CBC's Pro-Palestine Coverage

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Dummy I was explaining to mor0ns like you who have ZERO knowledge of any history the situation got to where it is. It’s not my fault that you’re too simple to follow the plot.
 

To recap Israeli hardliners turned their back on peace partner the PA and started an extremely aggressive policy towards Palestinians.  The end result is they got Hamas in Gaza. Possibly this was the Israeli hardliner’s intention as it worked in their benefit:  Palestinian “government” such as it was in West Bank and Gaza now divided under  2 competing groups amd Has terrorism became a convenient excuse to declare the peace process dead. 
 

The expression “seize power” includes elections and is especially apt for oppressive regimes like Hamas you’re just desperately try to troll and fime something to pick up by your knowledge of English is just as poor as the other subjects it seems. 

Do you never tire of being wrong?

[CdnFox]

https://tnc.news/2023/11/02/cbc-ceo-refuses-to-apologize/

CBC CEO refuses to apologize for erroneous reporting on Gaza hospital explosion

CBC’s top official is standing by the state broadcaster’s erroneous reporting on a Gaza hospital attack that never happened.

 

Sigh.  Defund now.  Better yet - take it back and sell it off and use the money for something useful

[WestCanMan]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

https://tnc.news/2023/11/02/cbc-ceo-refuses-to-apologize/

CBC CEO refuses to apologize for erroneous reporting on Gaza hospital explosion

CBC’s top official is standing by the state broadcaster’s erroneous reporting on a Gaza hospital attack that never happened.

 

Sigh.  Defund now.  Better yet - take it back and sell it off and use the money for something useful

Jesus.

That incident has been downgraded from "Israeli attack on a hospital killing 500" to "errant Hamas missile that blew up in a parking lot with no casualties", but CBC can't even apologize for being so sensationally wrong. 

"We just say whatever Hamas tells us to! Why wouldn't we?" 

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Do you never tire of being wrong?

You're talking to Wushin Cowushin boi: when he's not lying he feels nauseous. 

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes, and to that end:

 

 

This would be all well and good were it not for Canadian government funding of the CBC as a Crown Corporation with the "national public broadcaster" mission and responsibility.

It is not the first time that the CBC has been accused of obvious bias in the never ending dirt farm war that is Israel vs. Palestine.   The CBC repeatedly takes refuge in "corrections" offered after publishing biased reports, disinformation, and outright falsehoods...err..."mistakes".

Meanwhile, in your own backyard...

https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2023/11/02/1210335919/the-audience-has-a-lot-to-say-about-coverage-of-the-israel-hamas-war-were-listen

We are almost a month into the horrific and deadly escalation in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and the public editor inbox is overflowing with audience criticisms. More than 100 notes a week are coming in.

Among the themes:

• Some NPR audience members see a bias when stories highlight a perspective they don't agree with.
• Some listeners or readers are demanding stronger descriptive language, such as saying that Hamas members should be called "terrorists" rather than "militants."
• Other audience members believe NPR is failing to put Israel's actions in the context of war crimes.

Edited November 3, 2023 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The CBC repeatedly takes refuge in "corrections" offered after publishing biased reports, disinformation, and outright falsehoods...err..."mistakes".

It's important for propagandists to put a BOLDED, HEADLINE blame-label on every tragedy right at the moment of impact because strong impressions are formed when the emotional content of an issue is sky high. 

It's ok to make a fine print retraction much later on, when it's not at top-of-mind anymore. The emotion doesn't change sides at that moment.

 

 

One of CBC's classics was not talking about Trudeau's ethics breaches at all during the 2021 election campaign, and ignoring them in debates, and then saying that Scheer needed to step down as PC leader because "he somehow managed to lose the election despite all of Trudeau's ethics violations". 

Que est-ce que f'ack, CBC? You guys dedicated your lives to downplaying those scandals and ignoring them, and suddenly after the election they're a huge deal? Way to admit that the scandals were a big deal but it's an odd time to do it.

Edited November 3, 2023 by WestCanMan

[Michael Hardner]

Complaints are coming out about a CBC producer and Israel coverage...

