Speakeasy forum

General discussion

CBC News: Unfair, Unbalanced

by hh / August 10, 2006 12:49 PM PDT
CBC's Israel-based reporters focus primarily on Israeli soldiers, tanks and artillery crews, while coverage of death and destruction in Israel has at times consisted of a two-second clip of brushfire. Meanwhile, CBC's Lebanon-based reporters show civilian suffering, but do not show Hezbollah terrorists and rocket-launchers. If they cannot gain access to Hezbollah terrorists, or are not allowed to film them, why not admit that to viewers?

CBC fails to inform viewers of Hezbollah's repeated attacks on Israel over the past six years. As a result, Israel's response to the most recent provocation looks ''disproportionate.'' CBC also reverses causality, as in this exchange between an anchorwoman and reporter Peter Armstrong on CBC Newsworld's August 3 noon report:

Anchor: ''So Peter, tell us what Israeli troops have been doing today in south Lebanon.''
Armstrong: (Describes Israeli military activity)
Anchor: ''And how has Hezbollah responded?''

Later that day, a (1:25 PM) roundup of Middle East news included these items:

5 Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza
Israel carries out new strikes in Beirut
Israel apologizes for deaths in Qana
UN pushes for Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire
Body of peacekeeper killed by Israel to return home.
After a commercial break, CBC returned with a report about Lebanese environmental damage caused by Israel. Missing from the news lineup: the fact that Hezbollah rockets killed 8 Israeli civilians that morning.

Meanwhile, in a July 26 interview on CBC Newsworld, anchorwoman Portia Clark repeatedly grilled Israel's ambassador to Canada to the point of exasperation about Israel's alleged targeting of civilians.


(About one-third down the page, click and watch the interview. I think you will find it rather interesting. The ending of the interview speaks volumes about the anchor person.)

http://www.honestreporting.ca/English/Calendar-Item-6.html
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: CBC News: Unfair, Unbalanced
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: CBC News: Unfair, Unbalanced
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Video
by Maggie6243 / August 10, 2006 1:16 PM PDT

I just watched the interview, and it seems that Portia Clark failed miserably!!..Maggie

Collapse -
I haven't watched CBS coverage, but from your report
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / August 10, 2006 1:21 PM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Huh? What about CBS/NBC? We are talking about CBC
by hh / August 10, 2006 1:24 PM PDT
Collapse -
Just the latest example ...
by Evie / August 12, 2006 12:45 AM PDT

... of the results of DK's kneejerk responses when skimming.

CBC was mentioned SEVERAL times in the excerpted text, no need to even go to the link, including two references to CBC Newsworld and one mention of Canada.

Calling out this behavior will likely get this deleted, but...

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Deleted, just like mine
by duckman / August 13, 2006 8:57 PM PDT

Nice to be KING , eh Dave.

Collapse -
Response
by Angeline Booher / August 14, 2006 12:07 AM PDT

Most SE members don't appreciate seeing any other members have their spellling erros, mistakes in grammar, etc. pointed out or made fun of.

It is evident there are those who don't like DaveK, as they have made it perfectly clear over the years at every opportunity.

I will point out again that he has some dyslexia. Because of my own sight problem (not seeing some words) leading to mis-reading and mis-spelling, which are exacerbated by our reading (and yes, skimming at times) so many posts, opening so many links, etc., I can understand it.

Those fortunate enough to not have such problems, or similar ones, might consider the day might come when they could. Then it will be easier to realize that focusing on the faults of others does not lessen our own faults.

I deleted the post to which you responded, and yours because it would have been an orphan.


Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Dave's mistakes are a pattern ...
by Evie / August 14, 2006 12:27 AM PDT
In reply to: Response

... of kneejerk reactions because he doesn't take the time to read links (or even exerpts) before he responds in a thread. Often he doesn't even read the entirety of stories HE posts. It actually makes for MORE work for the rest of us as I, for one, no longer respond to anything DK has written without checking the source because he so often misrepresents key facts. Of course his excuse is that HE is a busy man, but I suppose the rest of our time doesn't count?

