MP files complaint with CBC over article on Canada's mass shooters


taxslave
#2
CBC journalists must not express their own opinion when it is opposite of the party line.
 
Danbones
#3
did he mention anti depressants?
or false flags?
no...
The reporter did mention the word christian - rightly or wrongly - a sacred cow
oh the horror
 
taxslave
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by DanbonesView Post

did he mention anti depressants?
or false flags?
no...
The reporter did mention the word christian - rightly or wrongly - a sacred cow
oh the horror

How does he know the killer isn't muslim?
 
Cannuck
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by DanbonesView Post

did he mention anti depressants?
or false flags?

No, he's not a moron.
 
Corduroy
+2
#6  Top Rated Post
Suddenly this Conservative MP cares about commentators giving inflammatory and uninformed opinions about a religious group.
 
Murphy
+2
#7
There was a time when aspiring journalists were taught not to introduce personal opinions into any writing. Report the news. Do not attempt to influence it. Field no opinions. The only staffer who was allowed that privilege was the editor.

I think this is even more important today than in years past. Instant communication leaves too many unanswered questions. Journalists are rarely able to accurately come to truthful, unbiased conclusions.
 
Corduroy
+1
#8
The article in question is specifically an opinion piece and the author is an opinion columnist.
 
Cannuck
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

Suddenly this Conservative MP cares about commentators giving inflammatory and uninformed opinions about a religious group.

Social conservatives practically invented hypocrisy
 
Corduroy
#10
They made it into a sacrament.
 
Murphy
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

The article in question is specifically an opinion piece and the author is an opinion columnist.

I realize that, but opinion pieces used to be the exclusive domain of the editor. There are too many opinion columnists now.

Too many opinion columns, many of which are written by unqualified people. When you have opinions expressed by employees of a newspaper or television broadcasting company, facts can become buried under personal prejudices or misinterpretations.

We see this when people like Peter Mansbridge ask questions similar to, "What is the reason, do you think, for the attacks? Is there an explanation?"

There is a potential problem there: the journalist might introduce his or her own feelings about an event. It's all in the phrasing.

News is about reporting what is, or has happened. Just the facts. They can be analyzed by qualified individuals later. For now, tell us what happened. Save the "in depth analysis" for the credentialed people.
 
lone wolf
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

The article in question is specifically an opinion piece and the author is an opinion columnist.

...as if that matters when it fits into an ammo tray
 
Corduroy
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

I realize that, but opinion pieces used to be the exclusive domain of the editor.

When was this the case? I think that you'll find that your image of journalistic integrity is mythology. Journalism has never had the neutrality and objectivity you imagine and opinion columnists have long existed.
 
Decapoda
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

Suddenly this Conservative MP cares about commentators giving inflammatory and uninformed opinions about a religious group.

So...is it right or wrong to give inflammatory and uninformed opinions based on religion or skin colour? It can't be both. You're okay with bigotry I take it.
 
Jinentonix
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Social conservatives practically invented hypocrisy

And neo-liberal proggies turned into an art form.
 
taxslave
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by DecapodaView Post

So...is it right or wrong to give inflammatory and uninformed opinions based on religion or skin colour? It can't be both. You're okay with bigotry I take it.

Only when practiced by her side. Cause after all it is only an opinion you know.
 
Decapoda
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Social conservatives practically invented hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is condemning a person of a certain political leaning of an action while accepting the same action of a person of a different political leaning. Do you condemn it or do you accept it?
 
Corduroy
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by DecapodaView Post

So...is it right or wrong to give inflammatory and uninformed opinions based on religion or skin colour?

It's wrong.
 
Cannuck
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by DecapodaView Post

Hypocrisy is condemning a person of a certain political leaning of an action while accepting the same action of a person of a different political leaning. Do you condemn it or do you accept it?

I condemn hypocrites, social conservatives, the CBC, SJWs and Kardashians (among others)
 
Murphy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

When was this the case? I think that you'll find that your image of journalistic integrity is mythology. Journalism has never had the neutrality and objectivity you imagine and opinion columnists have long existed.

I think not. Before joining the service, I was enrolled in RTA at Conestoga College in Kitchener. One of the tenets of news reporting was stick to the facts.

This has changed since the 1970s. I do not know what the upgraded BRT program teaches these days. It's probably worth a short email to ask.
 
Decapoda
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

It's wrong.

