1  2  3  4  5 ... 8  Next

Fair and balanced?
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN July 27, 2005



How fried does the corporate brain of the CBC have to be to issue a memo like the following one to its news staff a couple of days after the first round of terrorist bombings in London?

Distributed to staff at cbc.ca, after some poor worker bee made the egregious error of referring to the London transit bombings as "terror attacks" -- which the CBC later went in and retroactively changed to "attacks" in the best traditions of the Ministry of Truth in 1984 -- it reads in part:

"'Terrorist' and 'terrorism': use extreme caution before using either word ... Rather than calling assailants 'terrorists', we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group (my italics)), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun."

Now, it's not even the CBC's policy of refusing to call "terrorists" and "terrorism" terrorists and terrorism because it would be "taking sides" (!?) that's the most ludicrous thing here.

While absurd, that's been CBC practice for years, frequently defended by CBC News editor-in-chief Tony Burman, who's also quoted in the memo. Like the BBC and Reuters, the CBC refuses to call "terrorism" terrorism unless it's attributed to a third party, or contained is a direct quote.

But to me, it's the added warning from the CBC that, before using a word like "gunmen" to describe terrorists, CBC staffers must first ensure that "no women were in the group" that places this policy firmly into the realm of Brave New World.

I mean, how far jammed up your own politically correct butt do you have to be not to realize how stupid that sounds?

What's the CBC's big concern here -- that using the term "gunmen" as a substitute for "terrorists" might offend any female "gunpersons" in the group? Surely, it's not a concern about accuracy, because if the CBC was concerned about accuracy , it wouldn't issue orders not to call terrorists ... let's see ... what's the word I'm looking for here? ... oh, yeah ... TERRORISTS.

And in case the CBC hasn't noticed, most terrorists these days aren't "gunmen" or "gunpersons" anyway, but "bombers" which -- oh, happy day -- just happens to be gender neutral, although in fact the bombers are overwhelmingly men.

Surely, all this nonsense must drive any sane staffers still left at the CBC nuts. Can you imagine having to deal with this Kafka-esque drivel while you're reporting on a terrorist attack?

Personally, I think it would help us all if the CBC gave present and future employees a multiple choice quiz to determine whether they are ideologically suited to working at our tax-funded broadcaster.

This so their heads won't explode in the middle of a news report where they're frantically trying not to say "terrorism" to describe terrorism. I suggest the following questions for weeding out anyone who lacks that tiresomely predictable CBC world view.

Ready? Here we go:

(1) The most dangerous nation in the Mideast today is:

(a) Israel (b) Israel (c) Israel (d) Israel.

(2) Canada's most dangerous religious fanatic is:

(a) Stockwell Day (b) Stockwell Day (c) Stockwell Day (d) Stockwell Day.

(3) The most dangerous media outlet/website in Canada is:

(a) The National Post (b) The Toronto Sun (c) CBC Watch (d) Norman Spector.

(4) Given that Osama bin Laden is not a terrorist is he:

(a) a "militant" (b) an "extremist" (c) a "gunman" (d) the "inevitable result of the foreign policies of The Great Satan."

(5) Given that the term "gunmen" could be offensive to non-male "gunpersons", what should the new name of CBC News editor-in-chief Tony Burman be, given that his surname could be offensive to non-male CBC staffers and to our audience:

(a) Tony Bur (b) He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken (c) The Great Leader (d) The Dear Leader (e) The Thought Police.

(6) Given that the term "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" could be offensive to non-male CBC staffers and to our audience, what should the new name of the CBC be:

(a) Big Brother (b) Pravda (c) Anti-Fox News (d) Al Jazeera.

If you answered a, b, c, d or e to the above questions, congratulations. How could the CBC not hire you?



The Sun

   

   

I don't see what your boner is this time, whackjob. Can't stand a little freedom of the press? Go againts all your right-wing values?

   

It's avoiding the truth. These anal ostriches are so PC that it defies comprehension. What's next "disgruntled individuals"? Militant is a term that should only be used when they are solely attacking military targets. When they attack civilians, they are terrorist criminals, murderers, vermin, scum, Spawns of Satan, pieces of shit, etc.

   

Not calling a terrorist a terrorist is insane. This is not about 'freedom of the press' it is about the brainwashing of the masses.

In your case it would seem that it has been successful.

Or do you posit that a terrorist is not a terrorist?

   

I wonder how these fools would define "loyal Canadian"?

I'm sure this would be good.

Not.

   

Brainwashing? It's not like people at home are going watching the news and they say "Recently, a bomber attacked and killed X people at X subway station." and people go "Oh good, it's just a bomber. Nothing to worry about."

I don't see the big deal here...

   

As I said...

   

Well then, O enlightened one, explain to us lesser mortals.

   

Joe Shmoe, a disgruntled employee, goes off the deepend and decides to kill his former co workers for real or percieved slights. They're dead, it's a tragedy. Armed group plans to blow up a school full of children, who have nothing to do with their cause, to further their political or religious agenda. The purpose of this attack is forment social chaos. That my young friend is terrorism.

   

Aye, and calling it what you will doesn't change that. Calling it a bombing and calling it a terrorist attack has become, over time, the exact same thing to the viewers at home, and I don't think because they don't want to just call it terrorism (Considering there is a POSSIBILITY, however slight, that an attack was not aimed at the populace but at a leader or somthing of that nature) because they may suffer later for branding somthing to quickly, I don't see a reason to get a boner over it.

   

Since you believe in freedom of the press so much Hoser I guess you're pulling for the privatization of the CBC? I really don't think that a state-run media outlet is too free. Canadians across the country pay way to much for a network which spews anti-american and liberal rhetoric, and stunts like this alienate, and even offend, many Canadians.

   

Ohh. I want to discuss that more but the CBC Radio is doing a special on Literary critics of the 16th century and I just can't miss that.
What a joke!

   

   

Politically correct weenie boys suck harder.

   

1  2  3  4  5 ... 8  Next