 

https://breachmedia.ca/cbc-whitewashed-israels-crimes-gaza-firsthand/

Latest Canadaland covers a Producer who was posting content that made objectionable statements about Palestinians...

[Venandi]

On 11/3/2023 at 2:53 PM, WestCanMan said:

It's important for propagandists to put a BOLDED, HEADLINE blame-label on every tragedy right at the moment of impact because strong impressions are formed when the emotional content of an issue is sky high. 

It's not just the CBC either, it's pervasive...

Even though CBC is the topic at hand, what really hurts us collectively is the trinity alignment between government, media and security forces (which includes intelligence).

The laptop deception in the US is a case in point, even if one member of the trinity refused to play along, the outcome would have been different and the election result might have been different too.

At this level, it's not a simple misunderstanding either, all of the players knew what they were doing as they did it. The video is fun to watch:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/video-viral-democrats-media-members-doubting-hunter-biden-laptop

Edited June 6 by Venandi

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Venandi said:

At this level, it's not a simple misunderstanding either, all of the players knew what they were doing as they did it. The video is fun to watch:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/video-viral-democrats-media-members-doubting-hunter-biden-laptop

It's pretty much game over for western democracy when the DOJ/FBI, the Demonrats and TNI (mainstream media from NA and Europe plus the social media giants) are all in lock step. 

That's an important video, because when cultists talk about the laptop scandal they like to pretend that it was just the MSM and big tech that randomly got it 100% wrong, and used the Russian disinformation buzzword. It was the FBI and the CIA that did that, all the way. They're rotten to the core. 

 

Ironically James Clapper was talking about "classic Russian tradecraft at work" 🤣

He's the one was playing the role of nefarious KGB propagandist at that moment. James Clapper is disinformation and manipulation personified. The leftard cultists eat out of his hand. 

[Venandi]

The agreed upon sales slogan was that the laptop was a: :

 "classic disinformation campaign," and the Russians were likely the ones behind the laptop...

In fact, it was a classic information management technique applied in prime time with the full and premeditated cooperation of all three members of the unholy trinity.

The Idea that the FBI was unable to determine the laptops authenticity is in the same slop pail as the Secret Service being unable to determine who left cocaine in the White House (likely the most surveilled structure on the planet). 

And here's the worst part IMO, the authors of this know full well that the deception will be discovered eventually so they work out plausible deniability strategies in advance of deployment. They also know it will take about two years to unravel it and that most political supporters will have moved on by then... in fact, most supporters will actually parrot the deniability talking points and do most of the work for them. 

We see that right now with the Covid origin/lab leak debacle. The most strident defenders of de-platforming, silencing and firing proponents of the lab leak theory now simply say "oh well, where it came from changes nothing in terms of our coordinated response to keep Canadians safe.

Even I can write that stuff.
 

To maintain the facade though It's important to have all outlets report the same thing using the same phrases. Remember "threat to our democracy"? Did you ever hear that repeated so many times by so many individuals? It's not an accident and it's not random coincidence, there are courses in it. 

I'd love to see a video collage of various network anchors repeating that over and over with a background musical score as accompaniment.

 

Edited June 6 by Venandi

[eyeball]

56 minutes ago, Venandi said:

In fact, it was a classic information management technique applied in prime time with the full and premeditated cooperation of all three members of the unholy trinity.

How many people do you think are involved in the planning and execution of this trinity's premeditated plots? 3, 300, 3000?

Apparently Fauci was able to kill millions with just a couple of psyops dudes bamboozling not just the US but much of the world.

Governments can barely make busses run on time and yet they were able to pull all this off without anyone facing anything more than a few stupid questions from a handful of nut bars like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor-Greene.  These are the sharp point of the probe? LMAO!

Edited June 6 by eyeball

[Venandi]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

3, 300, 3000?

50 analysts (might have been 52... don't recall) signed a document attesting that in their opinion the laptop contents were a hoax. I would have to believe that all of them were incapable of doing their jobs and recognizing Russian disinformation when they saw it... I don't.

