media here in Canada must be scared sh*tless to be hammering
> away at Fox News so consistently.
Get over yourself, Bagnall. O'Reily is a blowhard and Coulter's a
drunk. Between the two of them they are some of the worst that the US
media has to offer, and have uttered some of the most vile nonsense
ever to disgrace the airwaves.
It isn't even about their right wing bias for the most part. It's about
their delusional worldviews. On top of both of them taking this "with
us or against us" horseshit too far, O'Reily thinks he's single
handedly affected trade with France and Coulter thinks liberals and
Democrats hate their own country more than the terrorists. That's the
kind of shit so far off the map that these two and their cronies can be
dismissed out of hand, never mind being defended by soi-disant
Republicans residing in Canada.
--
VVV
His Shadow
The superfluous is very necessary. -- Voltaire
Gridler
"His Divine Shadow" <hiss...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:1106952985....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Brian Bagnall wrote:
>
> > Communist Broadcasting Corporation hypocrisy at it's very best. The
> > lefty media here in Canada must be scared sh*tless to be hammering
> > away at Fox News so consistently.
>
> Get over yourself, Bagnall. O'Reily is a blowhard and Coulter's a
> drunk. Between the two of them they are some of the worst that the US
> media has to offer, and have uttered some of the most vile nonsense
> ever to disgrace the airwaves.
That's not true, those two are brilliant. They expose the inner evil of the
Left. Most people agree with their opinions 100% That's why Bush is
President.
Tami Horvath
"Gridler" <392...@4959.com> wrote in message
news:faudnb2Cwuq...@rogers.com...
>>
>> Get over yourself, Bagnall. O'Reily is a blowhard and Coulter's a
>> drunk. Between the two of them they are some of the worst that the US
>> media has to offer, and have uttered some of the most vile nonsense
>> ever to disgrace the airwaves.
>
> That's not true, those two are brilliant. They expose the inner evil of
> the
> Left. Most people agree with their opinions 100% That's why Bush is
> President.
Enlighten us, please. What is your definition of the word 'most'? Is it
50% of the population + 1 person? In that case, what you are saying is
meaningless, as the 'most' could readily change to the 'least', depending on
as little as what people have for breakfast on the day their opinion is
asked.
Originally I had the impressions that your posts were extreme sarcasm, but
it appears that you are more brainless that a brain-dead victim of a
motorvehicle accident.
Kurt Sims
wrote:
>I was expecting the Fifth Estates "Sticks and Stones" report to be an
>impartial look at bias in the media, with examples of both leftist and
>righty biases, actual statistics that Bernard Goldberg collected for
>his book, etc...
>
>Instead, it was just a rip-off of every point made in the lefty
>documentary "Outfoxed". Only the CBC would purport to report on bias,
>and then be biased in the very same program. Incredible what passes
>for journalism on the CBC these days.
>
>Predictably, the leftist CBC reporter snuggled right up to Phil
>Donahue and Al Frankin and attacked Anne Coulter and some
>right-of-center female Canadian radio jock
Anne Coulter isn't right of center, she's just plain fucking nuts.
k
To reply by email remove the two copies of spam
in my return address
Tai Tastigon
"SPIDERMAN" <SPI...@WEB.COM> wrote in message
news:yuKdnbnHIKS...@rogers.com...
> objectivity is impossible. fact.
> cbc is leftist. fact.
> fox news is right wing. fact.
>
> i'd go with the cbc's view before fox, simply because they're not
> corporately funded and don't have profit as their agenda. it's what makes
> them (and the bbc) the world standard for credible news.
Uh, the CBC is =no one's= standard for credible news. It is a vast
bureaucracy and is highly biased. Most of its journalists and editors
studied Marx at the same few journalism schools, after all.
The program in question was biased. It did portray conservatives, by and
large, as ignorant cretins like that loud mouthed idiot O'Neil, and spent
very little time talking to more moderate and intelligent conservative media
people. It basically dismissed any claim of left wing bias as the ranting of
the far right loonies. Unsurprising since the CBC is always accused of left
wing bias.
demibee
I posted this to hfx.general without realizing that it had originally
been crossposted to a number of groups. Hence, my responses to Brian
Bagnall won't reach him (unless he lives in Halifax). So here it is
again...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:33:38 +0000 (UTC), ak...@chebucto.ns.ca
(Richard Bonner) wrote:
>Brian Bagnall wrote:
>> Predictably, the leftist CBC reporter snuggled right up to Phil
>> Donahue and Al Frankin and attacked Anne Coulter and some
>> right-of-center female Canadian radio jock at every chance he had.
Ann Coulter wasn't "attacked"; she was politely asked to clarify some
of her positions -- e.g., "Liberals hate America ... they hate all
religions except Islam," etc. Does she really believe that literally?
I'd ask her for clarification too. (Would you have any faith in a
person who makes blanket statements like this?)
I've seen that woman on Politically Incorrect, CNN, and a few other
political shows, and it's quite clear to me that she's less interested
in making sure she's got her facts straight and far More interested in
promoting her particular point of view.
She's been shown to be a person who lies consistently. Al Franken's
book has documented many examples, and Franken made Damn Sure that HIS
facts were in order: every point is clearly referenced; some documents
demonstrating Coulter's penchant for lying have been included in the
book -- i.e., he presents her statements And her sources... then he
shows you those sources. And they very clearly Don't say what Coulter
claims they say.
Beyond that, I've seen Coulter get caught in lies by other pundits on
CNN on at least two occasions. These weren't just differences of
opinion, they were immediately verifiable! A perfect example is the
gaff she made on the Fifth Estate itself: in her attempt to show how
Canada has somehow "changed," how we and the Americans used to be so
close, she noted that we were with the Americans in Vietnam! When
corrected by the host -- "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam" --
she said, "I think you're wrong"!?!? She then said she'd have to get
back to him on that one and never did.