Then there is his inability to just acknowledge and withdraw when he's made a proveably innaccurate statement. He ignores it for as long as possible, then offers up feeble excuses.

Cuppa cafe anyone? I hear he got an "A" in Starbucks school.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
How could mine be an orphan?
by duckman / August 14, 2006 12:33 AM PDT
In reply to: Response

it was a response to HH above

Collapse -
Response is a non-sequitur and deletion sets precedent.
by MarkatNite / August 14, 2006 12:57 PM PDT
In reply to: Response

>''Most SE members don't appreciate seeing any other members have their spellling erros, mistakes in grammar, etc. pointed out or made fun of.''

The post of mine which you deleted made no such comment on anyone's spelling or grammar. The argument could be made that it addressed a typo, but a typo seems to be less likely than some other explanation.

>''It is evident there are those who don't like DaveK, as they have made it perfectly clear over the years at every opportunity.''

The post of mine which you deleted also made no such comment on anyone's personal feelings toward anyone else.

>''I will point out again that he has some dyslexia. Because of my own sight problem (not seeing some words) leading to mis-reading and mis-spelling, which are exacerbated by our reading (and yes, skimming at times) so many posts, opening so many links, etc., I can understand it.''

Nor did the post of mine which you deleted comment on anyone's dyslexia or my understanding or lack thereof of anyone's dyslexia.

In fact, the entirety of my post which you deleted was a statement/explanation that DK has made himself, about himself, previously. And now that you've set that precedent, there are many other posts that restate what another person has previously posted that must now also be deleted. This would include the post of yours to which I'm responding, BTW.

>''Those fortunate enough to not have such problems, or similar ones, might consider the day might come when they could. Then it will be easier to realize that focusing on the faults of others does not lessen our own faults.''

The post of mine which you deleted also made no comment on any such problems that I may or may not have myself, much less whether I may have similar problems one day in the future. Nor did the post of mine which you deleted assert that focusing on the faults of others lessens my own faults.

I'll let you get to those deletions now - Mark

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Mark. were you in this forum last Easter?
by duckman / August 14, 2006 8:24 PM PDT
Collapse -
Probably.
by MarkatNite / August 15, 2006 12:25 PM PDT

I've been here for going on ten years now. Of course, back then, "here" was the forum for PC Computing magazine.

But I'm kind of surprised that no one else piped up. Oh wait, restating what someone else has said himself, about himself, previously is now grounds for deletion. So maybe someone did, and their post got pulled.

Mark

Collapse -
Do you have an
by duckman / August 15, 2006 8:42 PM PDT
In reply to: Probably.

email to be contacted at?

Collapse -
no hes special
by Mark5019 / August 14, 2006 1:25 PM PDT

hes unlocked threads to post a snipe and its allowed
but if us peons reply its pulled

Collapse -
an all to familiar scenario
by jonah jones / August 10, 2006 1:23 PM PDT

and, unfortunately, one that is acceptable (and possibly desirable) to all the major networks?

ala "dog bites man" is not news......


.

Collapse -
A question Jonah
by JP Bill / August 10, 2006 1:30 PM PDT

Didn't you state that Israel doesn't show pictures of people that are injured or killed by bombs?

And IF that is true, wouldn't camera crews NOT film such scenes, and have no such scenes of death and destruction to show?

Collapse -
huh?
by jonah jones / August 11, 2006 1:19 AM PDT
In reply to: A question Jonah

#wouldn't camera crews NOT film such scenes, and have no such scenes of death and destruction to show?#

are we talking IBA or CBC?

i have yet to see IBA footage of dead babies or mangled bodies, that answer your question?


.

Collapse -
response
by JP Bill / August 11, 2006 1:48 AM PDT
In reply to: huh?

