Lack of Journalistic Integrity in the CBC
N_Fiddledog @ Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:01 pm
In the Newspaper Biz there's a thing called "Middle Market."
$1:
A middle-market newspaper is one that attempts to cater to readers who want some entertainment from their newspaper as well as the coverage of important news events. Middle-market status is the halfway point of a three-level continuum of journalistic seriousness; uppermarket newspapers generally cover hard news and down-market newspapers favor sensationalist stories. In the United Kingdom, since the demise of Today (1986–95), the only national middle-market papers are the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, distinguishable by their black-top masthead (both use the easy-to-carry tabloid paper size), as opposed to the red-top mastheads of down-market tabloids. The best known American mid-market papers are USA Today, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the New York Daily News.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-market_newspaper
You would find the stories there that you would find in other media, but you might also have to wade through crap that would not be hard news. For example we might have to scroll quickly past the latest gossip about the Kardashians, or say not click this one: "Salesman roasted to death on a poolside sunbed on first day of his Ibiza holiday as temperatures soared to 90F".
But you would also hear news stories you would not hear from the media of what Progressives call "reputable media". Stories like say..."EXCLUSIVE - Afghan migrants who attacked pensioners in THAT shocking train video were denied asylum after arriving four years ago... but Germany says it's 'too dangerous' to send them home"
Understand though, our Regressive Progressive friends do not appear to be saying they have anything like evidence saying such a story is false. They don't. We know they can't outright claim it, because they don't have such evidence. If they did, they would produce it.
So what is the objection to middle market then?
I suggest it is not just that they do not want you having access to information their media would like to keep from you. I am beginning to think they also worry about the comparison. They would like to present themselves as the gold standard keepers of the truth. Therefore all other knowledge must be demonized and marginalized to prevent comparison by keeping the "bad example" isolated a la Alinsky. Ultimately they would prefer competition censored but they'll settle for demonization in isolation. They fear the true comparison.
There are many problems with that idea of gold standard media. Here's the main objection I have to it. It's bullshit. There is no gold standard reputable media.
I could explain why that's so, but I'll do better. I'll do something for you that a Progressive would not. I'll present support for my theory.
We'll use the CBC as an example. Near as I can figure, in Canada, that's their gold standard.
I'll be using examples from sources that would not necessarily meet a prog standard of reputable. Some of my examples will be mainstream media, but some might be say activist sources with axes to grind. I believe one is a law firm that won a case against the CBC and presented the report of it as news, but really it's more an ad.
I suggest that doesn't matter, because I believe we here our capable of separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak as regards what's credible. A Regressive either doesn't know that or doesn't want you to know it. So they will lay false claim to the high road, while they ignore the bulk of evidence and instead isolate some tiny critique to present it as the totality of truth. This is supposed to imply everything not from their approved sources is false, you see.
I suggest the cumulative evidence will present the more persuasive fact of who the real lying weasels are in the world of media.
So hang on for a bit and we'll begin to explore the world of Journalistic integrity and the CBC.
N_Fiddledog @ Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:08 pm
Bias and Lack of Journalistic integrity in the CBC
It’s said that the most egregious form of media bias, is a bias of omission. We'll get to that and other dirty tricks, but let's start here:
CBC Bias to Liberals
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting claims the Liberals double-crossed the CBC after promising lots of dough in the 1997 election. Instead -
“During the last seven years, Prime Minister Chrétien’s government has loaded up the CBC’s Board of Directors with partisan appointments whose key credential seems to be the Liberal membership card in their wallets. “
http://www.friends.ca/press-release/169%20Chretien
During election campaign Trudeau promises 150 million dollars to CBC.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... roadcaster
Legal Problems
CBC loses lawsuit to Color Your World for defaming with selective reporting.
(Questionable website: http://www.cyberlibel.com/oldsite/paint.html)
CBC uses selective editing to defame scientist, Dr Franz Leenan and lose lawsuit for almost a million dollars.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/02/ru ... ian-lilley
http://playbackonline.ca/2002/04/29/binch-20020429/
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... 22380.html
Guy in Whitehorse sues CBC for ruining reputation
http://whitehorsestar.com/News/man-chal ... gainst-cbc
CBC sued for defaming Adolescent Recovery Center
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_A ... ery_Centre
Peter Nygard has criminal investigation launched against CBC for basing a story on sources with no credibility.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/07/27/l ... for-nygard
CBC argues in guard that lying through selective offering of details is in the “public interest.”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/whatc ... ested-he-w
Graft Influencing Story
Globe and Mail on Amanda Lang story of selling influence to Royal Bank.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/tel ... e22603438/
Whitewash attempt on Amanda Lang story.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/03/09/a-bucket ... anda-lang/
Far left's Rabble.ca tells Amanda Lang story.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/progres ... rporate-me
More on Amanda Lang “positive coverage for speaking jobs” scandal. She also tried to sabotage negative stories from other reporters.
http://canadalandshow.com/article/amand ... o-paid-her
An action group speaks angry words concerning the Amanda Lang affair.
http://action.sumofus.org/a/amanda-lang-cbc/?
