Alberta’s Danielle Smith demands CBC retract ‘defamatory article’ and apologize

[The_Foxer]

Alberta’s Danielle Smith demands CBC retract ‘defamatory article’ and apologize

CBC stands by story that reported premier’s office staff had pushed back on Crown prosecutors over assessment of COVID-related charges

www.thestar.com

So - short version for those who haven't been following - cbc runs a story saying the premier's office sent emails interfering with the investigation and prosecution of some of the couts 'convoy' protesters.

Smith challenges them on it saying she's never heard anything about it - they can't produce the emails they claim exist

Smith has a third party audit her staffs emails and hers as well as the crown prosecutors she's supposed to have emaile the looking for any hint of these emails. Gov't emails like that can't just be deleted.

No sign or hint of them, or that anything got deleted.

She provides this to the cbc. The cbc changes their story to admit they havne't seen it but claim many of their unidentified sources have and stick with the story.

That brings us to this. Danielle says "you printed fake news, there's no hint this is true, apologize and retract", CBC says no.

There is no saving the CBC, there is no pretending they are reasonable or unbias or in the public interest. If they don't like someone they simply print fake stories about them and its not the first time we've seen that.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Real journalism does not rely on unidentified sources as the only source of information.

 

[Jinentonix]

Alberta’s Danielle Smith demands CBC retract ‘defamatory article’ and apologize

CBC stands by story that reported premier’s office staff had pushed back on Crown prosecutors over assessment of COVID-related charges

www.thestar.com

So - short version for those who haven't been following - cbc runs a story saying the premier's office sent emails interfering with the investigation and prosecution of some of the couts 'convoy' protesters.

Smith challenges them on it saying she's never heard anything about it - they can't produce the emails they claim exist

Smith has a third party audit her staffs emails and hers as well as the crown prosecutors she's supposed to have emaile the looking for any hint of these emails. Gov't emails like that can't just be deleted.

No sign or hint of them, or that anything got deleted.

She provides this to the cbc. The cbc changes their story to admit they havne't seen it but claim many of their unidentified sources have and stick with the story.

That brings us to this. Danielle says "you printed fake news, there's no hint this is true, apologize and retract", CBC says no.

There is no saving the CBC, there is no pretending they are reasonable or unbias or in the public interest. If they don't like someone they simply print fake stories about them and its not the first time we've seen that.

The news media hides behind "unidentified sources" way to much. The CBC did the same thing with Rob Ford. Claimed he called 911 and was acting privileged and abusive to the operator/dispatcher. Despite no audio coming forth, despite the Chief of Police finding nothing, the CBC insisted they had "unidentified sources inside" who "confirmed" it happened and refused to print a retraction.

 

[Jinentonix]

Real journalism does not rely on unidentified sources as the only source of information.

Nope, but propaganda sure does.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Real journalism does not rely on unidentified sources as the only source of information.

I'm sure Woodward and Bernstein would be shocked to hear it.

 

[Serryah]

I'm sure Woodward and Bernstein would be shocked to hear it.

Well I'm sure if Nixon had happened today, there'd be a freak out about Woke Liberals or some shit.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Well I'm sure if Nixon had happened today, there'd be a freak out about Woke Liberals or some shit.

Um, Nixon "happens" about three times a week these days. Nobody cares.

 

[The_Foxer]

Um, Nixon "happens" about three times a week these days. Nobody cares.

well - the people who AREN'T justin's supporters do. But justin considers anyone like that a 'nobody' anyway so i suppose you're still correct.

 

[The_Foxer]

Well I'm sure if Nixon had happened today, there'd be a freak out about Woke Liberals or some shit.

They actually had proof and identified witnesses for nixon. How telling that you'd compare that to something where there's not only no evidence but an independent review confirms at least part of the story was false.

I get it. You support justin and want to defend corruption as a result, so you want to pretend the conservatives would be the same. Sorry sparky, swing and a miss.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I'm sure Woodward and Bernstein would be shocked to hear it.

Were there no documented corroborating sources for Watergate? In this case there likely are no sources and nobody has seen any e-mails. It would appear CBC either listened to "unnamed sources" without doing any verification or made up the sources to get the story. Should any real evidence come to light, my opinion on this would change. Until then, CBC is POS news network.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Were there no documented corroborating sources for Watergate? In this case there likely are no sources and nobody has seen any e-mails. It would appear CBC either listened to "unnamed sources" without doing any verification or made up the sources to get the story. Should any real evidence come to light, my opinion on this would change. Until then, CBC is POS news network.