Simply put, She Is A Liar! Period! Worse than that, I suspect she
knows when she's lying. When she's caught in a lie, she tends to
shrug it off like it isn't that important (watch reruns of Politically
Incorrect for lots of this). IOW, she doesn't really care what the
truth is... she cares Only what she'd like it to be... and what
Americans Believe it to be. Coulter and her kind are dangerous -- no
less than that.
As for O'Reilly, he was too much of a chickensh*t to appear on the
program. The Fifth Estate gave him a chance. But his point of view
was presented in any case: I'd say anyone who watched the program
knows exactly where he stands. Hell, he thinks CNN is left-wing!
>*** Some of those people need to be attacked for their selfish,
>war-mongering views. Hmm, what was it that was said? Something like:
>"Lets invade those countries and convert them all to Christianity or kill
>them." It's American arrogance and better-than-thou attitudes at their
>worst.
Yep. I just saw the program, so it's fresh in my mind. I believe the
quote was, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and
convert them to Christianity."
When questioned about it on the show, she admitted to the statement,
laughed about it, and mentioned that it's now on T-shirts. She
sounded like she was proud of it.
If she and others like her truly represent the new mainstream of the
U.S., if even by a thin margin, then we, and the rest of the world,
should start being afraid of the U.S. O'Reilly, too, spoke numerous
times about what would happen to Canada if the U.S. decided to cut
trade ties. IOW, toe the line or pay the price... a very "Imperial"
outlook.
>> For maybe 5 minutes during the whole program the reporter allowed
>> Bernard Goldberg to state his case. The rest of the time was just
>> showing the worst moments from Fox News over and over and over and
>> over again, then cutting to lefties like Al Frankin and Phil Donahue
>> to color whatever they just showed. Utter bullsh*t.
Not so. They showed segments from Fox, MSNBC, CBS, and others.
Franken and Donahue were interviewed. But so was Coulter. So was the
conservative radio show host from Vancouver (don't know her and don't
recall her name). And as mentioned, O'Reilly was given his chance,
but refused it.
>*** Why is that? It's been proven many times that these people will
>often lie about quotes and sources to make their points. That poor guy
>whose father was killed in The Trade Tower attack was roasted, told to
>shut up, and not allowed to fully give his point of view. What was left
>was twisted into some unpatriotic drivel.
"Shut up" seems to be O'Reilly's only response in a debate. It's
certainly a common one. And we all know what it means: "I don't want
to have to address that."
It was extremely audacious of him to Presume that the man's dead
father would have been disappointed in his son's position on the wars.
Who knew the father? The son, of course! But O'Reilly harped on,
"I'M angrier about this than YOU are!!" Yeah, he's Always angry...
So who the hell's surprised?
Can you imagine approaching the son or daughter of one of the 9/11
victims -- one opposed to the wars -- to tell them that the relative
You Never Met, the relative that they Lost Forever would be ashamed of
them?! I think I'd be inclined to grab the nearest piece of hardware
in the studio and smash it into O'Reilly's constantly open mouth...
"Shut up, Bill!"
And to add insult to injury, O'Reilly (off-air, I suspect) told the
man to get out of the studio or, "I'll tear you to f*cking pieces."
Yeah, I'd Really love to get my information from This wingnut! The
frightening thing is that many Americans do.
>> I swear to God, Al Frankin even started *crying* at one point because
>> he was just so darn patriotic. Then Anne Coulter called him out for
>> doing that little act many times before. She even knew the exact
>> moment he would tear up, and got it bang on. Smart woman.
I don't think that's quite why he cried. We Canadians are fortunate
in that we merely See the anti-liberal attitude in the U.S... we don't
actually have to withstand it day in, day out.
His response came after Coulter's list: "Liberals hate America; they
hate flag-wavers; they hate abortion opponents; they hate all
religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even terrorists don't hate America
like liberals do."
Keep in mind that 51% of the U.S. population is somewhat Open to these
notions. And Franken, being a front-line liberal, probably gets it
all the time. Surely, that has an emotional effect on a person,
especially when you know the people saying it Mean it. If the people
around you actually believe that you hate your own country, what do
you think they think of you? They Hate you, that's what they think.
Franken was crying. He paused only for a second or two, and he spoke
clearly through a few tears. He mentioned the USO tours because (a)
he does them, and (b) it's a pretty clear way to show that he doesn't
hate his country, the troops, liberty or any of the bullsh*t spewed by
this particular flavour of right-winger.
As the host of the show mentioned, "Franken's not that good an actor."
Coulter is not a "smart woman"... She has sparred with Franken on
numerous occasions, and she knows his background and all his points of
view... just as he knows hers. It's hardly surprising that their
debates on this topic follow similar paths each time. It's no
different here on Usenet: if you want a debate on the Iraq war, for
example, just look it up in Google Groups... The same things have
been said over and over by the same people for two years.
"Did he mention the USO tours?" That was her response when hearing
that he got emotional about her anti-liberal statement. It's not
shrewd, it's obvious.
>*** Sure, Al has pulled that stunt many times, but it does not mean his
>point of view was wrong. Also, has anyone ever successfully sued him for
>that book? There was apparently enough evidence to back up his examples.
That's just it. Franken's pulls no punches in that book. He's
anything but kind to Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. He makes very specific
accusations against them. If he didn't have his facts in order, I'm
sure the likes of Coulter would see him in court.
>> The error made by the CBC reporter is to take a position on the issue.
>> A reporter *does not pick sides on what they report*. Instead, Mr. CBC
>> just assumes his lefty view is correct and starts pushing this view
>> that the introduction of right-of-center reporters (they used to be
>> all left-of-center, which apparently was all right) is going to hurt
>> everyone.
This was a documentary, not the CBC News (more on that below Richard's
response.)
In any case, it's a typical response from the right regarding CBC's
news. The job of Any news operation is to present an issue, the views
for, and the views against. That's it. The reporters should be
neither left nor right. Who do you suspect Peter Mansbridge voted for
in the last election? How about Lloyd Robertson? Do you know?