CBC journalist facilitated sales of art to wealthy Canadians he dealt with in his job — including one buyer who had no idea Solomon was collecting a commission.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/06 ... deals.html
Not news related, but graft, nepotism and influence peddling within CBC compared to Mike Duffy scandal.
http://cbcexposed.blogspot.ca/2015/04/e ... d-cbc.html
Questionable practices of anchors
Peter Mansbridge uses unnamed sources.
http://mediatrends-research.blogspot.ca ... f-cbc.html
CBC violating their own rules and broadcast act. Presenting online surveys without identifying allowing people to believe they are scientific.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/barry-kief ... 95146.html
CBC Ombudsman reply to complainant concerned that CBC repeated as true and accurate a story based entirely on anonymous sources, and on the work of another media organization’s work.
http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.c ... ournalism/
Corporation, JD Irving accuses CBC of making baseless allegations through insinuation.
http://canadalandshow.com/article/why-j ... onal-story
CBC Journalist fired for correcting an error.
http://canadalandshow.com/article/journ ... nada-story
Palestine
Bias in stories on Palestinians stabbing Israelis
http://www.honestreporting.ca/special-r ... elis/15604
CBC's Neil MacDonald well-known for animus against Israel. Alleges Israel will charge boycott Israel advocates. Has no evidence and Israel call it a “bizarre conspiracy theory”
http://www.honestreporting.ca/governmen ... eory/15212
CBC headline makes guilty sound innocent and innocent sound guilty by stressing one thing and ignoring other.
http://cbcexposed.blogspot.ca/2015/10/h ... bc-in.html
CBC gives credibility to biased organization making a comparison of Israel to Isis.
http://www.honestreporting.ca/cbc-gives ... acks/15794
CBC Ombudsman deals with selective reporting in how CBC reports the UN's Navi Pillay investigating reports of war crimes by Israel but not Hamas even though both are mentioned
http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.c ... -accurate/
CBC Ombudsman admits network used unclear ambiguous language to suggest Israel did not offer alternative to Iran deal.
http://www.honestreporting.ca/cbc-ombud ... deal/15151
CBC gets caught lying about Netanyahu again.
http://www.honestreporting.ca/hrc-promp ... tion/15100
raydan @ Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:32 pm
BartSimpson @ Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:37 pm
Helluva post, Fiddy! ![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
I guess the thing for me is that journalism, like climate science, is so corrupted by political agendas (left, right, insane) that it is no longer trustworthy.
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:57 am
Update
Most Canadians are skeptics, and CBC accidentally says so, then “edits” story
$1:
Oops! CBC (the Canadian version of the BBC and ABC) have been caught out editing a story to make it more politically correct. CBC’s political bias is accidentally on display. The original message revealed a sacred truth that must not be spoken. How would most Canadians feel about being forced to pay money to change the weather if they knew most other Canadians also thought it was a waste of billions? As far as I can tell, the updated version was a complete rewrite of the first half of the article. There appear to be a lot of changes.
The unsurprising news is that 56% of Canadians are skeptics – which is very similar to all other surveys which show that 62% of Brits are 62% skeptical. As are 54% of Australians. Fully third of the US are so skeptical they think it’s a total hoax.
The survey:
Is Earth getting warmer mostly because of human activities? 56% say NO.
Amazingly 39% of Canadians said the next question that they don’t think humans are even partially responsible.
Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities. 39% say NO.
So CBC initially wrote a headline which said this:
Climate change: Majority of Canadians don’t believe it’s caused by humans
But thou mayst never admit that skeptics are the majority lest the masses awaken. Groupthink is so influential! So the headline was rapidly changed to an ambiguous muddy wording:
Updated: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
The unsurprising news is that 56% of Canadians are skeptics – which is very similar to all other surveys which show that 62% of Brits are 62% skeptical. As are 54% of Australians. Fully third of the US are so skeptical they think it’s a total hoax.
The survey:
Is Earth getting warmer mostly because of human activities? 56% say NO.
