See the "Jack Dennett" thread for a more fulsome discussion of this issue. Note also that this article comes from the New York Post, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is certainly no stranger to having his publications and other media outlets described as "shit".

paterson1 wrote:

BBC, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), and other public broadcasters have the same policy.  Canadian Press and Associated Press may as well.  So this isn't a "Canadian" or "CBC" editorial policy like some have tried to present it.  BBC video from the Jack Dennett thread explains the reasoning. 

Dennett used the term terrorist. 

cash wrote:

https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/cbc-instructs-journalists-not-to-refer-to-hamas-as-terrorists/

I won't defend the CBC, but consider the source of this story:
Don't trust the NY Post for accuracy or context in it's stories.    Best check another source to verify the full claim in context and content.
 I posted this in another thread, you can see for your self by clicking the link below.

"The NY Post is a sensationalist tabloid with a mixed credibility (factual reporting) rating according to Media Bias Fact Check.   That means they're not much of a reliable news source.    I'll give an example of their coverage of the Residential School graves where they laid claim that there were no bodies recovered from the mass graves (there were no 'mass graves', they were 'unmarked graves') and proceeded to find quotes from idiots in Canada who have constantly denied it even happened.   So take what the NY Post says with a grain of salt because they tend to miss facts, context and nuance in their stories to fit their political agenda.   It never hurts to vet sources if the claims sound over the top or sensationalized.   They're a perfect example."


There's plenty of examples of the NY Post's innacurate and false reporting at Media Bias Fact Check's website.  Link provided.
 

Last edited by SpinningWheel (October 12, 2023 7:47 am)

"Why some think the CBC is shit"

Some think the Earth is flat.

cash wrote:

https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/cbc-instructs-journalists-not-to-refer-to-hamas-as-terrorists/

in other NY Post news .. tis National Enquirer territory  https://nypost.com/ 
-Bigfoot 'spotted' in broad daylight — and it's all on camera: 'We're convinced'
-Trump attacks Israel's Netanyahu, praises 'very smart' Iran-backed Hezbollah 
-Vested interest Will & Jada pretend to be straight shooters—but only when they can profit from it
-American fugitive who faked his death to avoid charges arrested over 2017 rape after UK agreed to extradite to US 
-I spent $5K marrying myself in Mexico — trolls say I'm 'crazy' but I don't care 
-Low spirits Caught-on-camera ‘paranormal’ activity terrorizes family: ‘We are not gonna let this thing run our lives’ 
-Woman claims airline called her 'unfit' to fly for sweating 
-Huge ‘Godzilla’ lizard terrorizes 7-Eleven as it climbs up walls, invades fridges

For some reason, the late Mark Dailey was a huge Rush Limbaugh fan. I once spotted a News Of The World Weekly newspaper in a grocery checkout line that had an obviously fake pic of the late radio host shaking hands with an E.T., and a headline that read "Rush Limbaugh Meets Space Alien."

It's the only time in my life I ever bought a copy of that rag, but I had to give it to him. He laughed out loud and thought it was ridiculous, and he later told me he took it home and framed the cover on his wall.

The only other time I gave him something similar was a poster I found for a terribly obscure and awful film called "Maniac Cop." The tagline was "You have the right to remain silent - forever!" I think that went on the wall, too. 

What a terrific guy he was. 

DX wrote:

SpinningWheel wrote:

cash wrote:

https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/cbc-instructs-journalists-not-to-refer-to-hamas-as-terrorists/

I won't defend the CBC, but consider the source of this story:
Don't trust the NY Post for accuracy or context in it's stories.    Best check another source to verify the full claim in context and content.
 I posted this in another thread, you can see for your self by clicking the link below.

"The NY Post is a sensationalist tabloid with a mixed credibility (factual reporting) rating according to Media Bias Fact Check.   That means they're not much of a reliable news source.    I'll give an example of their coverage of the Residential School graves where they laid claim that there were no bodies recovered from the mass graves (there were no 'mass graves', they were 'unmarked graves') and proceeded to find quotes from idiots in Canada who have constantly denied it even happened.   So take what the NY Post says with a grain of salt because they tend to miss facts, context and nuance in their stories to fit their political agenda.   It never hurts to vet sources if the claims sound over the top or sensationalized.   They're a perfect example."