This is what I've noticed... Let's suppose the CBC brings up an issue
that most liberals support. It might go something like this: "The Gay
Marriage debate was brought up again today in Parliament ... Martin
had this to say: [insert clip of Martin blithering away] ... Harper's
response? [insert clip of Harper blithering away] ..."
What I've noticed -- both here on the newsgroups and in face-to-face
conversations with conservative acquaintances -- is that conservatives
very often see the above as being liberal biased, even though both
points of view are shown. To be clear: sometimes their complaint is
that liberal views get more Time than conservative views... That would
be a legitimate complaint. But what I often see are people who see
liberal bias merely because the subject is brought up! These are
people who'd rather not see the issue on the news at all. So they
complain: "The CBC is biased; they brought up the gay rights issue
again today." (Note that, on the news itself, they Don't take a
position on it.)
Meanwhile, CTV and Global are bringing it up too. Why? Because it
was what happened today in Parliament. But few conservatives complain
that CTV or Global are biased.
I watch both CBC and CTV news. There's a difference in style -- CBC
tends to do fewer but more in-depth stories -- but the content is far
more similar than conservatives will admit. Often, these two stations
use the same footage for their stories. And if you look at the top
three stories for the National and for CTV News, it's pretty safe to
say that they'll have two -- maybe all three -- in common. I see it
night after night.
>*** I agree that the report was slanted. However, so are many of the
>reports on shows like "60 Minutes", "Frontline", "W5", etc. They wanted to
>present their points of view and did.
All of these shows, like the Fifth Estate, are news-magazine shows.
And like any article in a magazine, a position is taken... a specific
viewpoint is being shown. The Fifth Estate's show, "Sticks and
Stones," is specifically about the U.S. media's shift toward the right
of the political spectrum. That in itself is pretty much a liberal
point of view: conservatives don't question Fox news. Both sides were
given their chance to speak. It's up to the viewer to determine who
to believe.
----
Additional notes...
On the Fifth Estate's "Sticks and Stones," O'Reilly mentioned that
France lost something near one billion dollars in trade as a result of
lack of trade due to their stance on the Iraq War; he mentioned the
publication he read it in too. The Fifth Estate checked out his story
and found (a) trade between France and the U.S. actually Increased
during that period, and (b) the publication O'Reilly mentioned Does
Not Exist -- he made it up to support his claim. Given how vocal
Americans were about France's refusal to participate, it's no wonder
people believe the likes of O'Reilly without feeling the need to check
up on his so-called "facts."
----
The Fifth Estate quoted a study that found 80% of Fox News viewers
believe at least one of the three most common misconceptions about
Iraq: (1) that WMD were found there, (2) that Saddam had a direct link
to 9/11, and (3) that the world is behind the U.S. in its war on Iraq.
All of these claims have been demonstrated to be false; yet people who
use Fox News as their primary source are more apt to believe them.
Another thing mentioned in the documentary was the fact that when GWB
used the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber," Fox News
made it official policy to use GWB's term. IOW, Fox News, at least
sometimes, takes its lead from the White House.
----
As mentioned by "Paul R" earlier in this thread, Fox went to court to
defend their Right To Lie. These are the sites he posted to back up
the claim...
<http://www.protectorganic.org/sasf/medialie.htm>
<http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile5.cfm?REF=4>
<http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html>
"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed
with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against
distorting or falsifying the news in the United States."
db
Jon Flamming
> Turgeson wrote:
>|| "Liberalsareliars" <l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzareliars.com> wrote
>|| in message: news:<OfeKd.52768$Qb.43883@edtnps89>
>|||
>||| There are too many of you brainless left-wing loonies in
>||| Canada...get the fuck out to France or Germany.
>|||
>|| I see that you're into minority rule. 4 million or so right wing
>|| neocons should hold governance over the majority.
>||
>|| You're right, there are many Liberals in Canada, and NDP supporters
>|| too.
>||
>|| I voted Conservative in the St. Pauls riding, but I'm not like you
>|| and trying to tell everyone in Ontario and the Maritimes to fuck off
>|| and leave Canada, any more than I'm willing to drive to Quebec City
>|| and tell them to fuck off and leave because I don't like the Bloc.
>
> Neocons are more intelligent that the usual potsmoker leftie LIEbrawl.
And there's all that goat-luv, too.
REAL Top@poster.co_____m Top Poster
"Danie|_ Swan" <GROS...@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:rBwKd.69260$Qb.8401@edtnps89...
Why not be efficient? Obviously, YOU offing yourself would make the
most people happy in the least amount of time.
Come on, be a sport. Take one for the team.
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
REAL Top@poster.co_____m Top Poster
"Liberalsareliars" <l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzareliars.com> wrote in message
news:DheKd.52770$Qb.26359@edtnps89...
> Turgeson wrote:
> || L. Viss l.v...@graceland.com wrote in message:
> || news:<xGbKd.15853$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net>
> ||| SPIDERMAN wrote:
> |||
> |||| objectivity is impossible. fact.
> |||| cbc is leftist. fact.
> |||| fox news is right wing. fact.
> |||
> ||| Fox is probably the most balanced news reporting service out there..
> |||
> ||| Where do you come off calling them right wing ?
> |||
> ||| Examples ??
> |||
> || The best evidence is the surveys which tell the story of how
> || ignorant people who get their news from FNN are. They were cited in
> || the 5th Estate programme.
> ||
> ||
> || The rest of the evidence can be seen simply by watching FNN, which I
> || have been doing since they've had it on my cable package for the
> || last 5-6 weeks. The analysis and commentary are very bias to the
> || right, the news reporting is not as right wing as people made out.
>
> While on the CBC, whenever politics or economics is involved, the
> predominant LEFT wing bias is obvious.
Agreed.
Glen Hallick
"Tai Tastigon" <scr...@Ihaterogers.com> wrote in message
news:e_KdnattCMa...@giganews.com...
