Special Delivery Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Keep in mind the majority on this forum are fiercely loyal conservatives who defend even the wrong-doings and crimes of their leaders at almost any cost. So your answers here may not be 100% objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Ezra Levant is a journalist in the same sense that dog crap is a pizza topping. Sure, you could theoretically put dog crap on top of a pizza and call it a pizza topping, and you might even be correct in a semantic sense, but everybody knows that canine fecal matter isn't a pizza topping in the sense that any sane person would use the term. Same with calling Levant a journalist. He could call himself that and perhaps even be correct, in a semantic sense, but everybody knows that Levant is a propagandist and not a journalist. The NDP in Alberta, is the power I'm talking about. But I'm certain other anti-Conservatives across the country would welcome the demise of The Rebel before it gains too much popularity. Yeah, better watch out before Rebel Media catches fire like Levant's other ventures like The Western Standard or Sun TV. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 What "powers that be"? I would start with the Liberals, the NDP, and the media party(CTV/CBC/Global)to name but a few. They cannot compete with The Rebel and Ezra Levant because Ezra tells it like it is, and he uses common sense and logic, the others don't. They all run on emotion. Not good for a country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I would start with the Liberals, the NDP, and the media party(CTV/CBC/Global)to name but a few. They cannot compete with The Rebel and Ezra Levant because Ezra tells it like it is, and he uses common sense and logic, the others don't. They all run on emotion. Not good for a country. did you happen to notice waldo's post above - Ezra's collection of apologies? sounds to me like Ezra is the one running on emotion. or bs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Yeah, better watch out before Rebel Media catches fire like Levant's other ventures like The Western Standard or Sun TV just send Ezra money! The guy is forever begging for money... asking his loyal and fervent readers to pony up yet mo money! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 You make a good point but it's a very slippery slope for a government to be making the determination.Why would it be a slippery slope here? Waldo provided evidence under oath that Levant claims he is not a journalist and only serves to create biased controversy with absolutely no research and fact checking. That seems good enough to deny him entry to the press gallery, especially when his own defence lawyers said he shouldn't be taken seriously as a journalist. It doesn't have to be on any slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I would start with the Liberals, the NDP, and the media party(CTV/CBC/Global)to name but a few. They cannot compete with The Rebel and Ezra Levant because Ezra tells it like it is, and he uses common sense and logic, the others don't. They all run on emotion. Not good for a country.there is a ton of evidence of Ezra not fact checking a damn thing and his own lawyer argued that nobody should take him seriously? How do reconcile that with your post here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 The whole thing is a very slippery slope.......the terms "journalist" and even broader "journalism" are pretty fluid with no mandatory credentials. Components include: Newspapers - reporting "the news" Editorialists - expressing the opinions of the Newspaper Affiliated Columnists - expressing THEIR opinions with tacit approval (but not necessarily agreement) of the Newspaper Television Stations - reporting the news TV political analysts and shows like Power Play and Power and Politics And more recently..... BLOG Commentators - often can be described as unaffiliated columnists Activist websites with "opinions" So there's a whole range of "news", opinions, and commentary. More so than "Freedom of the Press", do we really want to start putting limits on "Freedom of Opinion" - which is halfway to suppressing "Freedom of Thought"? Brings to mind the famous quote: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 There should be some sort of media association that awards accreditation. The Nazis and Soviets would be pleased. As would the North Koreans. Create an organization and only accredit those with the 'correct' opinions as true journalists. Then ban all the non true journalists from journalism. Great way to control a narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 There is nothing wrong with having one national voice among the endless number of for-profit media organizations. Yes, we need to ensure that we have a national broadcaster to ensure that people form the correct opinion. Can't have people forming incorrect opinions. *sarcasm* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Why would it be a slippery slope here? Waldo provided evidence under oath that Levant claims he is not a journalist and only serves to create biased controversy with absolutely no research and fact checking. That seems good enough to deny him entry to the press gallery, especially when his own defence lawyers said he shouldn't be taken seriously as a journalist. It doesn't have to be on any slope. You're right. It's not a slippery slope at all - it's just plain wrong for a political appointee of the premier to be deciding who is or isn't a journalist. Would you be equally comfortable with Stephen Harper's chief of staff deciding who is a journalist? How about President Trump? Or Prime Minister O'Leary? This isn't about Levant. In fact, Notley gave Levant undeserved publicity with this ill-considered decision. There should be an independent journalism body that would accredit journalists and ensure that they lived up to a code of ethics. Looking at their website, it appears that the Canadian Association of Journalists doesn't do that. It has a nice list of ethical standards but nowhere can I find any kind of enforcement mechanism. Failing that, you could have a non-partisan government organization do it but to avoid suspicion, it should report to parliament/legislature, not the government in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 The Nazis and Soviets would be pleased. As would the North