Amazingly 39% of Canadians said the next question that they don’t think humans are even partially responsible.
Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities. 39% say NO.
So CBC initially wrote a headline which said this:
Climate change: Majority of Canadians don’t believe it’s caused by humans
But thou mayst never admit that skeptics are the majority lest the masses awaken. Groupthink is so influential! So the headline was rapidly changed to an ambiguous muddy wording:
Updated: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
CBC makes excuses you can find at article. Judge for yourself if they hold up.
Freakinoldguy @ Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:46 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Update
Most Canadians are skeptics, and CBC accidentally says so, then “edits” story
CBC makes excuses you can find at article. Judge for yourself if they hold up.
Most Canadians are skeptics, and CBC accidentally says so, then “edits” story
$1:
Oops! CBC (the Canadian version of the BBC and ABC) have been caught out editing a story to make it more politically correct. CBC’s political bias is accidentally on display. The original message revealed a sacred truth that must not be spoken. How would most Canadians feel about being forced to pay money to change the weather if they knew most other Canadians also thought it was a waste of billions? As far as I can tell, the updated version was a complete rewrite of the first half of the article. There appear to be a lot of changes.
The unsurprising news is that 56% of Canadians are skeptics – which is very similar to all other surveys which show that 62% of Brits are 62% skeptical. As are 54% of Australians. Fully third of the US are so skeptical they think it’s a total hoax.
The survey:
Is Earth getting warmer mostly because of human activities? 56% say NO.
Amazingly 39% of Canadians said the next question that they don’t think humans are even partially responsible.
Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities. 39% say NO.
So CBC initially wrote a headline which said this:
Climate change: Majority of Canadians don’t believe it’s caused by humans
But thou mayst never admit that skeptics are the majority lest the masses awaken. Groupthink is so influential! So the headline was rapidly changed to an ambiguous muddy wording:
Updated: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
The unsurprising news is that 56% of Canadians are skeptics – which is very similar to all other surveys which show that 62% of Brits are 62% skeptical. As are 54% of Australians. Fully third of the US are so skeptical they think it’s a total hoax.
The survey:
Is Earth getting warmer mostly because of human activities? 56% say NO.
Amazingly 39% of Canadians said the next question that they don’t think humans are even partially responsible.
Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities. 39% say NO.
So CBC initially wrote a headline which said this:
Climate change: Majority of Canadians don’t believe it’s caused by humans
But thou mayst never admit that skeptics are the majority lest the masses awaken. Groupthink is so influential! So the headline was rapidly changed to an ambiguous muddy wording:
Updated: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
CBC makes excuses you can find at article. Judge for yourself if they hold up.
The boy's (oh sorry, the non gender specific individuals) at Canada's version of "Central Television" are having a bad week aren't they.
Canada's network lying to the people it's supposed to be representing who would have thought.
It's time we pulled the plug on this giant manipulative shower because it isn't representing "ALL" Canadians by pushing it's and the Liberal Parties political and social agenda's.Disgusting.
BRAH @ Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:53 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Update
Most Canadians are skeptics, and CBC accidentally says so, then “edits” story
CBC makes excuses you can find at article. Judge for yourself if they hold up.
Most Canadians are skeptics, and CBC accidentally says so, then “edits” story
$1:
Oops! CBC (the Canadian version of the BBC and ABC) have been caught out editing a story to make it more politically correct. CBC’s political bias is accidentally on display. The original message revealed a sacred truth that must not be spoken. How would most Canadians feel about being forced to pay money to change the weather if they knew most other Canadians also thought it was a waste of billions? As far as I can tell, the updated version was a complete rewrite of the first half of the article. There appear to be a lot of changes.
The unsurprising news is that 56% of Canadians are skeptics – which is very similar to all other surveys which show that 62% of Brits are 62% skeptical. As are 54% of Australians. Fully third of the US are so skeptical they think it’s a total hoax.
The survey:
Is Earth getting warmer mostly because of human activities? 56% say NO.
Amazingly 39% of Canadians said the next question that they don’t think humans are even partially responsible.
Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities. 39% say NO.
So CBC initially wrote a headline which said this:
Climate change: Majority of Canadians don’t believe it’s caused by humans
But thou mayst never admit that skeptics are the majority lest the masses awaken. Groupthink is so influential! So the headline was rapidly changed to an ambiguous muddy wording:
Updated: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
The unsurprising news is that 56% of Canadians are skeptics – which is very similar to all other surveys which show that 62% of Brits are 62% skeptical. As are 54% of Australians. Fully third of the US are so skeptical they think it’s a total hoax.