I thought, you had made a post that stated Israeli TV did not broadcast pictures of the ''death and destruction'' of Israeli casualties ''out of respect for their families".

Am I mistaken?

Collapse -
and that has what to do with biased Canadian coverage?
by Kiddpeat / August 11, 2006 2:00 AM PDT
In reply to: response

or are you just trying to change the subject?

Collapse -
just trying to change the subject?
by JP Bill / August 11, 2006 2:15 AM PDT

NO!

IF WHAT I THNK JOSH SAID IS CORRECT.

The person with the blog is complaining that pictures of "death and destruction" in Israel IS NOT being shown in the west.

In Israel they don't show the pictures of "Death and Destruction".

Does the saying "you can't have it both ways" ring a bell?

I think the Israeli government has some control of the pictures that are taken and could be broadcast.

If Hizbollah watches TV and sees where the rockets are hitting it is "good intelligence"

Collapse -
If Hizbollah watches TV
by jonah jones / August 11, 2006 2:37 AM PDT

they do! and they were using the info to their advantage, as a result the IDF (not the government) decide what can be shown "real time"....


for some strange reason you give the impression that you have a large bug up the rear when it comes to Israel and pictures of "Death and Destruction".


FOREIGN news teams ARE filming where ever possible, but again, is it REALLY news worthy?

does the western world WANT to see the israelis as VICTIMS?


get this through your skull JP, israel is about 250 miles from north to south... when a fly farts in haifa, tiberias shudders.... hard to keep a secret when rockets falling are being recorded on cell phones and the pics being sent around the country in a flash...


..

Collapse -
give the impression that you have a large bug
by JP Bill / August 11, 2006 2:46 AM PDT

I DON"T

The person that is running the blog in Canada is upset about it. NOT ME.

They want equal coverage, it seems.

s it REALLY news worthy?

Ask the guy running the blog and the original poster (hh) that claims (or seems to agree with) the CBC is unfair and unbalanced BECAUSE they don't show pictures of "Death and Destruction"

does the western world WANT to see the israelis as VICTIMS?

ME personaly NO!, the blog operator, yes.

Collapse -
Correction
by JP Bill / August 11, 2006 2:52 AM PDT
does the western world WANT to see the israelis as VICTIMS?

the blog operator wants the world to see the victims of Hizbollah rockets.
Collapse -
No, that's not the objective of the blog.
by Kiddpeat / August 11, 2006 12:36 PM PDT
In reply to: Correction

The blog wants fair, unbiased coverage. That is missing from the Canadian broadcasts.

Collapse -
This thread is about Canadian bias.
by Kiddpeat / August 11, 2006 12:33 PM PDT

If you want to discuss Israel, start a new thread! You are simply trying to divert attention from Canada. That's called changing the subject.

Collapse -
maybe i did, maybe i didn't
by jonah jones / August 11, 2006 2:24 AM PDT
In reply to: response

(honestly don't remember)

but what has that to do with the original post?


.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) No pictures does not mean not reporting numbers tho.
by Roger NC / August 11, 2006 7:39 PM PDT
In reply to: A question Jonah
Collapse -
CBC News ....Unfair, Unbalanced
by JP Bill / August 10, 2006 1:26 PM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Did you even listen to the interview?
by hh / August 10, 2006 1:28 PM PDT
Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / August 10, 2006 2:04 PM PDT

What's the problem?

The blogger thought the interviewer exasperated the person being interviewed? Too Bad.


Did you ever watch Soledat O'Brien on CNN? <sarcasm>She has no problem talking over the person being interviewed. </sarcasm>

Collapse -
The statement you made
by hh / August 10, 2006 1:59 PM PDT

or what you tried to imply in itself is anti-semitic.
Just because the website is Jewish supported and it represents Jewish interest does NOT mean the points made are incorrect. You have the interview that you can watch and decide for yourself. You coming out and casting doubt to the authenticity of the 'unfair and unbalanced' claim just because it is a Jewish supported site in itself is a biased statement.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?