A pair of Conservative MPs will try to compel a CBC executive and a journalism standards director to appear before a House of Commons committee to defend the company’s language guide — which discourages the use of the words “terrorism” and “terrorists” when describing attacks and their perpetrators.
This is the entire problem that the right has with the CBC wrapped up in a tidy package. It is centrist, slightly left biased, highly factual, professional journalism. The CBC is internationally respected. The right hates that. The right hates the truth. The right hates neutrality. The only reason the CBC is seen as left biased is that the extreme right has pulled the center to the the right. They can’t force the CBC to become a right wing propaganda network like Fox “News” so they want to destroy it.
When your voter base is used to the Toronto Sun, with a page-one dominated by headlines like “TEEN KILLED BY PERV TOT!” in 72-point bold type (followed by the obligatory T&A on page three), it makes standards seem like “bias”.
True.
BBC put out a good article recently explaining the rationale: Why BBC doesn’t call Hamas militants ‘terrorists’
Fuck Conservatives, and fuck Israel too while we’re at it.
I get condemned when i say “fuck israel”. But Fuck Israel.
Hating on an apartheid gov’t isn’t wrong.
Someone else twisting that into the argument that you’re promoting antisemitism is wrong.
The BBC has a similar policy against the word Terrorism. It’s a significant point for impartiality that they preserve a neutral point of view; and have for decades.
Can the conservatives please deliver a mathematically sound, coherent plan for managing Canada, or are they really going to potentially win on a “hair guy sucks” platform?
It is gonna be the second one and you know it.
deleted by creator
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit
That’s great that these MPs want to educate themselves. They could learn a lot. By “compel” I’m sure they mean something like “inspire” these people to come and share their experience and research with them in a respectful philosophical exchange. And by “defend” they are probably thinking of the clever Socratic traditions of inquiry.
They are constantly annoyed by CBC being impartial, this isn’t new
I’m glad they’re on top of what’s important to us!
/s
“It is worth remembering that the independence of CBC/Radio-Canada’s journalism from the government and Parliament is protected in law, in the Broadcasting Act,” Mar said.
Sure, there have been a few incidents proving the contrary.
Lantsman said the CBC doesn’t have “journalistic integrity” because “if you can’t call people who murder the elderly, kidnap children, rape women and kill entire families terrorists, then I don’t think it’s worth funding.”
If you force them to change their language rules, is that giving them more integrity.
This isn’t their first rodeo over this question…
https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/ombudsman/reviews/use-of-the-word-terrorist
Also, by those standards, they’d have to call the CPC’s base - and likely some oft heir MPs - terrorists, and I doubt they’ll like that.