The survey:
Is Earth getting warmer mostly because of human activities? 56% say NO.
Amazingly 39% of Canadians said the next question that they don’t think humans are even partially responsible.
Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities. 39% say NO.
So CBC initially wrote a headline which said this:
Climate change: Majority of Canadians don’t believe it’s caused by humans
But thou mayst never admit that skeptics are the majority lest the masses awaken. Groupthink is so influential! So the headline was rapidly changed to an ambiguous muddy wording:
Updated: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
CBC makes excuses you can find at article. Judge for yourself if they hold up.
The boy's (oh sorry, the non gender specific individuals) at Canada's version of "Central Television" are having a bad week aren't they.
Canada's network lying to the people it's supposed to be representing who would have thought.
It's time we pulled the plug on this giant manipulative shower because it isn't representing "ALL" Canadians by pushing it's and the Liberal Parties political and social agenda's.Disgusting.
The Fact Our Tax Dollars Pays This Loud Mouth Bitch's Salary Is Fucking Disgusting!
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:04 am
$1:
CBC argues in guard that lying through selective offering of details is in the “public interest.”
Hmmmm sounds suspiciously like state controlled media to me. Control the message, control the masses.Totalitarianism anyone?
herbie @ Sun Feb 28, 2016 1:40 pm
$1:
The Fact Our Tax Dollars Pays This Loud Mouth Bitch's Salary Is Fucking Disgusting!
The fact that anyone in Canada can see this on their TV without paying for cable, satellite or specialty channel fees is what makes this Canada. The fact you don't "get it" differentiates us from the US. Old enough to remember jokes like Pat Paulsen for President? Or how the mere fear of gov't regulatory reprisals made the private network that show was on cancel it?
The state doesn't control the message on CBC.
PluggyRug @ Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:00 pm
herbie herbie:
The state doesn't control the message on CBC.
Yes, but sometimes the message from the CBC attempts to control the state.
Freakinoldguy @ Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:24 pm
herbie herbie:
$1:
The Fact Our Tax Dollars Pays This Loud Mouth Bitch's Salary Is Fucking Disgusting!
The fact that anyone in Canada can see this on their TV without paying for cable, satellite or specialty channel fees is what makes this Canada. The fact you don't "get it" differentiates us from the US. Old enough to remember jokes like Pat Paulsen for President? Or how the mere fear of gov't regulatory reprisals made the private network that show was on cancel it?
The state doesn't control the message on CBC.
Sorry but that is utter bullshit. The idea of a radio and TV network for "all" Canadians may have been a great idea when it started but decades of political interference and nepotism have turned it into nothing more than a mouthpiece for the state.
$1:
1951
The Massey Commission tables its report. It recommends greater state involvement in nurturing cultural and intellectual programming and notes that because the radio spectrum is a public domain, it should continue to be controlled by the state. The commission also rejects the idea of an independent regulatory authority for all Canadian broadcasters. However, it does state that the services of private broadcasters are, like the CBC, good for the national interest and part of a "single system" of broadcasting. The commission also states that one major problem, the financial situation of the CBC, can be resolved by giving the Corporation more funds via a statutory grant. Regarding TV, the Massey Commission states it wants a system designed to serve "Canadian needs" and suggests that no private broadcasters be given licences until the CBC starts its own programming - effectively granting control of TV to the CBC. However, they also propose that Canadians adopt the technical television standards of the United States. This then allows Canadian households to pick up US broadcasting signals in addition to Canadian ones.
In accordance with the Massey Commission suggestions, the Broadcasting Act is amended so that the CBC can receive a statutory grant for five years.
The Massey Commission tables its report. It recommends greater state involvement in nurturing cultural and intellectual programming and notes that because the radio spectrum is a public domain, it should continue to be controlled by the state. The commission also rejects the idea of an independent regulatory authority for all Canadian broadcasters. However, it does state that the services of private broadcasters are, like the CBC, good for the national interest and part of a "single system" of broadcasting. The commission also states that one major problem, the financial situation of the CBC, can be resolved by giving the Corporation more funds via a statutory grant. Regarding TV, the Massey Commission states it wants a system designed to serve "Canadian needs" and suggests that no private broadcasters be given licences until the CBC starts its own programming - effectively granting control of TV to the CBC. However, they also propose that Canadians adopt the technical television standards of the United States. This then allows Canadian households to pick up US broadcasting signals in addition to Canadian ones.
In accordance with the Massey Commission suggestions, the Broadcasting Act is amended so that the CBC can receive a statutory grant for five years.
