Twitter puts 'government-funded media' tag on CBC account (and they are NOT happy)

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well that had nothing whatsoever to do with a board of directors being technically independant but not really. That's a story about the sponsorship scandal.  I mean  - it's a story about liberal corruption but it's got nothing to do with the specific subject.

So swing and a miss there.

Lets just rehash what we're talking about - quote:

No, you don't get off trying to change the channel that easy so give it up already. You responded to a post in which I said; I've been watching stories about this sort of thing on CBC for years now and the thrust of this thread is that CBC is hiding these sorts of stories.

I repeat CBC is not hiding the news. To suggest it's under the government's control to do so is ridiculous.

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, you don't get off trying to change the channel that easy so give it up already.

I literally quoted what we were discussing.  YOU were the one changing the channel   But as we all know, you're a big fan of rewriting things when you're in the wrong

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

You responded to a post in which I said; I've been watching stories about this sort of thing on CBC for years now and the thrust of this thread is that CBC is hiding these sorts of stories.

And which sort of stories was that? Why THESE sorts - this is what you responded to:

The government appoints all sorts of boards that are technically 'independent' but not really.

And you claimed you've been watching storis about this sort of thing on cbc for years now.

But - you couldn't find a single one.

So you just posted a few of the many many many many liberal corruption scandals and thought somehow people would think that's what we were talking about.

Swing and a miss kiddo trying to rewrite what people said never goes well for you does it

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

I repeat CBC is not hiding the news. To suggest it's under the government's control to do so is ridiculous.

Of course they hide news. The fact they don't hide ALL the news doesn't mean they don't hide news.

But - that  is NOT what we were talking about.

[eyeball]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you couldn't come up with even ONE example? Not one? These are just stories about liberal corruption.

No need - the stories were out there so the cbc couldn't bury them but - in each case they downplayed the story and softened it. And they've been critisized for that quite a bit.

Okay so now we're getting closer to your paranoia - stories exist that we never hear about AT ALL.

This is probably why you people had to expand the imaginary control the government exerts over nearly the entire spectrum known generally as the mainstream media mob - they never report on stuff that doesn't happen either and get tarred with the same criticism.

It's almost like reality itself has a bias.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

And which sort of stories was that? Why THESE sorts

They're Liberal Party scandals.

You're suggesting these weren't scandals worth covering up or reporting, whatever the case may be?

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But - that  is NOT what we were talking about.

Well, its what I'm talking about so get over it or stfu.

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

They're Liberal Party scandals.

But that's not what was being discussed.

What was being discussed was: "The government appoints all sorts of boards that are technically 'independent' but not really. "

Not liberal scandals.

Just now, eyeball said:

You're suggesting these weren't scandals worth covering up or reporting, whatever the case may be?

Can't cover up what other stations have already broken. You can only downplay and spin.  And that they do.

But - that's not what we were taking about.

So - are you admitting at this point that you HAVEN'T seen stories about all sorts of boards that are technically independent but not really on the cbc?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well, its what I'm talking about so get over it or stfu.

Well  it sure wasn't - so you admit you were wrong there and want to move on? that's what you're saying?

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course they hide news. The fact they don't hide ALL the news doesn't mean they don't hide news.

What hidden news exactly?  Hidden by who? Are they under order's, do you have copies of these orders by any chance?

Why don't you ever take the time to consider what sorts of questions you raise when you make unfounded knee jerk claims like this?

What news stories have been hidden that cbc knew about but never reported? Is it safe to assume you think no other msm crony knew about it either?  They're all under the same gun Trudeau is holding against the CBC's head?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What hidden news exactly?  Hidden by who? Are they under order's, do you have copies of these orders by any chance?

Why don't you ever take the time to consider what sorts of questions you raise when you make unfounded knee jerk claims like this?

What news stories have been hidden that cbc knew about but never reported? Is it safe to assume you think no other msm crony knew about it either?  They're all under the same gun Trudeau is holding against the CBC's head?

 

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What hidden news exactly?  Hidden by who? Are they under order's, do you have copies of these orders by any chance?

Why don't you ever take the time to consider what sorts of questions you raise when you make unfounded knee jerk claims like this?

What news stories have been hidden that cbc knew about but never reported? Is it safe to assume you think no other msm crony knew about it either?  They're all under the same gun Trudeau is holding against the CBC's head?

Happy to answer that but lets put the last subject to bed first.

So - are you admitting at this point that you HAVEN'T seen stories about all sorts of boards that are technically independent but not really on the cbc?  We can agree on that and move on?

[eyeball]

Just now, CdnFox said:

 

Happy to answer that but lets put the last subject to bed first.

So - are you admitting at this point that you HAVEN'T seen stories about all sorts of boards that are technically independent but not really on the cbc?  We can agree on that and move on?

Sure, I haven't seen what you're talking about.

So moving on.

Show me the specific way by which the PMO also doubles as the CBC/MSM's editorial room.  The trail of emails between PMO and CBC staff to direct or edit the news. The names of the hit-men sent out to silence reporters would also be useful. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, I haven't seen what you're talking about.

You haven't seen what i was talking about? Well let me post it for you again so we're on teh same page:

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The government appoints all sorts of boards that are technically 'independent' but not really. They simply make sure to appoint their friends and allies to the position. Much like Trudeau and his 'independent' rapporteur'. 

I've been watching stories about this sort of thing on CBC for years now and the thrust of this thread is that CBC is hiding these sorts of stories.

That's literally your quote in response to groot's statement.

Do you remember seeing it now?

Why do you insist on lying like this?

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Do you remember seeing it now?

Yes of course I do. What I don't remember is you saying anything about the thrust of this thread is that CBC is hiding these sorts of stories.

