Jump to content

CBC ??


Jaydee
 Share

Recommended Posts

So this is what our tax dollars are being spent on….Justin Trudeaus favourite network 

 

CBC features author who writes about blowing up and gassing white people during 'race war'

The CBC invited an author who wrote about "detonating" white people, while "the exits are locked and the air vents [are] filled with gas" to be interviewed on their flagship arts program.

 

The CBC host then explained that she was Jewish, but apologized to the author (?)that his experience of the world made him feel this way.

Ben Philippe appeared on Q where he discussed his newest book and racial issues in North America.

During this program, an excerpt from his book was read where he considered what his actions would be in a race war.

"When this race war hits its crescendo. I'll gather you all into a beautifully decorated room under the pretense of unity. I'll give a speech to civility and all the good times we share; I'll smile as we raise glasses to your good, white health, while the detonator blinks under the table, knowing the exits are locked and the air vents filled with gas."

Q is the highest-rated show in its time slot in CBC history and is known for generating a younger audience. Q was hosted by Jian Ghomeshi until he was accused of sexual misconductin 2014.

Philippe's new book (the one with the excerpt about gassing white people) is called "Sure, I'll be your Black Friend."

The CBC host asked the author about his imagined race war. In his book, the host said that Philippe asked "what would happen if there was a race war and what side you would be on. And you took it to a place that I found really shocking," she said.

https://thepostmillennial.com/cbc-features-author-who-writes-about-detonating-and-gassing-white-people-during-race-war?fbclid=IwAR3q3N_c1VJ89C6i1R315iyg4iIbrGb8HesOYnFzu1p5ZSdA2_GV7EkNAPY

 

 

5417261C-BE78-4966-81C8-EEB91E197676.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2021 at 5:33 PM, Jaydee said:

The CBC invited an author who wrote about "detonating" white people, while "the exits are locked and the air vents [are] filled with gas" to be interviewed on their flagship arts program.

CBC quietly deletes interview with author who wrote about bombing and gassing white people in a race war

92A9D859-CC70-4190-9DBC-72A41C5969D7.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 Many have said that the CBC's lawsuit against a political party shows that the bias against the Conservatives makes it so that "it isn't just perceived anymore."

"Not only does the lawsuit fuel perceptions of bias, but it causes enormous damage to CBC journalists – Rosemary Barton and John Paul Tasker – who are both named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit," wrote Canadian academic Michael Geist.

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2019/10/what-was-the-cbc-thinking-a-closer-look-at-the-clips-in-its-copyright-lawsuit-against-the-conservative-party/

094D2FBA-8041-40C9-BF40-4110BF7286AA.jpeg

9FBF4BAF-ECE6-4060-ABB7-81AD157C4E22.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBC loses farcical lawsuit against the Conservatives, but secular moralizing will continue

CBC lost a court case yesterday. But, apart from possibly having to pay costs, it doesn’t matter. Not one bit.

For the few who have happily forgotten about the affair, its key points were that CBC management and their chief correspondent (named in the suit originally, but after very predictable embarrassments, her name was removed) sued one of Canada’s two main parties.

(To make matters worse, CBC listed their then lead anchor Rosemary Barton and reporter John Paul Tasker as applicants in the court filing, something they later withdrew.) 

To end your suspense, it was the Conservatives. Startling, I know.

They sued, even more startling, and this time I’m not being sarcastic, during a federal election.

Pause on that one. In the middle of an election campaign, Canada’s main broadcaster (cue laugh track) launched a public lawsuit against one of the two main contending parties. And inserted the name of their chief correspondent into the suit.

This was farcical on the face of it. You do not send out your reporters in the morning to cover a politician, and then send out your lawyers in the afternoon to harass him in court. It goes against — what is that term? — the doctrine of impartiality in news coverage.

 

They sued because the Conservatives used a fragment of a news item in one of their election ads. Political parties have been using quotes and film clips almost as long as they have been making promises and breaking them.

CBC could have saved themselves a lot of mockery by consulting one of the many splendid technicians, any camera operator, editor or even the security staff. For it is my experience that there is a lot more wisdom, or if not wisdom, common sense in the people off-camera than there is in any of the higher offices and endless meeting rooms where the putative “big brains” plot the next version of CBC news — its various reimaginings, restructurings or reinventions.

Reimagining the CBC is close to a hobby with this crowd. If they actually tried to make the one they already have, the CBC that is already there, really do its job, push its reporters to get out of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto more, engage with the whole country it is mandated to report on, perhaps there wouldn’t be time for useless and dumb lawsuits. Or dragging its current president in all the way from New York for yet another “Plotting a New Course for CBC News” seminar.

The main argument CBC put up, and argument in this context is a charity word, was that they launched the suit “to protect the trust Canadians have in the independence of their public broadcaster?”

Well, that’s a whole lot of icing for very little cake. If trust can be measured by ratings, Canadians are not nearly as saturated by trust in the independence of their public broadcaster as that statement presupposes. Indeed, to choose a neutral term, very many Canadians see the CBC as tendentious, absorbed in social justice issues to the exclusion of other equal concerns, as too focussed on the centre of the country, and in particular Toronto-centric to an unfathomable degree.