Well that and the Liberal Gov't giving them the mandate to license and regulate radio, television in Canada during it's formative years. But if anyone thinks it's only been the mouthpiece for the Liberals they'd be dead wrong. Although, the Liberals have quite obviously taken a page from the old Conservative Party when using the CRBC/CBC to further their political views.
$1:
1935
The CRBC again faces controversy during the 1935 federal elections when it is accused of being partisan in favour of the Conservatives after a series of unidentified paid political advertisements are broadcast.
1936
The New Liberal government is led by PM Mackenzie King who appoints C.D. Howe as the Minister responsible for broadcasting. In March, they set up a new parliamentary committee on radio broadcasting that looks into the overall performance of the CRBC.
On May 26th, the committee tables its report which reiterates much of the original Aird Report. It advocates: a) the creation of a national corporation to oversee public broadcasting; b) making this corporation the regulatory authority over broadcasting, and c) greater co-operation between this new public corporation and private radio stations
In June, Howe introduces new legislation to create a new broadcasting agency and dissolve the CRBC. The Canadian Broadcasting Act becomes law on June 23rd and creates the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, whose mandate is to establish "a national broadcasting service." The CBC becomes the pre-eminent radio broadcaster in Canada and has considerable regulatory powers. For example, the CBC is in charge of license renewals and private station set-ups and mergers. It is also responsible for producing and broadcasting programs. Its first General Manager is Gladstone Murray.
The CRBC again faces controversy during the 1935 federal elections when it is accused of being partisan in favour of the Conservatives after a series of unidentified paid political advertisements are broadcast.
1936
The New Liberal government is led by PM Mackenzie King who appoints C.D. Howe as the Minister responsible for broadcasting. In March, they set up a new parliamentary committee on radio broadcasting that looks into the overall performance of the CRBC.
On May 26th, the committee tables its report which reiterates much of the original Aird Report. It advocates: a) the creation of a national corporation to oversee public broadcasting; b) making this corporation the regulatory authority over broadcasting, and c) greater co-operation between this new public corporation and private radio stations
In June, Howe introduces new legislation to create a new broadcasting agency and dissolve the CRBC. The Canadian Broadcasting Act becomes law on June 23rd and creates the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, whose mandate is to establish "a national broadcasting service." The CBC becomes the pre-eminent radio broadcaster in Canada and has considerable regulatory powers. For example, the CBC is in charge of license renewals and private station set-ups and mergers. It is also responsible for producing and broadcasting programs. Its first General Manager is Gladstone Murray.
http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/inde ... ation.html
The CBC is a dinosaur that should have been turned into oil decades ago because it lost all it's objectivity and journalistic integrity in 1935 when they shilled for the Conservatives and that trend continues to this day.
herbie @ Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:51 pm
$1:
Sorry but that is utter bullshit. The idea of a TV network for "all" Canadians may have been a great idea when it started but decades of political interference and nepotism have turned it into nothing more than a mouthpiece for the state.
What a total load of shit. You don't like it because it isn't, wasn't and wont be.
2Cdo @ Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:51 pm
herbie herbie:
$1:
Sorry but that is utter bullshit. The idea of a TV network for "all" Canadians may have been a great idea when it started but decades of political interference and nepotism have turned it into nothing more than a mouthpiece for the state.
What a total load of shit. You don't like it because it isn't, wasn't and wont be.
I don't like it because it's shit programming followed by shit newscasts and it pretends it's what Canadians want. This Canadian, and many more, just wishes it would sink or swim without sucking on the public teat.
Those who rave about it's excellent programming surely wouldn't mind paying a little more to keep it going.
Thanos @ Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:28 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
herbie herbie:
The state doesn't control the message on CBC.
Sorry but that is utter bullshit. The idea of a radio and TV network for "all" Canadians may have been a great idea when it started but decades of political interference and nepotism have turned it into nothing more than a mouthpiece for the state.
It isn't as much a mouthpiece for the state as much as it is specifically an organ for the Liberal Party and, to a lesser extent, the NDP.
Freakinoldguy @ Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:11 am
herbie herbie:
$1:
Sorry but that is utter bullshit. The idea of a TV network for "all" Canadians may have been a great idea when it started but decades of political interference and nepotism have turned it into nothing more than a mouthpiece for the state.
What a total load of shit. You don't like it because it isn't, wasn't and wont be.
You're absolutely correct.
So isn't it time to cut the bullshit and stop trying to convince the masses that it's a network for all Canadians because as it stands now it's nothing more than a money pit which shills for the Liberal Gov't of the day and has since the Mackenzie King administration.