CBC = Forked Tongue
karra @ Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:57 am
Don't minimize what happened. It was more than an explosion, it was a terrorist attack utilising a car bomb which completely destroyed a hotel and at least 27 of it's occupants, never mind the maimed and injured.
I don't care if the seebeecee cost three cents per canadian per year - it is a bloated, fat, ugly, ungainly behemoth soaking up more than 1 BILLION taxpayer dollars per year - and for what? So it can continually be late reporting breaking news? Why the government would support this corpse is truly a conundrum - it gets little or no value for it's/our money and this giant vacuum cleaner can't compete with other news services not propped up by the taxpayer.
Most in-depth coverage? Yeah right, pull the other one whydoncha. They have, I believe, a mandate to provide the news and they do so with a jaundiced eye via the talking sock puppet Slaphead who somehow manages to stay awake through his own snoozefest. Good thing someone at the mothercorp was watching CNN yesterday - otherwise the handful of loyal viewers may never have known what was happening outside their front door.
It doesn't matter how you justify the cost of this non-competitive monster - it's a drain - a DNR should be issued and the plug pulled .
Cast it afloat, let it compete - if the corpse gets some life back in it - terrific - at that point the Fiberals can throw another BILLION dollars at another wasteful project.
AdamNF @ Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:50 am
Well Figfarmer you donÂ’t actually expect the USA to admit there is a resistance. That would undermind everything there doing and make them look bad. Freedom of the press my ass.
figfarmer @ Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:52 am
"It was more than an explosion, it was a terrorist attack"
It was not a terrorist attack. It was a poor country's last line of defense against a powerful aggressor.
I'll tell you what is really freaking stupid about the press. It is their idiotic new habit of calling the Iraqi resistance fighters "insurgents". The freaking foreigners are the insurgents. What can one expect in this American war of lies though?
karra @ Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:52 pm
Holy cow! Here comes the Cry Me A River Brigade.
$1:
It was not a terrorist attack. It was a poor country's last line of defense against a powerful aggressor.
Do you really believe that?
Don't lose yer cool man - but if you take a moment to read you just might discover that the bomber(s) have direct links to AQ.
Meanwhile, breaking news indicates the #2 AQ wanker and terrorist extraodinaire and fartcatcher to obl is surrounded by Pakistani, Afghan and US troops - each and every one of whom wants to lay claim to the $25 Million dollar reward for this guys head stuffed in the stomach of a cochon.
figfarmer @ Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:37 pm
I shall just ignore your stupidity until someone has the grace to ban you from this site.
Rev_Blair @ Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:44 pm
Yeah, I think that's the policy we should all follow, Fig.
karra @ Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:40 pm
$1:
figfarmer Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:37 pm Post subject: From now on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shall just ignore your stupidity until someone has the grace to ban you from this site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shall just ignore your stupidity until someone has the grace to ban you from this site.
$1:
Rev_Blair Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 7:44 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I think that's the policy we should all follow, Fig.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I think that's the policy we should all follow, Fig.
mmmm, now that's interesting coming from two who advocate free speech for all. Or do they really?
nonrev @ Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:52 pm
You missed the point again, Karra (WHY, Lord? am I not surprised?) -
they are advocating ignoring you - not banning you.
Fig made the point quite clearly....
Get off the cross - We need the wood for the Ark! 
karra @ Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:52 pm
Check it out:
[align=center]:)cbc = forked tongue watch :)[/align]
For all youse doubting tommys who are surprised you're surprised when it's no surprise at all.
Have a look, pass a comment or whatever, join.
[align=center]POWER TO THE PEOPLE, by gar and tabernac.[/align]
Rev_Blair @ Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:16 pm
I had a look. So we should get rid of the CBC because about 10% of the population...IN A DEMOCRACY...doesn't like it?
Whatever, Karra.
Pathos @ Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:45 pm
i like the cbc.like gideons it gives me lots of comfort.like home grown.
karra @ Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:24 pm
90% of Canadians like and support the cbc do they? Would that be 90% of hard-left state sucking socialists or 90% of the entire population? Or 90% of the population that can operate a convertor?
$30.00 per year per Canadian - is that right? a)Would that be every Canadian? b)Only those of voting age? c) Only those who pay taxes? or d) Only those who evade paying taxes?
Pardon me while I stand here and scratch my backside in wonderment wondering the wonder of all wonders as to where you get your pink numbers.
While the cbc sometimes produces something worth watching, the cost is totally prohibitive and definitely questionable. For what? So we can say it has a maple leaf on it?
