CBC’s Discretionary Journalism
January 19, 2007 · By Kelly T Konechny
The big red phone that sits next to the CBC Ombudsman must have a problem with it. By all accounts, that phone should be ringing off the hook. But it seems more like a disconnected line.
The CBC in its journey to bring one side of the world’s events into Canadian homes every night, has chosen to remain absent on a piece of Canadian news. As with any ‘would be’, try as they might, national conscious, the CBC has had a moment of disregard in the latest flare up of the FLQ.
CTV, Global and many other news organizations are reporting on a new threat of attacks by the authors of the 1970 October Crisis, the FLQ. The FLQ has promised, in a couple of letters now, to begin on February 15th and states, “it’s possible there will be injuries and deaths”. The latest letter goes on to mention that targets will be crowded shopping malls, bridges, rail lines, airport facilities, water supplies, municipal buildings and service stations in largely English-speaking parts of Montreal.
Perhaps the threat isn’t as serious as the latest stumble of the current government’s green plan that tops the National tonight. But for all those that cry the fair and balanced broadcaster looks both ways before reporting on the street, what say you now?
The Canadian audience the CBC so vigorously says it represents receives what true state-run television provides. A state-determined perspective of the nation. Why?
For the same reason they have yet to report on China’s weaponization of space, they are the propaganda arm of the Liberals and defenders of the idea conservatism and democracy are bad for the unwashed masses.
They are not refered to as the communist broadcasting corp for nothing.
I think I know what the problem is here. Because they were one of the first to report on it, you missed it.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story.....etter.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montr.....etter.html
Quid pro quo, doctor K.
For all those that cry the CBC is a state-run “look one way” sham, what say you now?
For heaven’s sake… don’t get water up your nose!
BTW - A correction or redaction would likely be in order here, yes?
Good to have you knee deep in the conversation Scott, and good catch.
The article which you mention is not a CBC written story, they inserted a CP story. They did however make CBC edits to it, such as “terrorist = militant”. So good on them. Still state driven ideas through a state driven mechanism.
Actually that should be the correction in my posting. It’s not state driven, because the Tories are the current government and not in line with the CBC’s views and ideas. So, a group of people who undermine the government through direct and indirect means, perhaps militant driven would best suit the CBC’s personality? I’ll let you check into that one!
Thanks again for pointing out the miss. Stay in the conversation, it’s good to have you here.
Thanks Kelly. It isn’t much of a catch though. It was all over 990 two days ago.
I’ve often wondered why it isn’t a mandate of self-avowed “CBC Watchers” to actually, you know, watch CBC!
At least they didn’t call them “so-called” militants. That really would have kept our PM busy choosing his words for his next news conference.
BTW, I had to defend you at Canadian Cynic again today. Now I’ll suffer the wrath of the spear-chuckers there!
No redaction, huh? That’s a little disappointing.
Please don’t feel the need to step in front of any toys trucks that come pushed in my direction from other bloggers.
You’ve been an active commenter here Scott. It’s time to put aside the ease of playing the back-end of the conversation and laying out Seth MacFarlane-isms, don’t you think?
What’s the new blog address? I promise to subscribe.
I don’t mean to play the back end, as you say, and I’m sorry if it comes across that way.
It’s really difficult, however, to say much more on this subject, as the premise of the post has been shown to be factually vacuous.
I don’t have a blog, so I’m not sure on etiquette. However, I have seen many popular bloggers admit when they have posted something that turns out the be inconsistent with facts, and redact accordingly. While obviously a personal decision, I believe it has a significant impact on the credibility of the author.
Knowing you as I do, I guess that’s why I find your decision not to correct so puzzling.
As I mentioned, I don’t have a blog, but if I get one, I’ll certainly let you know.
CBCÂ’s Discretionary Journalism 20-01-07, 1:29 pm @ The Politic
[...] well, apparently, you’re screwed.ThePolitic’s Kelly T. Konechny is terribly, terribly upset over ideological bias in the mainstream media. No. Really.Jarrett meets reality, and recognizes it for a change.A Jarrett two-fer in which [...]