Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 You have not presented any rational argument that supports the artificial distinction you want to make between "science journalism" and "current events journalism". Every argument you apply to "science journalism" in order to excuse Suzuki applies equally to "current events journalism" and should also excuse Rex. You try move the goal posts by claiming I need "evidence" that Suzuki has done something wrong when you provide no evidence that Rex has done anything wrong. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit that a paid advocate who hosts a science should declare his financial interests whenever his show covers topics that potentially benefit the organization that pays him? Your concept of journalistic ethics is really hypocritical. There's no conflict for Suzuki. He's an environmental advocate who hosts a show about the environment. There's nothing for him to declare. I don't think he's a journalist and he's not on the news. He's a TV personality, that's all. If however you have evidence that he has put out some bad science on his show, then you would have something. Murphy is on the news, and needs to declare conflicts that could be seen as influencing his editorial opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 You have not presented any rational argument that supports the artificial distinction you want to make between "science journalism" and "current events journalism". Every argument you apply to "science journalism" in order to excuse Suzuki applies equally to "current events journalism" and should also excuse Rex. You try move the goal posts by claiming I need "evidence" that Suzuki has done something wrong when you provide no evidence that Rex has done anything wrong and say it is "not the point". So why exactly do I need evidence that Suzuki has done something wrong?. You are just making excuses. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit that a paid advocate who hosts a show should declare his financial interests whenever his show covers topics that potentially benefit the organization that pays him? Your concept of journalistic ethics is really twisted if you don't have a problem with this. It's quite simple actually, Suzuki has always presented himself as an environmentalist, so he gets paid to take sides. Rex at least poses as a journalist, so he is paid not to take sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Murphy is on the news, and needs to declare conflicts that could be seen as influencing his editorial opinion. Nothing that he does is presented as news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Nothing that he does is presented as news. Declaring conflicts still applies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 There's a lot more to journalism than reading the news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) There's no conflict for Suzuki. He's an environmental advocate who hosts a show about the environment. There's nothing for him to declare.And Rex is a opinion columnist that is not reporting the news. He is a TV personality. That's all. If you have evidence that Rex presented incorrect facts in his columns then you would have something. But you don't. You just have your obsession with oil companies. Basically your argument really is: taking money oil companies must be declared because oil companies are "evil". Taking money from environmental advocacy groups is fine because advocacy groups are "pure". Sorry - I don't agree. Taking money from political advocacy groups is a much greater offence and should be declared before anything starts declaring money from public speaking engagements. Edited December 2, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 No, it's got nothing to do with oil companies. The CBC is investigating Rex, not David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) No, it's got nothing to do with oil companies. The CBC is investigating Rex, not David.So what? And yes, the only reason this story is being discussed is because it is about oil companies and enviro-bullies look for any excuse to smear people that say things that disagree with their religion. Edited December 2, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 So what? And yes, the only reason this story is being discussed is because it is about oil companies and enviro-bullies look for any excuse to smear people that say things that disagree with their religion. Actually it's usually the fossil fuel bullies that are the more religious and do the more smearing. Surely I don't have to remind you of the likes of Joe Oliver? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) Actually it's usually the fossil fuel bullies that are the more religious and do the more smearing. Surely I don't have to remind you of the likes of Joe Oliver?ROTFL. Sure Oliver gave the enviros a taste of their own medicine but that is is exception as opposed to the rule. Enviro-bullies always use smears and ad-homs to attack critics because they don't have many rational arguments to support their position. As for religiosity it has nothing to do with god: the irrational eco-religion which has consumed large segments of this country is a much greater risk to society than any devout evangelical Christians. Edited December 2, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 the irrational eco-religion which has consumed large segments of this country is a much greater risk to society than any devout evangelical Christians. I thank you for stating your stance on this forum. You are a devout evangelical Christian. I will take that into consideration whenever I read