>
> "SPIDERMAN" <SPI...@WEB.COM> wrote in message
> news:yuKdnbnHIKS...@rogers.com...
>> objectivity is impossible. fact.
>> cbc is leftist. fact.
>> fox news is right wing. fact.
>>
>> i'd go with the cbc's view before fox, simply because they're not
>> corporately funded and don't have profit as their agenda. it's what
>> makes them (and the bbc) the world standard for credible news.
>
> Uh, the CBC is =no one's= standard for credible news. It is a vast
> bureaucracy and is highly biased. Most of its journalists and editors
> studied Marx at the same few journalism schools, after all.
Speaking of Ann Coulter being nuts, you no that far behind Coulter.
>
> The program in question was biased. It did portray conservatives, by and
> large, as ignorant cretins like that loud mouthed idiot O'Neil, and spent
> very little time talking to more moderate and intelligent conservative
> media people. It basically dismissed any claim of left wing bias as the
> ranting of the far right loonies. Unsurprising since the CBC is always
> accused of left wing bias.
The problem with nimrods such as yourself is you think fairness is
anythingheavily biased to the right and even the slightest straying from the
right send you idiots into a tantrum. The CBC isn't biased to the left, it's
willing to provide that point of view that is missing from the rest of the
media.
Glen
Jon Flamming
>
>
> "Liberalsareliars" <l$#"''.,?,..,XXX=@liberalzareliars.com> wrote in
> message news:DheKd.52770$Qb.26359@edtnps89...
>> Turgeson wrote:
>> || L. Viss l.v...@graceland.com wrote in message:
>> || news:<xGbKd.15853$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net>
>> ||| SPIDERMAN wrote:
>> |||
>> |||| objectivity is impossible. fact.
>> |||| cbc is leftist. fact.
>> |||| fox news is right wing. fact.
>> |||
>> ||| Fox is probably the most balanced news reporting service out
>> ||| there..
>> |||
>> ||| Where do you come off calling them right wing ?
>> |||
>> ||| Examples ??
>> |||
>> || The best evidence is the surveys which tell the story of how
>> || ignorant people who get their news from FNN are. They were cited
>> || in the 5th Estate programme.
>> ||
>> ||
>> || The rest of the evidence can be seen simply by watching FNN, which
>> || I have been doing since they've had it on my cable package for the
>> || last 5-6 weeks. The analysis and commentary are very bias to the
>> || right, the news reporting is not as right wing as people made out.
>>
>> While on the CBC, whenever politics or economics is involved, the
>> predominant LEFT wing bias is obvious.
>
> Agreed.
of course, what is being ignored here is that any point of view that
doesn't agree with yours if likely left wing. You prefer to be spoonfed
your worldview and not troubled by anything that may present it as
faulty.
For myself, I find CBC to be, for the most part, very conservative in
all its viewpoints. If anything, it pretends to be leftwing. One will
never, ever find any program or report on the CBC that challeges, say,
the only and gas industry. The case of Weibo Ludwig and the culture of
protest against the oil and gas industry in Alberta and its practises in
rural areas never received the investigation it deserved. The fact is
that the oil and gas has engaged in considerable, and most likely,
illegal practises throughout rural Alberta. However, they can get away
with it, thanks to their hacks in among the Tories and the media,
including the CBC.
>
>
>
>
Mountain Goat
wrote:
CBC did a piece on it that was broadcast on Remembrance Day this year,
also see the book 'Ghosts of Medak pocket' by Carol Off.
I know that one Canadian and one French Infantry Company held off a
couple of battalions of Croats with only their organic weapons, no
battalion heavy weapons, air or artillery support.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist "
-Salman Rushdie
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King
"A gentleman is a man who can disagree without being disagreeable." Anon
"Revolution in Politics is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment." Ambrose Bierce
"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts"
- Mark Twain
Mountain Goat
I think it was more the UN dickheads in New York who don't want upset
anyone. The same thinking that tried to keep Maj. Gen. Lewis McKenzie
from taking any armoured vehicles into Sarajevo and handicapped Lt.
Gen. Romeo Dallaire's attempts to stop the Rwandan genocide. Just
think what would have happened if McKenzie had been allowed to station
a battery of M-109s in Sarajevo with an RCHA counter battery radar.
(Even the Infantry can allow that the 7 mile snipers are handy to have
around sometimes).
The Doctor
Top Poster <The REAL T...@Poster.co_____m> wrote:
>
>"Jon Flamming" <sh...@donttell.org> wrote in message
>news:20050128213...@news.telusplanet.net...
>there's nothing else> constantly rails and cries against everything that is
>not LIE-bral.
>
You beleive perception and not reality like the other Top Poster.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill, Surrey, England, UK
REAL Top@poster.co_____m Top Poster
There must be two CBC's then. The one I refuse to listen to <unless
there's nothing else> constantly rails and cries against everything that is
not LIE-bral.
Carter
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:45:38 -0500, "JMD" <jmd...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>Whatever the reason, the Medak hush-up dishonoured the Canadian soldiers,
>>some of them reservists, who acquitted themselves honourably in that fight
>>despite being out-numbered and outgunned.
>>
>>John Dowell
>>
>
> I think it was more the UN dickheads in New York who don't want upset
> anyone.
There was probably some of that operating. I fail to understand
however how that could have prevented the Canadian Government
from publicly recognizing the contribution these soldiers were
forced to make. This was not something our troops had planned or
even wanted to do, it was something they were forced by
circumstance to do. They acquitted themselves admirably and
deserved recognition. When that recognition was not forthcoming
from the UN it should have come from Canada and in a timely fashion.
The same thinking that tried to keep Maj. Gen. Lewis McKenzie
> from taking any armoured vehicles into Sarajevo
No, in that case I disagree. I fully agree tactically with what
Lew McKenzie wanted to do, he was a soldier first. His troops
however were not in any grave danger and he had no mandate to
fight a war in Sarajevo either on behalf of this country or the UN.
and handicapped Lt.