Koreans. Create an organization and only accredit those with the 'correct' opinions as true journalists. Then ban all the non true journalists from journalism. Great way to control a narrative. No, it would just make sure that journalists are actually trying to report what happened factually and objectively instead of just trying to smear their opponents and rake muck. Sort of like how we have moderators who look at posts like yours and determine that you're just derailing the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 No, it would just make sure that journalists are actually trying to report what happened factually and objectively instead of just trying to smear their opponents and rake muck. See, you already have a nice excuse for when you silence dissidents. What's factual and objective is that the party in power is always right and can do no wrong. We can't allow these 'non-journalists' to come in and report things. That could lead to incorrect opinions from being formed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 No, it would just make sure that journalists are actually trying to report what happened factually and objectively instead of just trying to smear their opponents and rake muck. And how exactly do you do that? Have you never compared the columnists at the Star, the Sun and the National Post - or likewise, the Editorial sections? Each can use the same "facts" and yet they often tell completely different stories.......and depending on your point of view, people swear that "their guy" has it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 The Nazis and Soviets would be pleased. As would the North Koreans. Create an organization and only accredit those with the 'correct' opinions as true journalists. Then ban all the non true journalists from journalism. Great way to control a narrative. what does a professional association have to do with state control and censorship of the journalism? Designating journalists that follow a code of standards is not censorship and if it's a professional association it has nothing to do with the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 And how exactly do you do that? Have you never compared the columnists at the Star, the Sun and the National Post - or likewise, the Editorial sections? Each can use the same "facts" and yet they often tell completely different stories.......and depending on your point of view, people swear that "their guy" has it right. Go look at the Canadian Association of Journalists website (the link is above) and see their integrity guidelines. Most professional associations (I belong to one) have ethical guidelines and if you break them, you can find yourself sanctioned or kicked out entirely. There is nothing special about journalists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 what does a professional association have to do with state control and censorship of the journalism? Designating journalists that follow a code of standards is not censorship and if it's a professional association it has nothing to do with the state. How can such an association have nothing to do with the state? Create an organization tasked with determining and enforcing journalism standards, fill it with your friends, then claim it is 'independent'. Great way to control the media and keep the people in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) Edit: any proof of that? Edited February 18, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 The rebel does report on what the others will not. But like the sun, they will do whatever to get rid of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 The rebel does report on what the others will not. If you mean they'll make things up, yeah, that's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted February 19, 2016 Report Share Posted February 19, 2016 did you happen to notice waldo's post above - Ezra's collection of apologies? sounds to me like Ezra is the one running on emotion. or bs. I agree he has blundered now and then and had to back track on what he has said. But still a lot of what he says and others at The Rebel has gone thru with flying colors. Hey, Ezra is not perfect but who is? I would prefer to listen to an alternative media outlet like The Rebel rather than the mainstream media whom are very one-sided on many issues. The media is well known for making an honest person look like a liar if they don't like what they are hearing from that honest person. Try speaking politically incorrect out in public square and see what the media can do to someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Share Posted February 19, 2016 If you mean they'll make things up, yeah, that's true. What did they make up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Share Posted February 19, 2016 Ezra Levant is a journalist in the same sense that dog crap is a pizza topping. Why? Would you call Peter Mansbridge a journalist? On the day Trudeau got elected Mansbridge was practically drooling over him and humping his leg he was in such a state of bliss. No slanted journalism there! The Toronto Star, meanwhile, makes no bones about its guiding principles being reporting in the furtherance of progressive political and social views. It even has a charter that says so. Deliberately slanted news reporting, in other words. Levant, who I don't usually pay much attention to, is rude, provocative and politically incorrect. Sometimes he's flat out wrong. He's a blowhard. That doesn't mean he doesn't report things and comment on things according to his own viewpoint, or that he shouldn't be allowed to do so. Is his reporting slanted according to his political views? Sure. So is the CBCs and Torstar's. See his column in the Financial Post today, in fact. http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ezra-levant-the-more-menacing-way-that-politicians-control-journalists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 19, 2016 Report Share Posted February 19, 2016 Would you call Peter Mansbridge a journalist? is a reporter/commentator/anchor... a journalist? Your reference link is heelarious in that Levant, under oath, stated he is not a journalist... . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2016 Report Share Posted February 19, 2016 Did he say he would never be one? I once stated under oath that I was 17, but I'm not now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.