The word thrust and how I used it is important here.  Consider that for a moment in the context of the implication we'er often subjected to in these sorts of threads, that public funding for the media is entirely politically motivated and by default equal to control for the purposes of propagandizing the funding government's messages.

Especially the hidden one's that you need to supply examples of.

BTW you do realize this will make you the breaking source of these stories and subject to you, well...you don't want to be like that pillow guy do you?

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes of course I do.

Oh good -  it's so tiring when you continue to deny what you actually said like that.

So - are we ready to admit you did NOT see any stories regarding that topic and move on to the next one? Or did you have some actual stories like that you wanted to discuss?

 

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Or did you have some actual stories like that you wanted to discuss?

Yes, let's discuss the stories you say the CBC is hiding under orders from the government.

[Aristides]

Will Twitter now flag FOX as fake news?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Will Twitter now flag FOX as fake news?

Have they flagged anyone as 'fake news'?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes, let's discuss the stories you say the CBC is hiding under orders from the government.

Well lets finish off the other topic you started first. The one you pretended for a dozen posts not to remember.

So at this point you're saying there are no such stories and that you haven't been seeing them for years?

[Aristides]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Have they flagged anyone as 'fake news'?

No, they don’t care if it is fake, just if it is government funded.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well lets finish off the other topic you started first.

No. I'm more interested that your pique is your excuse for withholding what you know about the CBC's hidden stories - in yet another thread where whining about government/media news censorship is typically devoid of any evidence of it.

You realize you're also denying your conservative homies of your important news by putting your irritation first? Oh well it gets me off the hook from having to address your revelations too. So you know...Phew!

Boy only you could box yourself in while trying  to corner someone. Good job!

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Aristides said:

No, they don’t care if it is fake, just if it is government funded.

Well, i doubt they'll be tagging fox with anything specific then. They're not gov't funded.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

No.

Is that because you lied again?  Is that why you keep demanding to change the channel and talk about something else, and why you pretended you didn't remember saying something you did? And why you refused to post ANY of the stories you claim you've read in such large numbers over the years?

Could it be that you're just  a dishonest person and every time you get caught in a lie rather than admit it like an adult you'll run away like a child?

If so - what's the point of providing you with anything or discussing anything? If i posted absolute proof then you'd just pretend we were never talking about it. Because that's what people on the left like you tend to do.

The cbc buries stories all the time. When they CAN'T bury the story because it's out there, they tend to under report it so that it looks less bad for the liberals. When that isn't enough they put out editorials that excuse the behavior as much as possible.

On the flipside they now REGULARLY create stories that don't exist to attack right wing politicians or support the liberals, such as the 'american funding' issue and the recent Smith accusations which they continued with after they were proven false.

And of course that's when they're not doing things such as suing the conservatives for doing exactly what all the other parties do.

They are partisan beyond belief, they actively engage in misinformation and there is no saving them.

Considering how much you love to lie - you should consider working for them. But - don't get too cozy, i'm not sure it'll be a long term gig

[I am Groot]

17 hours ago, eyeball said:

I've been watching stories about this sort of thing on CBC for years now and the thrust of this thread is that CBC is hiding these sorts of stories.

What am I missing here again?

It's not that they don't cover stories. It's how they cover them and how much they cover them. They seem to have devoted far less effort to covering the China influence thing, for example, than any of their rivals. And in elections, they clearly have a liberal bias.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tom-mulcair-why-all-the-fuss-about-twitter-s-description-of-cbc-1.6360448

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, Aristides said:

The act prevents government interference, the CBC editorial staff can tell the government and its board to pound sand if they try and interfere.

Sure. But they won't. Because at heart they're Liberals too, and generally support what the Liberal party supports.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Sure. But they won't. Because at heart they're Liberals too, and generally support what the Liberal party supports.

And the act does not forbid communication. So if a liberal mp calls his buddy the cbc writer or editor or whatever and says 'lets have coffee, we've got a thing coming up we'd like covered a 'certain' way... ' or even "I think we can agree that a cpc gov't is bad for the country and the cbc.." there's nothing to stop that.

There's even nothing illegal about them saying 'if we can keep the cpc out next election we're looking at a 10 percent increase in cbc funding".

So sure, in theory the cbc can tell teh gov't to pound sand but in reality there is nothing wrong with the gov't exerting influence over the cbc to 'slant' the news their way.

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It's not that they don't cover stories. It's how they cover them and how much they cover them. They seem to have devoted far less effort to covering the China influence thing, for example, than any of their rivals. And in elections, they clearly have a liberal bias.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tom-mulcair-why-all-the-fuss-about-twitter-s-description-of-cbc-1.6360448

They do actually just fail to report on stories quite a bit - as long as it's not gaining traction elsewhere so that people would notice.

But - the other trick is omitting large parts of the story.

For example - you'll recall the "convoy protester" lady who danced on the grave of the unknown soldier in the protest- cbc and all the others covered that. Well she was caught and the police interviewed her etc and released a statement saying that she was NOT a protester and wasn't affiliated with the convoy, and they weren't pressing charges for various reasons.

This was reported in many news papers.  - the CBC however only reported that "the woman' was 'not being charged'.  No mention whatsoever of the police report given in the SAME POLICE MEDIA BRIEFING stating she wasn't a convoy protester.  They called her a 'protester' but stopped using the term convoy protester, but that's it - they did NOT mention the police concluded she wasn't part of the convoy.

So - after weeks and weeks of saying this women was assocaited with the convoy they JUST say 'oh and she's not getting charged', which tends to make people MORE angry at the convoy protesters. But she was never with them.

All kinds of tricks like that.