> Gen. Romeo Dallaire's attempts to stop the Rwandan genocide.
I agree that was UN New York apathy of the highest order. I am
not a fan of the UN, I happen to believe it is the most useless
bureaucracy bound organization in the world and needs to be replaced.
Just
> think what would have happened if McKenzie had been allowed to station
> a battery of M-109s in Sarajevo with an RCHA counter battery radar.
> (Even the Infantry can allow that the 7 mile snipers are handy to have
> around sometimes).
What would have happened? It could have very well sucked Canada
into a war. Lew McKenzie's proposal was totally sound from a
military tactics point of view but it was not his place to
implement either on behalf of Canada or the UN.
Carter
Carter
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:20:45 -0330, Carter <PerA...@AdAstra.ca>
> wrote:
>>Yes I know I was a serving member at the time. I was also a
>>serving member at the time of the action in a place known as the
>>Medak Pocket. I doubt that any Americans are aware of that and I
>>know that very few Canadians are. It was something that for some
>>reason Canada's public broadcaster never saw fit to tell
>>Canadians about. One wonders why.
>>
>
> CBC did a piece on it that was broadcast on Remembrance Day this year,
Yes I know. The CBC should be ashamed to have waited eleven
years to tell the story.
> also see the book 'Ghosts of Medak pocket' by Carol Off.
Yes a good read but somewhat over dramatized and not too timely.
>
> I know that one Canadian and one French Infantry Company held off a
> couple of battalions of Croats with only their organic weapons, no
> battalion heavy weapons, air or artillery support.
That is a very well known fact in France.
Carter
Tai Tastigon
"Glen Hallick" <gNOSPAM...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:s5EKd.16623$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
> "Tai Tastigon" <scr...@Ihaterogers.com> wrote in message
> news:e_KdnattCMa...@giganews.com...
>> large, as ignorant cretins like that loud mouthed idiot O'Neil, and spent
>> very little time talking to more moderate and intelligent conservative
>> media people. It basically dismissed any claim of left wing bias as the
>> ranting of the far right loonies. Unsurprising since the CBC is always
>> accused of left wing bias.
>
> The problem with nimrods such as yourself is you think fairness is
> anythingheavily biased to the right and even the slightest straying from
> the right send you idiots into a tantrum.
Not at all. I find people like O'neil to be clowns, basically, though
probably not as looney as Rush Limbaugh, and I have little time for the kind
of right wing cheerleading you'd get on FOX.
The CBC isn't biased to the left, it's
> willing to provide that point of view that is missing from the rest of the
> media.
You mean THEIR point of view, which no one with any honesty could possibly
fail to realize was left wing. It supports left wing social positions up and
down the line, from abortion, to gay rights, to multiculturalism,
bilingualism, immigration and refugees, and poverty issues.
Jon Flamming
Obviously, you missed the point.
The CBC will not criticise ANYTHING that would harm the public image of
any powerful corporate lobby that has friends in government, including
the Liberals and the CCP. The example I gave of the oil and gas industry
is a particularly pointed on. The case of Weibo Ludwig was chronicalled
by a Calgary writer ANDREW NIKIFORUK and his book Saboteurs : Wiebo
Ludwig's War Against Big Oil. The book when exhaustively into the
history of the relationship between the oil and gas industry and rural
Alberta, as well as how the industry has used its influence to protect
itself in legal actions. Nikiforuk's book was profiled on CBC, but he
was regarded as an apologist for Ludwig. (In fact, Nikiforuk opposes
Ludwig's acts, but examines their culture of rationale.) The only
program that gave Nikiforuk any fair hearing was on Spokane's PBS
affliate.
>
>
>
>
Brian Bagnall
> Glen Hallick wrote:
>
>> Do you actually take some one like Ann Coulter seriously?
>
> Does ANYONE take Ann Coulter seriously :-)
I've never really heard her since we don't get Fox News (yet) and I've
never read any of her books so I have no idea. All we get to see
really are clips lefties have compiled of her worst moments. I'm sure
if we took anyones worst moments and condensed them into a 2 minute
montage we would all think you were quite an ass too.
- B
Brian Bagnall
> cbc is leftist. fact.
> fox news is right wing. fact.
>
> corporately funded and don't have profit as their agenda. it's what
> makes them (and the bbc) the world standard for credible news.
FACT: The agenda of the CBC is to get more government funding.
Conservatives want free market fuelled enterprises, not government
boondoggles.
FACT: There is no way the CBC will be supportive or objective towards
their worst enemy.
FACT: The CBC will do anything it can get away with to keep their
cushy funding scheme going.
Brian Bagnall
>> The CBC isn't biased to the left, it's
>> willing to provide that point of view that is missing from the rest
>> of the media.
>
> You mean THEIR point of view, which no one with any honesty could
> possibly fail to realize was left wing. It supports left wing social
> positions up and down the line, from abortion, to gay rights, to
> multiculturalism, bilingualism, immigration and refugees, and
> poverty issues.
You are very astute, Tai. It's refreshing to hear from people who seem
capable of independant thought on these newsgroups. Most people in
Canada seem to bob their head up and down at anything the CBC says.
Canada truly is the world depicted in Brave New World. Brainwashed
citizens who might as well moo.
- B
Brian Bagnall
news:cpplv0pd5d9oii1sd...@4ax.com...
>
> She's been shown to be a person who lies consistently. Al Franken's
> book has documented many examples, and Franken made Damn Sure that
> HIS
> facts were in order: every point is clearly referenced; some
> documents
> demonstrating Coulter's penchant for lying have been included in the
> book -- i.e., he presents her statements And her sources... then he
> shows you those sources. And they very clearly Don't say what
> Coulter
> claims they say.