your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 ROTFL. Sure Oliver gave the enviros a taste of their own medicine but that is is exception as opposed to the rule. Enviro-bullies always use smears and ad-homs to attack critics because they don't have many rational arguments to support their position. As for religiosity it has nothing to do with god: the irrational eco-religion which has consumed large segments of this country is a much greater risk to society than any devout evangelical Christians. Talk about ROTFL. You noticed how quickly Oliver was removed from that portfolio after that little tantrum. Unfortunately Harper wasn't smart enough to backbench him and now the same crap starts coming from our illustrious finance man who loses track of 5 billion or so every once in a while. Maybe laughing isn't really a good response anymore eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) I thank you for stating your stance on this forum. You are a devout evangelical Christian.How do you get that from my statement? I am a libertarian with no particular religious leanings but intensely dislike people who use their religion to justify imposing religion driven policy on people who do not share their religion. The only thing I stated is I feel that the "build nothing anywhere near anyone" environmentalism IS a religion that is not driven logic or science and that people who adhere to this religion are more dangerous to the welfare of this country than any evangelicals that have a problem with gay marriage or abortion. Edited December 2, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 I thank you for stating your stance on this forum. You are a devout evangelical Christian. I will take that into consideration whenever I read your posts. Well he is a staunch Harper supporter, who is an evangelical Christian so your evaluation is quite astute I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Well he is a staunch Harper supporter, who is an evangelical Christian so your evaluation is quite astute I'd say. Your lens is so warped that you don't even realize how offensive your comment (and WestCoast) truly are. You both will defend people like Maher Arar, apologize for extremists in Palestine and elsewhere, blather on about Charter Rights - and yet here at home - in YOUR OWN COUNTRY......you have the gall to sneer and sniff at a devout Christian. What hypocrits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Funny that. I would not know what religion Harper followed if his haters did not tell me frequently. If he evangelizes or goes door to door, he doesn't do it in my neighbourhood. Funny also, Chretien was a devout Catholic but it did not seem to inform his politics. Other than his consistent votes against same sex marriage of course. Somehow this evangelical Christian PM has yet to revoke that law. Curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 So you're saying nobody should criticize anything that we're all dependent on ? Not unless they have a viable alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Actually it's usually the fossil fuel bullies that are the more religious and do the more smearing. Surely I don't have to remind you of the likes of Joe Oliver? Have any of them suggested people on the other side should be put in prison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Well he is a staunch Harper supporter, who is an evangelical Christian so your evaluation is quite astute I'd say. Quite dumb, I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Your lens is so warped that you don't even realize how offensive your comment (and WestCoast) truly are. You both will defend people like Maher Arar, apologize for extremists in Palestine and elsewhere, blather on about Charter Rights - and yet here at home - in YOUR OWN COUNTRY......you have the gall to sneer and sniff at a devout Christian. What hypocrits! so you don't believe Harper is an evangelical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 so you don't believe Harper is an evangelical? As I said - your lens is warped and you STILL don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 As I said - your lens is warped and you STILL don't get it. I get you don't like it when Harper's shortcomings get pointed out, and that you are somehow trying to twist the Palestinian situation with pipeline politics in Canada. Talk about warped! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 so you don't believe Harper is an evangelical? Must be on his Silent Agenda. Clever of you to winkle that out since Harper rarely speaks of his faith. An evangelist who does not evangelize. Or has he come to your door to talk about Jesus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 I get you don't like it when Harper's shortcomings get pointed out, and that you are somehow trying to twist the Palestinian situation with pipeline politics in Canada. Talk about warped! Are you saying that Harper being an Evangelical is a shortcoming? What other kind things do you have to say about other people that don't practice the same religion as you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Are you saying that Harper being an Evangelical is a shortcoming? What other kind things do you have to say about other people that don't practice the same religion as you? I don't practice religion. But I know others do and I don't mind so long as they don't try and visit their beliefs on the rest of us. If you read up on the doctrine of CAMA, which is Harper's religion, you will see that they do just that and it could also explain why Harper has laid off so many government scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.