In particular, I would argue the CBC in these latter days seems to think its “mission” is not to report on Canada, but to improve it. There is a high degree of what I’ll call secular moralizing that drives their news selection, and that moralizing enters the reporting itself.

Rather than hiving off to the courts when the sensibilities of management are dented, they might try to strip off a layer of the righteousness of their attitude to what news is and should be, stop supporting causes and instead report on them in depth. And while they are at it leave all the American political stories, from judicial nominations, to the “insurrection” in Washington, and anything wildly anti-Trump (recall the interviews with the one-time, Trump-slayer Michael Avenatti’) — leave all those stories to the Americans.

Will Thursday’s judgement change anything? No. Not a chance. The organism in question here has grown too sluggish and self-absorbed. And the evidence for that is in the news that they may appeal the decision.

Before they actually make that choice, have someone upstairs in their great building talk to someone, anyone — sound engineer, cameraman — it doesn’t matter, working in the offices below. He or she will, in full exasperation, advise against it.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-3?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1zU7ujORNGMMTVHMGbNGUkI9sNqXe0RAc5Rye0AfpzmD_W6Ln76Fey0es#Echobox=1621073267

Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rex Murphy: CBC loses farcical lawsuit against the Conservatives, but secular moralizing will continue
Rex Murphy  16 hrs ago

CBC lost a court case yesterday. But, apart from possibly having to pay costs, it doesn’t matter. Not one bit.

For the few who have happily forgotten about the affair, its key points were that CBC management and their chief correspondent (named in the suit originally, but after very predictable embarrassments, her name was removed) sued one of Canada’s two main parties.

To end your suspense, it was the Conservatives. Startling, I know.

They sued, even more startling, and this time I’m not being sarcastic, during a federal election.

Pause on that one. In the middle of an election campaign, Canada’s main broadcaster (cue laugh track) launched a public lawsuit against one of the two main contending parties. And inserted the name of their chief correspondent into the suit.

This was farcical on the face of it. You do not send out your reporters in the morning to cover a politician, and then send out your lawyers in the afternoon to harass him in court. It goes against — what is that term? — the doctrine of impartiality in news coverage.

They sued because the Conservatives used a fragment of a news item in one of their election ads. Political parties have been using quotes and film clips almost as long as they have been making promises and breaking them.

CBC could have saved themselves a lot of mockery by consulting one of the many splendid technicians, any camera operator, editor or even the security staff. For it is my experience that there is a lot more wisdom, or if not wisdom, common sense in the people off-camera than there is in any of the higher offices and endless meeting rooms where the putative “big brains” plot the next version of CBC news — its various reimaginings, restructurings or reinventions.

Reimagining the CBC is close to a hobby with this crowd. If they actually tried to make the one they already have, the CBC that is already there, really do its job, push its reporters to get out of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto more, engage with the whole country it is mandated to report on, perhaps there wouldn’t be time for useless and dumb lawsuits. Or dragging its current president in all the way from New York for yet another “Plotting a New Course for CBC News” seminar.

The main argument CBC put up, and argument in this context is a charity word, was that they launched the suit “to protect the trust Canadians have in the independence of their public broadcaster?”

Well, that’s a whole lot of icing for very little cake. If trust can be measured by ratings, Canadians are not nearly as saturated by trust in the independence of their public broadcaster as that statement presupposes. Indeed, to choose a neutral term, very many Canadians see the CBC as tendentious, absorbed in social justice issues to the exclusion of other equal concerns, as too focussed on the centre of the country, and in particular Toronto-centric to an unfathomable degree.

In particular, I would argue the CBC in these latter days seems to think its “mission” is not to report on Canada, but to improve it. There is a high degree of what I’ll call secular moralizing that drives their news selection, and that moralizing enters the reporting itself.

Rather than hiving off to the courts when the sensibilities of management are dented, they might try to strip off a layer of the righteousness of their attitude to what news is and should be, stop supporting causes and instead report on them in depth. And while they are at it leave all the American political stories, from judicial nominations, to the “insurrection” in Washington, and anything wildly anti-Trump (recall the interviews with the one-time, Trump-slayer Michael Avenatti’) — leave all those stories to the Americans.

Will Thursday’s judgement change anything? No. Not a chance. The organism in question here has grown too sluggish and self-absorbed. And the evidence for that is in the news that they may appeal the decision.

Before they actually make that choice, have someone upstairs in their great building talk to someone, anyone — sound engineer, cameraman — it doesn’t matter, working in the offices below. He or she will, in full exasperation, advise against it.

image.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kargokings said:

CBC could have saved themselves a lot of mockery

Actually, I'm glad to see this is now recognized for the absurdity that it is and always was. 

Perhaps in the fullness of time, the buffoonery that passes as current events will suffer the same fate. Future generations will reflect on the fact that advanced math was considered racist and not permitted prior to grade 11, and that sheet music, milk and even trees were the domain of racists.

Essays will be titled "The  age of Hysterical Buffoonery."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 8:07 PM, Kargokings said:

The main argument CBC put up, and argument in this context is a charity word, was that they launched the suit “to protect the trust Canadians have in the independence of their public broadcaster?”

That ship had already sailed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...