>
> Beyond that, I've seen Coulter get caught in lies by other pundits
> on
> CNN on at least two occasions. These weren't just differences of
> opinion, they were immediately verifiable! A perfect example is the
> gaff she made on the Fifth Estate itself: in her attempt to show how
> Canada has somehow "changed," how we and the Americans used to be so
> close, she noted that we were with the Americans in Vietnam! When
> corrected by the host -- "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam" --
> she said, "I think you're wrong"!?!? She then said she'd have to
> get
> back to him on that one and never did.
>
> Simply put, She Is A Liar! Period!
You lefties crack me up. Need to look up the definition of lie? She
has not got a freaking clue about Canadian history. Just like you
can't name the first female candidate for president in teh United
States, she doesn't know 100% of Canadian history.
That is a *mistake*. People make mistakes. People are not databases
programmed with every piece of knowledge since time began. The only
difference is the lefties don't bother showing glaring errors made by
lefties, but they will repeatedly hard on errors made by anyone on the
right.
mistake != lie
But I suppose you have never, ever made a mistake in your life.
- B
Epimetheus
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:F1QKd.16687$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
That's very funny, you assume that everyone follows what ever the CBC does,
despite the fact that the CBC forms only a fraction of all the news media
available, and you demonstrate your willingness to "bob your head" to anything
that Fox News spits out because it fits your politics.
Hypocrite.
Glen Hallick
"Tai Tastigon" <scr...@Ihaterogers.com> wrote in message
Supports or reports. There is a huge difference. I find the CBC is more
willing than the private broadcasters toreport on these issues. And for that
matter what is wrong to report on them?
Are you against abortion, gay rights, multiculturalism, bilingualism,
immigration, refugees, and the poor?
Glen
Glen Hallick
>
> "SPIDERMAN" <SPI...@WEB.COM> wrote in message
> news:yuKdnbnHIKS...@rogers.com...
>> objectivity is impossible. fact.
>> cbc is leftist. fact.
>> fox news is right wing. fact.
>>
>> i'd go with the cbc's view before fox, simply because they're not
>> corporately funded and don't have profit as their agenda. it's what
>> makes them (and the bbc) the world standard for credible news.
>
> FACT: The agenda of the CBC is to get more government funding.
> Conservatives want free market fuelled enterprises, not government
> boondoggles.
Is it a fact that the CBC is a boondoggle? I hardly think so. If the free
market is so damn terrific then why aren't the private broadcasters doing
what the CBC does?
>
> FACT: There is no way the CBC will be supportive or objective towards
> their worst enemy.
>
More of your weak minded far-right bullshit. The CBC is more objective than
any of the other broadcasters. Simplistic rightiods like yourself despise
that FACT. You morons fairness is only when far-right views are trumpetted.
> FACT: The CBC will do anything it can get away with to keep their cushy
> funding scheme going.
You are just as paranoid as your buddy TC.
Glen
Glen Hallick
> "Tai Tastigon" <scr...@Ihaterogers.com> wrote in message
> news:YvadnSPP0Pq...@giganews.com...
>
>>> The CBC isn't biased to the left, it's
>>> willing to provide that point of view that is missing from the rest of
>>> the media.
>>
>> You mean THEIR point of view, which no one with any honesty could
>> possibly fail to realize was left wing. It supports left wing social
>> positions up and down the line, from abortion, to gay rights, to
>> multiculturalism, bilingualism, immigration and refugees, and poverty
>> issues.
>
> You are very astute, Tai. It's refreshing to hear from people who seem
> capable of independant thought on these newsgroups.
Independent thought? Fuck Brian, you have slammed every other person for
independent thought when they do not conform to your narrow-minded beliefs.
> Most people in Canada seem to bob their head up and down at anything the
> CBC says. Canada truly is the world depicted in Brave New World.
> Brainwashed citizens who might as well moo.
You surely live in a misconstrued world.
Indeed your's is a world where other people are considered parasites, such
as the Roma. Why is it that you stopped posting your bigotted coments about
the Roma? A few months back you seemed to be so eager to spout hatred for
them. Now you avoid the issue at every opportunity...such cowardice from
you.
Glen
Glen Hallick
Brian, are you too fucking cheap to buy any of her books available at a
bookstore engaged in practicing free enterprise? Are you too fucking lazy to
see if a library has any of her books available?
Glen
Danie|_ Swan
I'd never consider myself to be on any team that you're on.
Mike Wilcox
Brian Bagnall wrote:
In that case she's made an awful lot of mistakes, when someone does that
while doing their job they are referred to as "Incompetent". So in short
she is either a liar or incompetent, in which case would make you a fool
for believing anything she says.
Jon Flamming
If Coulter made a mistake with the knowledge that she didn't know what
she was talking about (Canadian history) that only proves that she is
not only a liar, but not a very good one at that. Worse, she is arrogant
about her ignorance. (ie. Don't tell her about what she doesn't know,
because she will not admit she made a mistake.) That just makes her just
like Bush.
>
> - B
>
>
>
Richard Bonner
> Is it a fact that the CBC is a boondoggle? I hardly think so. If the free
> market is so damn terrific then why aren't the private broadcasters doing
> what the CBC does?
>
> Glen
*** It's because they are commercial revenue (and thus, ratings) hounds.
They present what pleases the maximum number of people.
Richard
REAL Top@poster.co_____m Top Poster
"Danie|_ Swan" <GROS...@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:U4RKd.165074$KO5.139114@clgrps13...
> In article <TFDKd.75670$Qb.71683@edtnps89>, TheRE...@Poster.co_____m
> says...
>> Top Poster wrote -
>> Why not be efficient? Obviously, YOU offing yourself would make the
>>most people happy in the least amount of time.
>>
>> Come on, be a sport. Take one for the team.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'd never consider myself to be on any team that you're on.
>
Congratulations on not trying to fool yourself. You do NOT have the
gonads to be on my team, girlie.
Danie|_ Swan
>
>
>
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <GROS...@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:U4RKd.165074$KO5.139114@clgrps13...
>> In article <TFDKd.75670$Qb.71683@edtnps89>, TheRE...@Poster.co_____m
>> says...