 I would have to believe that the FBI, with all of the assets at their disposal, on a topic of national significance prior to an election, were incapable of determining the authenticity of a laptops contents in the course of a single mourning.... I don't.

 I would have to believe that in the most surveilled building in the world, that the SS was unable to determine who it was who placed the cocaine... i don't.

 Then we come to the lab leak theory and the punishments handed out for suggesting a  possible connection now readily admitted as likely. I would have to forgive regulatory/certification bodies for their actions and the media for theirs.... I don't.

Following the NS shooting (there's a separate thread BTW) I would have to believe that it takes many days to discern whether or not a person had a PAL or R-PAL..... It doesn't, and anyone who's had a brief conversation with the CFO knows it.

I suppose we could pursue a "one question at a time" socratic development process here but I don't have time to do that. I can tell you though that this stuff is hard to shut down even when it starts up by accident, that's why I absolutely adore the NS wolf hoax thing.

Had the government and media played along with it, no telling how much fun could have been had. That was just a couple of people with a few letterheads, a loudspeaker system and some free time on the weekend. 

 

Edited June 6 by Venandi

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

50 analysts (might have been 52... don't recall) signed a document attesting that in their opinion the laptop contents were a hoax. I would have to believe that all of them were incapable of doing their jobs and recognizing Russian disinformation when they saw it... I don't.

 I would have to believe that the FBI, with all of the assets at their disposal, on a topic of national significance prior to an election, were incapable of determining the authenticity of a laptops contents in the course of a single mourning.... I don't.

 I would have to believe that in the most surveilled building in the world, that the SS was unable to determine who it was who placed the cocaine... i don't.

 Then we come to the lab leak theory and the punishments handed out for suggesting a  possible connection now readily admitted as likely. I would have to forgive regulatory/certification bodies for their actions and the media for theirs.... I don't.

Following the NS shooting (there's a separate thread BTW) I would have to believe that it takes many days to discern whether or not a person had a PAL or R-PAL..... It doesn't, and anyone who's had a brief conversation with the CFO knows it.

I suppose we could pursue a "one question at a time" socratic development process here but I don't have time to do that. I can tell you though that this stuff is hard to shut down even when it starts up by accident, that's why I absolutely adore the NS wolf hoax thing.

Had the government and media played along with it, no telling how much fun could have been had. That was just a couple of people with a few letterheads, a loudspeaker system and some free time on the weekend. 

 

So anywhere between a handful and 50 who couldn't do their jobs. Not in a conspiracy but in a cluster fu ck of incompetence.

I guess that means everyone that's trying to nail them with something...anything...are even more incompetent.

What's really telling though are the millions of partisans trying to defend and cheer them on.

[Venandi]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

So anywhere between a handful and 50 who couldn't do their jobs. Not in a conspiracy but in a cluster fu ck of incompetence.

It sounds like you're asking me to believe that they got it wrong because of incompetence.

I don't believe for one second that they're incompetent though, far from it in fact and that's the point. They're experts in intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination.

Dissecting and analyzing computers is what they do.

Same level of professionalism and competence at the FBI, they have some of the top subject matter experts in the world at their disposal.

I think you need a cause factor other than gross incompetence here.  Other than political interference at the highest levels, what do you think accounts for them getting it so wrong when they're simply not in the business of getting things like this wrong?

Or are you even prepared to admit that they did?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7 by Venandi

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

It sounds like you're asking me to believe that they got it wrong because of incompetence.

They're clearly rank amateurs compared to what Fauci and his crew pulled off.  Hunter is in court charged with crimes and Fauci? He's laughed all the way to the bank without a scratch.

Why I imagine they could have also made busses run on time just for show.

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

I think you need a cause factor other than gross incompetence here.

You and WasteCanMan supplied that, your unholy trinity and the DOJ/FBI, the Demonrats and TNI (mainstream media from NA and Europe plus the social media giants) are all in lock step

Now all you need is solid evidence....which will call for...competence for sure.

[CDN1]

Palestinians can have a state when Islamists gtfo of the West.