The cbc, it's staff, it's unions and it's not-so-unique assortment of half wit lefties should be released from the public purse and allowed to fail or succeed.
Should the government of the day feel it has a need to support television, it need look no further than most PBS stations - where they at least have the smarts to import good stuff - you know, like just about anything that comes from Britain. Which the cbc tries so hard to imitate, yet fails miserably.
karra @ Sat May 15, 2004 6:41 pm
Some have posted the seebeesea as a link to news worthy articles . . .
Be aware - they speak with a forked tongue and a huge bias . . .
$1:
CBC issues 'clarification' on item linking Israel to Iraq torture
Globe & Mail
By MICHAEL POSNER
Saturday, May 15, 2004 - Page R7
The CBC chief of news, Tony Burman, has issued a rare note of contrition about a recent news item on The National about the Iraqi prison story, and has promised to tighten up editorial procedures.
Presented by Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald, the May 4 item cited a letter written by 80 former American diplomats saying that "the occupation of Iraq and George Bush's unprecedented alliance with the right-wing government of Israel has placed Americans overseas in danger."
Macdonald then quoted one of the former diplomats, Eugene Bird, as suggesting that Israel's intelligence services might have been linked to the ill treatment of Iraqi prisoners. "We know that the Israeli intelligence was operating in Baghdad after the war was over," Bird said. "The question should be, 'Were there any foreign interrogators among those that were recommending very, very bad treatment for the prisoners?' "
Three days later, The National was forced to run a "clarification," noting that there was no evidence that Israeli complicity existed, and that Bird's comment should not have been included in the report.
Although Bird is indeed a former American foreign-service officer, he is better known as president of the Council for the National Interest, an Arab-awareness group, and State Department correspondent for The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a journal with a strong Palestinian leaning.
In a formal statement released late Thursday, Burman said the CBC had conducted a careful review of procedures to determine how the error occurred. "It is clear to us now that the editorial checks and balances on The National should have caught these errors, and didn't," the note says. "These incidents occurred due to a combination of competing program pressures, misunderstandings, and a lack of clarity on various elements within the items. Our established processes should have prevented these mistakes. They didn't, and we have taken steps to ensure that they will in the future." The note did not spell out what those steps are.
Burman insisted that there was no evidence that "these mistakes may have been motivated by an 'anti-Israel bias' on the part of the reporter or The National desk. . . . This wasn't a case of willful distortion; instead it was due to editorial lapses that somehow slipped through the system."
A source close to the CBC review said that the Macdonald story had provoked strong viewer reaction, and an unprecedented level of concern internally. Although Burman was not available for comment, he was said to have been appalled that the item managed to get on the air. "The patience for anything like this is gone," said the source.
"I have to decline" the offer to comment, Macdonald said when reached at his office. "The review is done, and Tony said what he said, and I have to decline."
Marc Gold, national chair of the Canada-Israel Committee, a pro-Israel lobby, protested the item. In a letter to Burman, he said "there is a systemic problem with the probity of [the CBC's] news coverage. That the May 4 news item apparently went through so many procedural layers . . . without comment or questioning cannot but raise disturbing questions about the very nature of the CBC's broadcast news policies at every . . . level."
E-mail this Article Print this Article
Globe & Mail
By MICHAEL POSNER
Saturday, May 15, 2004 - Page R7
The CBC chief of news, Tony Burman, has issued a rare note of contrition about a recent news item on The National about the Iraqi prison story, and has promised to tighten up editorial procedures.
Presented by Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald, the May 4 item cited a letter written by 80 former American diplomats saying that "the occupation of Iraq and George Bush's unprecedented alliance with the right-wing government of Israel has placed Americans overseas in danger."
Macdonald then quoted one of the former diplomats, Eugene Bird, as suggesting that Israel's intelligence services might have been linked to the ill treatment of Iraqi prisoners. "We know that the Israeli intelligence was operating in Baghdad after the war was over," Bird said. "The question should be, 'Were there any foreign interrogators among those that were recommending very, very bad treatment for the prisoners?' "
Three days later, The National was forced to run a "clarification," noting that there was no evidence that Israeli complicity existed, and that Bird's comment should not have been included in the report.
Although Bird is indeed a former American foreign-service officer, he is better known as president of the Council for the National Interest, an Arab-awareness group, and State Department correspondent for The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a journal with a strong Palestinian leaning.