>
>>> Top Poster wrote -
>
>>> Why not be efficient? Obviously, YOU offing yourself would make the
>>>most people happy in the least amount of time.
>>>
>>> Come on, be a sport. Take one for the team.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'd never consider myself to be on any team that you're on.
>>
>
> Congratulations on not trying to fool yourself. You do NOT have the
>gonads to be on my team, girlie.
>
I'm also apparently well over the IQ cut off
Hard Fiskur
>
> If Coulter made a mistake with the knowledge that she didn't know what
> she was talking about (Canadian history) that only proves that she is
> not only a liar, but not a very good one at that. Worse, she is arrogant
> about her ignorance. (ie. Don't tell her about what she doesn't know,
> because she will not admit she made a mistake.)
Kinda like hot headed arrogant, obnoxious, know nothing know it all right
wingers. :0)
Jon Flamming
Coulter also has difficulty accepting the fact that the RNC didn't want
her seeking a nomination for a Congressional seat because of her past,
which includes drunkeness, table-dancing, and a wide variety of sexual
encounters, including (wait for it) a sex video tape. Talk about not
practising what you preach.
>
>
>
His Divine Shadow
Gridler wrote:
> "His Divine Shadow" <hiss...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> news:1106952985....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Brian Bagnall wrote:
> >
> > > Communist Broadcasting Corporation hypocrisy at it's very best.
The
> > > lefty media here in Canada must be scared sh*tless to be
hammering
> > > away at Fox News so consistently.
> >
> > Get over yourself, Bagnall. O'Reily is a blowhard and Coulter's a
> > drunk. Between the two of them they are some of the worst that the
US
> > media has to offer, and have uttered some of the most vile nonsense
> > ever to disgrace the airwaves.
>
> That's not true, those two are brilliant. They expose the inner evil
of the
> Left. Most people agree with their opinions 100% That's why Bush
is
> President.
Apparently you are practising sarcasm.
Tai Tastigon
>>> anythingheavily biased to the right and even the slightest straying from
>>> the right send you idiots into a tantrum.
>>
>> Not at all. I find people like O'neil to be clowns, basically, though
>> probably not as looney as Rush Limbaugh, and I have little time for the
>> kind of right wing cheerleading you'd get on FOX.
>>
>> The CBC isn't biased to the left, it's
>>> willing to provide that point of view that is missing from the rest of
>>> the media.
>>
>> You mean THEIR point of view, which no one with any honesty could
>> possibly fail to realize was left wing. It supports left wing social
>> positions up and down the line, from abortion, to gay rights, to
>> multiculturalism, bilingualism, immigration and refugees, and poverty
>> issues.
>
>
> Supports or reports.
You can do both.
>There is a huge difference.
Indeed. Like the report under discussion. It could have been merely a
report, not taking sides, seeking out credible pro and con supporters to
discuss the issue. It did not do that. It gave a minute or two to one
credible person who believed the media was left of centre (Bernard Goldberg)
but dwelled long and lovingly on meatheads like O'Neil. It showed him at his
worst, it brought up the harrassment charge against that vancouver radio
commentator who seemed to be along the same mentality as O'Neil. But when it
portrayed those on the other side of the issue it either selected those
without flaws or failed to mention any flaws.
This is classic propaganda, you know. When you want the viewers to take your
side you simply select very unsympathetic people to represent the other side
and show them in their worst light. Then you can say "Oh, but I showed both
sides of the issue". Nonsense.
> Are you against abortion, gay rights, multiculturalism, bilingualism,
> immigration, refugees, and the poor?
No, no, yes, yes, yes/no, yes/no, yes/no.
Tai Tastigon
>
>> FACT: The agenda of the CBC is to get more government funding.
>> Conservatives want free market fuelled enterprises, not government
>> boondoggles.
>
> Is it a fact that the CBC is a boondoggle?
Stories are legendary about the inefficiency of the CBC, about Global
showing up to do a report with one reporter and one cameraman, CTV arriving
with two guys and a sound man, and the CBC arriving in a convoy of trucks
complete with dozens of support people and fart catchers.
I hardly think so. If the free
> market is so damn terrific then why aren't the private broadcasters doing
> what the CBC does?
Because it has to actually care about whether people watch them or not. The
CBC gets its money regardless.
>> FACT: There is no way the CBC will be supportive or objective towards
>> their worst enemy.
>>
>
> More of your weak minded far-right bullshit. The CBC is more objective
> than any of the other broadcasters.
And you can demonstrate this somehow? I would say that the CBC is less
objective than any of the broadcasters, not that there are many. But
generally the smaller organizations seem to be more inclined to be neutral.
Simplistic rightiods like yourself despise
> that FACT. You morons fairness is only when far-right views are
> trumpetted.
And uhm, how often does that happen and by whom?
>> FACT: The CBC will do anything it can get away with to keep their cushy
>> funding scheme going.
>
> You are just as paranoid as your buddy TC.
There certainly is an understandable institutional hostility towards the
party which wants to sell it off. That is only natural. Why wouldn't there
be such hostility? Because the people who work at the CBC are noble servants
of the public and above any such feelings?
Mountain Goat
wrote:
>Mountain Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:45:38 -0500, "JMD" <jmd...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>>Whatever the reason, the Medak hush-up dishonoured the Canadian soldiers,
>>>some of them reservists, who acquitted themselves honourably in that fight
>>>despite being out-numbered and outgunned.
>>>
>>>John Dowell
>>>
>>
>> I think it was more the UN dickheads in New York who don't want upset
>> anyone.
>
>There was probably some of that operating. I fail to understand
>however how that could have prevented the Canadian Government
>from publicly recognizing the contribution these soldiers were
>forced to make. This was not something our troops had planned or
>even wanted to do, it was something they were forced by
>circumstance to do. They acquitted themselves admirably and
>deserved recognition. When that recognition was not forthcoming
>from the UN it should have come from Canada and in a timely fashion.