[Venandi]

On 6/7/2024 at 12:29 AM, eyeball said:

You and WasteCanMan supplied that, your unholy trinity and the DOJ/FBI, the Demonrats and TNI (mainstream media from NA and Europe plus the social media giants) are all in lock step

 

I could probably write a book here but this is a condensed and hastily rendered version of how I see it and it's not as off topic as it might appear at first glance.

If you don’t believe that governments partner with willing and ideologically aligned media outlets, or that security forces (including intelligence) are above being weaponized for specific purposes then so be it, I’ll leave you to it. But, as you might expect there’s a bit of subtlety at work in all of this, they aren’t going to hit you over the head with a club… the intent is to do the exact opposite.

First off (and IMO of course) the timing of the laptop story strikes me as deliberate and predictable. There’s always some bombshell released in October intended to impact elections in November. Both sides do this, and their war rooms deliberately time the release for maximum effect. It’s not a surprise that the defending war room will then counter the allegations and use their own assets (media, ex-intelligence analysts, subject matter experts, etc) to do so. Time is always short and IMO liberals/democrats are better at playing this game than their conservative colleagues… I don’t know why that is but  given the events in the US right now, I suspect they'll be stepping up their game in the future.

In any case, these releases are every bit as predictable as that horrible story about a veteran being denied benefits10 days before Remembrance Day… it happens every year, and every year we try to guess (locker room conversations) what it will be. The opposition leader is going to tell you all about it with an outraged gleam in his eye but you know full well he’s been sitting on that story since May. My two questions are the same every year: “where the hell ya been bro?” and “just how stupid do you think we are?”

We now know that the entire laptop saga of “classic Russian disinformation” spin was false… right? If you don’t believe that stop reading now and move on because I won’t be sparing with you about this anymore.

I tend to work these issues backwards because plausible deniability starts pre-deployment, not after the fact. So, it’s noteworthy (at least it is to me) that the analysts, and virtually all of the frontmen asserting “classic Russian disinformation” in the media, were ex-members of a community (communities actually) that simply don’t get this stuff wrong.

So how is that to be explained?

Well, as ex-members they likely never examined the evidence beyond a  superficial level (meaning what they were given) because it’s unlikely that they would have (or have been granted) full access.

So asserting that something bears the hallmarks of “that which it isn’t” is not the same thing as conducting an investigation, examining the computer in detail, analyzing the contents and then arriving at the same conclusion based on findings of fact. BTW, have you ever tried to get 51 intelligence analysts to agree on anything? Imagine doing that over the course of a couple of days? Try it with 51 meteorologists…  pretty much the same thing I think

That alone draws my attention and suggests a second glance is warranted.

In short, top level organizations don’t make these sort of mistakes when they have physical evidence to examine. If you listened carefully to what was being said and who was doing the talking, it was always highly credible but still ex-members front and centre the whole time.

I’m guessing the question these folks were asked is “here, look at this, are you willing to certify that it (meaning the evidence they were given) is a classic example of deliberately planted disinformation by foreign actors hoping to disrupt an election process?”

The answer is easy: “yes that’s how they do it, we’ve all seen it before, OK,  I’ll sign to that effect.”

Armed with that, a compliant media then steps in and sells it. Watch the interviews, no one is saying our experts examined the computer in detail and after careful analysis we determined it was fake… they’re simply saying things like this is “a classic example of Russian disinformation” and they’re right. I watched in awe as the anchors didn't even bother to ask the sort of basic questions you and I would ask if we were given the opportunity. 

The talking points are clearly established, they're packaged, they're carefully synchronized for release, and they’re repeated over and over again usually with the same phrasing (like threat to our democracy). But it’s done in a way that implies there was careful consideration by expert analysts with full access. That effort gives the assessment more validity than it deserves and also supplies a venue for saying it was only “in our opinion and based on past experience” after the fact.

The process works in reverse too, the media reports something that’s not true (usually deliberately leaked and always beneficial), the government then acts on the information as if it were gospel.