In a formal statement released late Thursday, Burman said the CBC had conducted a careful review of procedures to determine how the error occurred. "It is clear to us now that the editorial checks and balances on The National should have caught these errors, and didn't," the note says. "These incidents occurred due to a combination of competing program pressures, misunderstandings, and a lack of clarity on various elements within the items. Our established processes should have prevented these mistakes. They didn't, and we have taken steps to ensure that they will in the future." The note did not spell out what those steps are.
Burman insisted that there was no evidence that "these mistakes may have been motivated by an 'anti-Israel bias' on the part of the reporter or The National desk. . . . This wasn't a case of willful distortion; instead it was due to editorial lapses that somehow slipped through the system."
A source close to the CBC review said that the Macdonald story had provoked strong viewer reaction, and an unprecedented level of concern internally. Although Burman was not available for comment, he was said to have been appalled that the item managed to get on the air. "The patience for anything like this is gone," said the source.
"I have to decline" the offer to comment, Macdonald said when reached at his office. "The review is done, and Tony said what he said, and I have to decline."
Marc Gold, national chair of the Canada-Israel Committee, a pro-Israel lobby, protested the item. In a letter to Burman, he said "there is a systemic problem with the probity of [the CBC's] news coverage. That the May 4 news item apparently went through so many procedural layers . . . without comment or questioning cannot but raise disturbing questions about the very nature of the CBC's broadcast news policies at every . . . level."
E-mail this Article Print this Article
$1:
Media Report
CBC gets 2 for 1
by Arthur Weinreb
April 26, 2004
When U.S. President George W. Bush announced that he was endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel SharonÂ’s plan to withdraw from Gaza and most of the West Bank and scuttled the right of Palestinians to return to Israel proper, the anti-American, anti-Israel network got to take shots at both Bush and Sharon. In an article that appeared on CBCÂ’s website on April 15, CBC gave its typical one-sided view of the proposal. Yassir ArafatÂ’s position was given as well as a lengthy quote from Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia who, needless to say, was against the proposal. No quotes from the Israeli government were provided, nor was there even a mention of IsraelÂ’s security concerns. The CBC characterized SharonÂ’s plan as it always characterizes IsraelÂ’s position on the West Bank and Gaza--as a pure land grab.
Even the left-wing Toronto Star mentioned IsraelÂ’s security concerns when it reported BushÂ’s endorsement of the proposed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
It is simply amazing how CBC flaks like Tony Burman can appear on television and, with a straight face, deny the CBC is ever biased.
CBC gets 2 for 1
by Arthur Weinreb
April 26, 2004
When U.S. President George W. Bush announced that he was endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel SharonÂ’s plan to withdraw from Gaza and most of the West Bank and scuttled the right of Palestinians to return to Israel proper, the anti-American, anti-Israel network got to take shots at both Bush and Sharon. In an article that appeared on CBCÂ’s website on April 15, CBC gave its typical one-sided view of the proposal. Yassir ArafatÂ’s position was given as well as a lengthy quote from Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia who, needless to say, was against the proposal. No quotes from the Israeli government were provided, nor was there even a mention of IsraelÂ’s security concerns. The CBC characterized SharonÂ’s plan as it always characterizes IsraelÂ’s position on the West Bank and Gaza--as a pure land grab.
Even the left-wing Toronto Star mentioned IsraelÂ’s security concerns when it reported BushÂ’s endorsement of the proposed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
It is simply amazing how CBC flaks like Tony Burman can appear on television and, with a straight face, deny the CBC is ever biased.
Not really surprising Art. This not so hidden hideout for failed journos and aspiring left wing j-students has a well deserved reputation for employing not just those fine failures and layabouts but anyone they find standing in left field who figures the government owes them a job. And not just any job Art, but a job for life with benefits and a pension plan second to none.
For this biased service and employment center for the seriously gray matter depleted left wing wankers the fine citizens of this once fine country only have to pay 1,000,000,000.00 plus and constantly climbing per year every year forever.
Is it a deal?
You betcha - at least the union and card carrying lefties would have you believe - helluva deal - for them.
QBC @ Sat May 15, 2004 9:05 pm
Karra I have to tell you something. Macarthyism, (sorry about the spelling) is dead. Along with that whole Commi fearing stuff. Just because someone is left of centre, that dousn't make them a commi. I'm not a left winger, but that whole "Pink" thing you did, died back in the narrow minded fifties.
Rev_Blair @ Sun May 16, 2004 5:44 am
It's just her way of showing her own massive ignorance, QBC.
Ask her to answer a question providing evidence sometime. That's always worth a laugh too.
When was the last time your beloved right-wing press offered a retraction for allowing their biases to slip into what was supposed to be a hard news story, Karra?