CBC's damning retraction of an unsubstantiated non-scandal in Alberta

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Is there any evidence to substantiate that rather serious charge? 

The story was fake - they have admitted it was wrong to put it out like that, it came out right before a known election date.

I think at this point they would have to prove it WASN"T intentional.

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The story was fake - they have admitted it was wrong to put it out like that, it came out right before a known election date.

I think at this point they would have to prove it WASN"T intentional.

You do realize media organizations make mistakes all the time? Is there any proof of an actual plot?

Edited July 17, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's 3-4 hundred million a year.  That's not 'mice nuts'.

It is when it's spread amongst all rest.

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yes - it was a response to your claim that the media in general (not just cbc) is suffering.

You disagree that it's suffering?

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We ARE going to do something about it. We're going to take away every cent of public funding.

Sure you are.

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Getting rid of their state funded propaganda wing and opening the door to more investigative journalism and legitimate criticism certainly seems like a good place to start

?

After PP shuts down the CBC and instead of that gives public funding to the Ezra Levants and Conrad Blacks of the world?

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Now - we're done. People are getting sick of it, and they will elect PP and he will defund the CBC.

No he won't. Trudeau will announce he's stepping down which by itself will probably be enough to stop PP in his tracks. These are his halcyon days right now.

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Liberals have a bad habit of allowing abuses and corruption to continue and refuse to do anything about it when they're in power

That's true, but it's us that allows it to go on.

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

but the moment the other guy gets in power and says "that's it - we're fed up" then it's  "wait - lets be reasonable and talk about it!!!! "

If that was the case a real Accountability Act would have stopped SNC Lavalin in its tracks.

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. The cbc is done and that's the end of that

I hope not, and I'm not expecting it is.

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, RedDog said:

No. Shut them down because it’s not a mandate of government.

I think that it's a good idea to have a non-profit major media alternative.

[ExFlyer]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - no, i'm laughing at you for thinking a robot could win your fights when you couldn't   It's pretty hilarious  

 

I never picked a fight. I only copied and pasted your comment to an AI box. I let a robot call you out.

I am laughing at you trying to get out of being called out by an AI robot. A ROBOT!!! How sad to be called a loser by a robot LOL

What is hilarious is you trying to find a way out of AI calling you a loser LOL

Edited July 17, 2023 by ExFlyer

[West]

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Is there any evidence to substantiate that rather serious charge? 

Observation. These fake stories tend to go one way  

Nothing is a coincidence 

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

You do realize media organizations make mistakes all the time? Is there any proof of an actual plot?

This isn't an "ooopsie". Nor was this a story that 'slid past' the editor.

This was a very determined effort by the cbc in general, the higher ups were quite aware of the controversy.

And it was an OBVIOUS breech of professional journalistic integrity.  They had someone's word that it happened, but never saw the emails nor made any effort to verify if his/her story was true or if anyone else had seen the emails.   I mean - forget not having copies in hand, they hadn't even seen them at all, or even a screen shot or the like. 

And then they insisted that the source was SOoooooo reliable that even tho they coulndn't tell us who it was and even tho the source had provided no evidence they believed the source and found the story to be credible.  We just have to trust them that the source is that good.

And then EVEN AFTER an independent organization went through all the emails and looked for ANY evidence of it and found absolutely nothing... they STILL insisted that it must be true.

Until after the election. Now smith is preparing a lawsuit and suddenly the 'go back and re-interview their witness who admits they didn't actually see any emails'.

 

This is NOT a "Mistake".   this is a series of very deliberate and considered actions. All the way along they knew that there was zero evidence of it and that reporters do NOT simply put stories out there on vague rumors.  That falls under the purview of tabloid and conspiracy theory nutjobs.

 

The actions of the CBC are sufficient proof of a plot. They conjured up material that didn't exist from a source they won't name and they defended that position all through an election cycle again and again, defending their position even after proof that it hadn't happened surfaced,  and then admitted it was nonsense.

SO it happened.  No further proof is needed.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I never picked a fight. I only copied and pasted your comment to an AI box. I let a robot call you out.

I

ROFLMAO -  of course you're DESPERATELY trying to pick a fight  

You 'fake' an ai that you can't name and then pretend that somehow that gibberish is 'calling me out' when in reality, it's just gibberish

LOL - did you think you were looking good here?  Kiddo - you're looking like a bigger loser than you ever have, and that was a pretty high bar