Case in point was the assertion that foreign entities were funding the freedom convoy when they clearly weren’t. After the fact it can (and was) sold as “we had credible reports of foreign funding by bad actors and had to move quickly to protect the interests of  Canadians.” There were never any credible reports at all and we know that now. It was simply a tool to freeze bank accounts as a deterrent measure and even I can make that stuff up. How else could you possibly justify the action taken?

In closing I’ll just paraphrase their own words here, “these are classic markers of disinformation” and I’ll also suggest that doing it isn’t overly difficult or complicated.

Edited June 8 by Venandi

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Venandi said:

I could probably write a book here

Wow...I've never really appreciated how much effort it takes to maintain paranoia. You're why I say camera assisted transparency of our governance is the only cure for it.

We're in a state of socio-political breakdown that is on par with the story about the people of Babel - who it should be pointed out, actually tried to cooperate and get along with one another in common purpose.

Edited June 8 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Wow...I've never really appreciated how much effort it takes to maintain paranoia. You're why I say camera assisted transparency of our governance is the only cure for it.

We're in a state of socio-political breakdown that is on par with the story about the people of Babel - who it should be pointed out, actually tried to cooperate and get along with one another in common purpose.

It's funny. I've heard that alleged. That is, the people want to get along with each other and with other peoples. Based on the comments here, I can't see it. 

 

Although I think we both are as skeptical with the government as the previous post tries to be. 

 

I just get frustrated when it gets into cuckoo clock design because it's such a waste of post.

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's funny. I've heard that alleged. That is, the people want to get along with each other and with other peoples. Based on the comments here, I can't see it. 

I liken it more to an emergency on a boat far at sea. No one wants to die out there or deliberately do anything that thwarts dealing with the emergency but if and when panic, indecision and above all else loss of faith or trust starts to set in that's what happens.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

I could probably write a book here

From my experience here, I doubt eyeball reads more than one or two lines.  I don't think he is here to learn anything, but I could be wrong.  Just haven't seen much evidence.  You may be wasting a lot of time and energy on answering him with a long post, but there is always hope.

Edited June 8 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Wow...I've never really appreciated how much effort it takes to maintain paranoia. You're why I say camera assisted transparency of our governance is the only cure for it.

We're in a state of socio-political breakdown that is on par with the story about the people of Babel - who it should be pointed out, actually tried to cooperate and get along with one another in common purpose.

Whenever you know you are wrong you double down on the stupid. And how exactly would having politicians wear body cameras have helped here?

It's telling that you don't care about the corruption, you don't care that something may have happened here, you only choose to deflect. As I have always noted you don't give a Flying Fig about transparency

[Venandi]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

You're why I say camera assisted transparency of our governance is the only cure for it.

Maybe you should be wearing the camera so you can see how silly that sounds.

From today's news... almost as if it were on cue eh?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-takes-hunter-biden-laptop-100036555.html

BTW, some of those former analysts were rewarded with Biden administration jobs after they signed the letter. 

Here's a quote from the article (in bold below)... it appears that Politico is now distancing themselves from the story they ran using the self same "plausible deniability" option that I suggested would be a likely first choice. 

There was a reason that only ex-members of the intelligence community were recruited to sign this letter and act as spokesmen for the Russian hoax angle. 

Here it is in today's news. But the thing that is truly news worthy here is that 51 intelligence analysts were actually able to agree on something (meaning anything). It's a bloody rare thing and I remember laughing at the idea the very first time I read about the letter they signed.

Now is that paranoia or does recognizing the humour in it come from drinking beer with argumentative intelligence analysts during extended vacations.

When asked for comment, Politico stressed that its article made clear that claims of potential Russian interference were the opinions of the former intelligence officials, not the outlet itself.

 

Edited June 8 by Venandi

[herbie]

The threads about CBC being pro Palestinian and MAGA imbeciles yak on about Hunter F^cking Biden's laptop.
 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

Maybe you should be wearing the camera so you can see how silly that sounds.

Maybe you should try working (commercial fishing) with cameras monitoring you along with GPS tracking software collected in a black box that auditors come and swap out when you're unloading before dismissing the idea of using cameras to keep our governance honest.

Don't say it can't be done to someone who's done it.