There's plenty of examples of the NY Post's innacurate and false reporting at Media Bias Fact Check's website.  Link provided.
 

So you are completely denying that George Achi, the director of journalistic standards for CBC, wrote an email to employees on Saturday instructing them not to use the terrorist term in stories and you have 100 per cent proof from Achi or someone else at the CBC that there is no such edict at the CBC?

I think he’s denying that it’s a big deal. I would agree. The facts matter. Labels don’t. An attack or a terrorist attack doesn’t make much difference if you accurately and thoroughly report everything that happened. For example 9/11 Attacks or the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks. Is there much difference between those two labels? Not if you include all of the context which the CBC did in its reporting about the Hamas (terrorist) attacks.

Last edited by Tomas Barlow (October 14, 2023 8:04 pm)

alangee wrote:

Tomas Barlow wrote:

I think he’s denying that it’s a big deal. I would agree. The facts matter. Labels don’t. An attack or a terrorist attack doesn’t make much difference if you accurately and thoroughly report everything that happened. For example 9/11 Attacks or the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks. Is there much difference between those two labels? Not if you include all of the context which the CBC did in its reporting about the Hamas (terrorist) attacks.

But it is a big deal especially when the news is so slanted. It seems like everyone is blaming Israel for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and all but ignoring the Hamas doesn't give a damn about it's own people, the Palestinians who elected them into power. Trust me, I am no zionist by any means, but I am appalled at what is called news when it stoops to sanitize language so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. It was a terrorist attack carried out by terrorists and not by poor misguided individuals with low self-esteem who's only outlet is slicing heads off people and killing babies and other atrocities that even animals would not carry out.

 

I don't see many news outlets trying not to hurt people's feelings.  I think more of that would be a good thing, especially in the US.  Straight facts without labelling the other side racists, terrorists, nazis, pedophiles, traitors, criminals, etc, would be fine by me.  You don't have to call Trump a crook right after you showed me evidence that he committed fraud.  I'm fully capable of forming my own opinion based on the reporting, provided it's acurate.

Tomas Barlow wrote:

I don't see many news outlets trying not to hurt people's feelings.  I think more of that would be a good thing, especially in the US.  Straight facts without labelling the other side racists, terrorists, nazis, pedophiles, traitors, criminals, etc, would be fine by me.  You don't have to call Trump a crook right after you showed me evidence that he committed fraud.  I'm fully capable of forming my own opinion based on the reporting, provided it's acurate.

Maybe we should just ban adjectives and adverbs in journalism as they are generally relative or based on an opinion.

I almost hate to bring this up again, it's so divisive, but when the head of the CBC is summoned to a House of Commons Committee to testify about the use of the "terrorist" word - among other issues - it's tough to ignore. 

Catherine Tait is due to be grilled by politicians on November 2nd and the CBC's coverage of the Israel-Hamas war is certain to be one of the topics. 

But as the linked article notes, getting to this point was not easy. 

Commons committee gets heated as MPs spar over CBC's coverage of Israel-Hamas conflict

Much as I'm not a fan of the CBC, you'd think our elected representatives would have better things to worry about.  

RadioActive wrote:

Much as I'm not a fan of the CBC, you'd think our elected representatives would have better things to worry about.  

Let's be clear, it's not "our elected representatives" as a group. It's about a bunch of Tory MPs who simply want to grandstand in front of the camera, berating someone they don't like, for the purpose of getting video clips that they can use to rage-farm on social media. 

On a positive note, I was actually able to watch an hour of TV this evening without seeing PeePee's odious mug or the ridiculous scare-mongering ads of the Alberta government. Perhaps there's hope yet.
 

mic'em wrote:

This entire thread is shit. Lots of political forums, why don't you guys go to one. 

Hear hear!

I'm one of the few people here who doesn't think the CBC is evil, but this one bugs me without having seen the piece.  Buffy Sainte-Marie has always been very open about who she is, who she isn't and who she might be.
This kind of nonsense has to stop.  Has she been a net positive or negative to indigenous people in Canada?  I think the answer is obvious.  However, I will give the CBC credit for posting an unflattering Canadian Press story about itself.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/buffy-sainte-marie-indigenous-identity-1.7009303
 

Last edited by Tomas Barlow (October 26, 2023 11:20 pm)