>
> The same thinking that tried to keep Maj. Gen. Lewis McKenzie
>> from taking any armoured vehicles into Sarajevo
>
>No, in that case I disagree. I fully agree tactically with what
>Lew McKenzie wanted to do, he was a soldier first. His troops
>however were not in any grave danger and he had no mandate to
>fight a war in Sarajevo either on behalf of this country or the UN.
>
Those vehicles which he took in anyway (basically defying the UN)
were for the protection of his troops, if you think they were not in
grave danger your nuts. They were fired on all the time by the Serbs
from the time they arrived till they left. The armoured vehicles I am
talking about were the APCs, not Leopard's, he knew better than to
even ask for those. The Brits used their Warriors and the French also
used AFVs in Sarajevo. BTW the shelling stopped when the Brits under
NATO rather than UN auspices put a dozen 105s on top of Mt. Igman.
> and handicapped Lt.
>> Gen. Romeo Dallaire's attempts to stop the Rwandan genocide.
>
>I agree that was UN New York apathy of the highest order. I am
>not a fan of the UN, I happen to believe it is the most useless
>bureaucracy bound organization in the world and needs to be replaced.
>
> Just
>> think what would have happened if McKenzie had been allowed to station
>> a battery of M-109s in Sarajevo with an RCHA counter battery radar.
>> (Even the Infantry can allow that the 7 mile snipers are handy to have
>> around sometimes).
>
>What would have happened? It could have very well sucked Canada
>into a war. Lew McKenzie's proposal was totally sound from a
>military tactics point of view but it was not his place to
>implement either on behalf of Canada or the UN.
>
Do you think the Serb's would have harassed the population of Sarajevo
by random shelling of the town knowing the UN (not just Canada) had
the balls to stand up to them?
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist "
-Salman Rushdie
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King
"A gentleman is a man who can disagree without being disagreeable." Anon
"Revolution in Politics is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment." Ambrose Bierce
"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts"
- Mark Twain
demibee
> mistake != lie
>
> But I suppose you have never, ever made a mistake in your life.
When I'm shown to have made a mistake, I own up to it. She doesn't;
she shrugs it off.
I don't claim to be any kind of authority on politics, world affairs,
or the history that goes with it. She does.
I'm not an author: people reading my posts aren't blindly going to
accept them as truth. Unfortunately, many people on the right DO get
their information from the trash she writes.
In any case, she didn't just err, she Insisted that Canada fought in
Vietnam despite repeated attempts by the host to correct her. And, of
course, she never got back to him as she claimed she would.
db
demibee
news:ejLKd.76933$Qb.41027@edtnps89:
> There must be two CBC's then. The one I refuse to listen
> to <unless
> there's nothing else> constantly rails and cries against
> everything that is not LIE-bral.
Give me an example.
I watch CBC news and CTV news almost every night. For the most part,
they cover the same stories, and neither takes a position on any of
them. CBC's news is just that: information regarding what's going on
and what issues are being brought up in the nation/community.
The act of bringing up a topic does not equate to having taken a
position on it.
I, for one, do Not know Peter Mansbridge's stance on abortion, same-
sex marriage, politics, or anything else. Do you?
Or are you referring to something other than the news... shows like
"22 minutes" and documetaries like Suzuki's? If so, I've yet to see
a right-wing news satire show, even in the U.S. (nor do I think I've
seen any science show that Doesn't advocate what Suzuki does).
db
P.S., I find it interesting just how many anti-liberal puns there
are: LIE-brawl, LIE-beral, fiberal, etc. All this for a word whose
cousin is "liberty."
Carter
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:36:13 -0330, Carter <PerA...@AdAstra.ca>
> wrote:
>>No, in that case I disagree. I fully agree tactically with what
>>Lew McKenzie wanted to do, he was a soldier first. His troops
>>however were not in any grave danger and he had no mandate to
>>fight a war in Sarajevo either on behalf of this country or the UN.
>>
>
> Those vehicles which he took in anyway (basically defying the UN)
> were for the protection of his troops, if you think they were not in
> grave danger your nuts.
They were not in any grave danger, they had the protection of APCs.
They were fired on all the time by the Serbs
> from the time they arrived till they left.
There were occasional incidents of that. Certainly not all of
the time. UN troops were protected and the Serbs knew better
than to launch an all out attack on them. So while there was
danger, it was not grave.
The armoured vehicles I am
> talking about were the APCs,
Armoured personnel carriers not armoured fighting vehicles. APCs
are standard protection for troops anywhere.
not Leopard's, he knew better than to
> even ask for those.
LOL! I guess so. How do you think he could have got them there?
He had a plan for the use of AFVs, probably cougars or similar.
Any good commander would have such a plan.
The Brits used their Warriors and the French also
> used AFVs in Sarajevo. BTW the shelling stopped when the Brits under
> NATO rather than UN auspices put a dozen 105s on top of Mt. Igman.
AFAIK the 105s were never used, just positioned. The Serbs
backed off, they knew better.
>
>
>> and handicapped Lt.
>>
>>>Gen. Romeo Dallaire's attempts to stop the Rwandan genocide.
>>
>>I agree that was UN New York apathy of the highest order. I am
>>not a fan of the UN, I happen to believe it is the most useless
>>bureaucracy bound organization in the world and needs to be replaced.
>>
>> Just
>>
>>>think what would have happened if McKenzie had been allowed to station
>>>a battery of M-109s in Sarajevo with an RCHA counter battery radar.
>>>(Even the Infantry can allow that the 7 mile snipers are handy to have
>>>around sometimes).
>>
>>What would have happened? It could have very well sucked Canada
>>into a war. Lew McKenzie's proposal was totally sound from a
>>military tactics point of view but it was not his place to
>>implement either on behalf of Canada or the UN.
>>
>
> Do you think the Serb's would have harassed the population of Sarajevo
> by random shelling of the town knowing the UN (not just Canada) had
> the balls to stand up to them?
I don't know, do you?
Carter