There sure as shootin' weren't any e-mails. When they broke the story, all they had was Deep Throat. The evidence began to pile up as the story led to investigations.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Real journalism does not rely on unidentified sources as the only source of information.

Apparently, CBC has responded to Smith by saying that they will not retract their story & stand by it. The government has looked into the "charges" (for lack of a better term) and have found no emails were ever written and/or sent and the Prosecutor's office also investigated & found nothing of the sort transpired as reported by CBC. Besides, having a "source" that can't be identified is poor journalism because a good journalist will verify with at minimum 3 or 4 other sources to verify. CBC doesn't bother to verify - they use Twitter comments as "news" that's how absurd they've become.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

There sure as shootin' weren't any e-mails. When they broke the story, all they had was Deep Throat. The evidence began to pile up as the story led to investigations.

"In this case" indicates I was talking back to the case in this thread rather than watergate. It would appear the investigation here (the CBC article) has not provided any corroborating evidence to the alleged unnamed sources.

 

[Serryah]

Um, Nixon "happens" about three times a week these days. Nobody cares.

True.

 

[Jinentonix]

I'm sure Woodward and Bernstein would be shocked to hear it.

I guess you never heard of "Jimmy's World". A news story, about an 8 yr old heroin addict, that won a Pulitzer prize and was totally fabricated. It fact it was Woodward who submitted the story for consideration.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I guess you never heard of "Jimmy's World". A news story, about an 8 yr old heroin addict, that won a Pulitzer prize and was totally fabricated. It fact it was Woodward who submitted the story for consideration.

Ah, so you're saying that because Woodward submitted a fake story, that means Watergate was fake?

Interesting. The way your mind works, I mean. Basically, "throw up whatever shit I can regardless of relevance."

Anything for a diversion, enit?

 

[The_Foxer]

Ah, so you're saying that because Woodward submitted a fake story, that means Watergate was fake?

Are you saying that because he submitted fake stories that he wasn't?

 

[Jinentonix]

Ah, so you're saying that because Woodward submitted a fake story, that means Watergate was fake?

Interesting. The way your mind works, I mean. Basically, "throw up whatever shit I can regardless of relevance."

Anything for a diversion, enit?

No, what's interesting is how YOUR mind works. Apparently it's unable to follow a simple conversation. IRBSkiing said, "Real journalism does not rely on unidentified sources as the only source of information." You responded with "I'm sure Woodward and Bernstein would be shocked to hear it."
At which point I gave you a real world example of how Woodward, the investigative journalist of the two, submitted a single source story for Pulitzer consideration that turned out to be 100% fake. And yep, Woodward was SO shocked to hear that the single source story was fake he refused to pull it from Pulitzer consideration because "it was such a good story".

But of course in your tiny little mind you decided to conflate that with me trying to suggest Watergate was fake.

As for relevance, fuck off. This thread isn't about Watergate, it's about the CBC writing fake news stories. YOU brought up Woodward and Bernstein, got shown that your assertion was nonsense, and then tried to turn it back on me. Don't like facts? Don't respond to me then.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

No, what's interesting is how YOUR mind works. Apparently it's unable to follow a simple conversation. IRBSkiing said, "Real journalism does not rely on unidentified sources as the only source of information." You responded with "I'm sure Woodward and Bernstein would be shocked to hear it."
At which point I gave you a real world example of how Woodward, the investigative journalist of the two, submitted a single source story for Pulitzer consideration that turned out to be 100% fake. And yep, Woodward was SO shocked to hear that the single source story was fake he refused to pull it from Pulitzer consideration because "it was such a good story".

But of course in your tiny little mind you decided to conflate that with me trying to suggest Watergate was fake.

As for relevance, fuck off. This thread isn't about Watergate, it's about the CBC writing fake news stories. YOU brought up Woodward and Bernstein, got shown that your assertion was nonsense, and then tried to turn it back on me. Don't like facts? Don't respond to me then.

Yeah. I was an asshole. Sorry.

Not a good day. . . and not your fault in any way.