So why do you frame this as a Conservative MP who "Suddenly cares about commentators giving inflammatory and uninformed opinions about a religious group?" Can you provide information about this MP's previous acts or support of outward inflammatory bigotry, or are you just assuming that since he's a conservative he must be a bigot? Would this not make you a bigot as well if that's the case, something you admit is wrong?
 
Jinentonix
#22
Trudeau was pretty quick to call the shooting at the QC mosque an act of terrorism. Now, I'm not saying it wasn't but here's a partial transcript of Trudeau taking about the Boston bombings;
Quote:

First thing, you offer support and sympathy and condolences and, you know, can we send down, you know, EMTs or, I mean, as we contributed after 9/11? I mean, is there any material immediate support we have we can offer? And then at the same time, you know, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes. Now we don't know now whether it was, you know, terrorism or a single crazy or, you know, a domestic issue or a foreign issue, I mean, all of those questions. But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from? I mean, yes, we need to make sure that we're promoting security and we're, you know, keeping our borders safe and, you know, monitoring the kinds of, you know, violent subgroups that happen around. But we also have to monitor and encourage people to not point fingers at each other and lay blame for personal ills or societal ills on a specific group, whether it be the West or the government or Bostonians or whatever it is, because it's that idea of dividing humans against ourselves, of pointing out that they're not like us and, you know, in order to achieve our political goals we can kill innocents here. That's something that no society in the world that is healthy, regardless of ideology, will accept.

Quote has been trimmed
Funny how you can be a Muslim, plant some bombs, kill 3 people and seriously maim and injure another 170 but we can't be too quick to judge it as terrorism. But if you're White guy who kills 6 people at a Mosque, well it's a clear cut case of terrorism.
Terrorism is terrorism, call it what it is. I'm getting real sick and tired of these Muslim loving apologists in the West who are too chicken sh*t to call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism.
I also notice one of the CBC bobble heads decided to imply that the Mosque killings were a result of Christian terrorism.
 
Decapoda
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I condemn hypocrites

Yet it seems you judge ethical and moral standard by one's political leaning. Interesting.
 
Johnnny
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by JinentonixView Post

Trudeau was pretty quick to call the shooting at the QC mosque an act of terrorism. Now, I'm not saying it wasn't but here's a partial transcript of Trudeau taking about the Boston bombings;

Funny how you can be a Muslim, plant some bombs, kill 3 people and seriously maim and injure another 170 but we can't be too quick to judge it as terrorism. But if you're White guy who kills 6 people at a Mosque, well it's a clear cut case of terrorism.
Terrorism is terrorism, call it what it is. I'm getting real sick and tired of these Muslim loving apologists in the West who are too chicken sh*t to call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism.
I also notice one of the CBC bobble heads decided to imply that the Mosque killings were a result of Christian terrorism.

This....
 
Corduroy
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by DecapodaView Post

So why do you frame this as a Conservative MP who "Suddenly cares about commentators giving inflammatory and uninformed opinions about a religious group?"

Because it is.

Quote:

Can you provide information about this MP's previous acts or support of outward inflammatory bigotry,

Why would I? I never said he has, nor did I imply it.
 
Cannuck
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by DecapodaView Post

Yet it seems you judge ethical and moral standard by one's political leaning. Interesting.

Politics are your beliefs put into action. I have no problem with anybody's political leanings. I have issues with the beliefs that drive them.
 
Decapoda
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

Why would I? I never said he has, nor did I imply it.

Stating that " suddenly this MP cares" implies that he has changed his position on religious bigotry. I'm simply asking for you to support your claim. Can you?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

The article in question is specifically an opinion piece and the author is an opinion columnist.

Sadly, a lot of people seem to treat these opinion pieces as fact (or alternative fact if you prefer).
 
Decapoda
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Politics are your beliefs put into action. I have no problem with anybody's political leanings. I have issues with the beliefs that drive them.

Your assumptions on what you think a person believes is of no consequence to the truth. Your perception may simply be flawed. It's actually quite arrogant to suggest that you know a person's motivations better that they do themselves.

Prejudging someone based on their beliefs is the exact thing you claim to be against. Hate to break it to you, but that's hypocrisy.
 
Cannuck
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by DecapodaView Post

Your assumptions on what you think a person believes is of no consequence to the truth. Your perception may simply be flawed. It's actually quite arrogant to suggest that you know a person's motivations better that they do themselves.

Prejudging someone based on their beliefs is the exact thing you claim to be against. Hate to break it to you, but that's hypocrisy.

This a web forum sparky. If you can't figure out somebody's belief after months of discussion, you'd have to be a simpleton.
 
no new posts