FEDERAL DEBATE SCANDAL

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

There you go what? This is a partial quote without context.

From a link previously given.

I'm sorry, I forgot about you 30 second attention span. You probably forgot by the time you got to the end of the post.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

No, here's the whole quote:

For the purpose of accreditation, a "media organization" is an organization that either produces original news content related to coverage of Canadian or international political news, or covers political, social and policy issues.

So they're journalists.  Working for a news organization that produces original news content related in this case to politics. 

Sigh, 

Yeah. I know.  I've said that. 🙄🙄

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

As already mentioned, a federal judge just ruled they don't count as a journalism organization, because they're not actually producing any original news content. 

That's not what the judge ruled. The judge ruled they don't produce enough original news to be qualified for the tax credit. 

Sorry kiddo. The people who went there were journalists and twice the judges ruled they had to be included. You can twist and turn and have your hissy fits but at the end of the day 

[Moonbox]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So they're journalists.  Working for a news organization that produces original news content related in this case to politics. 

Lol nope!  That's the part the federal judge confirmed they don't actually do.  When asked to submit a 3-week period of their content for review, only 10 out of 400+ "articles" they published had anything even resembling original news content.  

Ranting uselessly about stuff and spreading 10-IQ misinformation doesn't count as news.  If it did, you'd be the most prolific "journalist" in the country!  🤣 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Lol nope!  That's the part the federal judge confirmed they don't actually do. 

  Nope   The judge said they did some. They said that they didn't do enough as a organization to qualify for the grant but they did say they did so. Go take a look at the reading

We both know you're wrong. The moment you chase me around like a puppy trying to attack me on every other thread because your buthurt that you're losing again you're basically skywriting that you're wrong and your fewwings are huwt  

 

The journalist, judges have ruled that they are journalists specifically for this event. It's really end of story. And if I was wrong you wouldn't be crying all over the forum  like you just soiled your diapers

[Moonbox]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope   The judge said they did some. They said that they didn't do enough as a organization to qualify for the grant but they did say they did so. Go take a look at the reading

Ten articles out of the ~420+ they posted.  TEN.  That's 2% of their content.    

The judge confirmed they don't qualify as a journalism organization.  

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We both know you're wrong.

...and we both know what it means when you need to start telling everyone you're winning.  🤡

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Ten articles out of the ~420+ they posted.  TEN.  That's 2% of their content.    

So not none. So you admit that you Were wrong and that they do do journalism even if they do do other things as well. The judge literally agreed they're journalists producing their own content, but not enough. 

Frankly the number really isn't that much of a concern. They don't consider it journalism or original content if your commenting on somebody else's content even if you do add your own content and facts and figures  and frankly that is a large part of what they do and I don't know that I wouldn't call it journalism per se. I suppose if someone was trying to split a hair that would be commentary but that still seems like journalism to me, whatever. But at the end of the day they still produce original content, and they are still journalists.

So now that we've demonstrated by your own admission you were wrong, their presence at the event was obviously as journalists.  I mean they can't be there to comment on articles, those havent' been written yet.  They were there to conduct interviews and ask questions and do their job as journalists. 

And that was a whole lot of twisting and turning to yet again get us back to the beginning.  Whether you like it or not they are journalists, their outlet does produce original content, they were there as journalists and the courts have twice ordered that they must be allowed to attend. So despite how you may feel about it they did nothing wrong and they should have been accommodated. 

Quote

and we both know what it means when you need to start telling everyone you're winning

But that's the point! I didn't need to tell you. It's obvious that you felt I was winning when you started running all over the forum crying like a baby   The whole point is I obviously don't need to tell you  

But I love that you took the time to be wrong again after having been wrong the first time because apparently being stupid once isn't enough for you, and also that you have just demonstrated to the entire forum that you are so obsessed with me that you keep a folder of quotes going back god knows how far just so you can try and pull them out when you're losing an argument     I mean I think the whole chasing me around the forum thing was enough but that certainly does punctuate the point  LOLOL   !

 

I don't know why you're like this   But I do enjoy it. You keep going little guy!

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

From a link previously given.

I'm sorry, I forgot about you 30 second attention span. You probably forgot by the time you got to the end of the post.

It doesn't say advertisers working for a candidate have a right to being in a press pool either.

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't say any of that.  I just gave some background on him... as a guy who sells right-wing flags, would you trust him as a journalist ?  

Which flags?  I don't know the guy at all.  He has political opinions.  Andrew Coyne mouths off every day.  So did David Cochrane after the debates for the CBC.

Edited Tuesday at 02:39 AM by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No.  It is not.  An editorial is not an ad.

The "a dog is really a cat if you look at it differently" is something that people use to excuse this new brand of nonsense regularly.  Don't do it.

If it quacks like a duck...

They're trying to persuade people to vote a certain way.  Hey remember this:  https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/postmedia-sun-front-pages-replaced-with-full-page-political-ads_n_8326634

 

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm reminded of the way Catholics declared that rabbits were a type of fish to get around having to eat fish on Fridays.

If the newspaper was paid to write the endorsement it would be an advertisement.

Ok, what did The Rebel do?

[Moonlight Graham]

Here's what a 3rd party is defined in Canada:

In Canada, a registered third party is a "a person or group that wants to participate in or influence elections other than as a political party, electoral district association, nomination contestant or candidate." Third parties register with Elections Canada and are regulated under the terms of the Canada Elections Act.

Yeah sorry, newspaper endorsements count.  Influencing election results is the whole point.  Is it any different if it's on a page than a billboard?

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Ok, what did The Rebel do?

Showed up to a media scrum as campaign advertisers and political advocates for starters. This pissed off the journalists who were there which caused the Debate Commission to react badly and that's all she wrote.

You can blame it on the stupid Debate Commission which was bought into existence by the previous Conservative government that was baked with the same conspiracy gas you guys are regarding the  media.

The right wing has been all fùcked up about the news for decades and decades. You people are as bad as the dumbasses who locked Galileo up and for the very same reason.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Showed up to a media scrum as campaign advertisers and political advocates for starters. This pissed off the journalists who were there which caused the Debate Commission to react badly and that's all she wrote.

You can blame it on the stupid Debate Commission which was bought into existence by the previous Conservative government that was baked with the same conspiracy gas you guys are regarding the  media.

The right wing has been all fùcked up about the news for decades and decades. You people are as bad as the dumbasses who locked Galileo up and for the very same reason.

LOL "you guys".

[Moonlight Graham]

Here's Ezra's take @Michael Hardner and @eyeball:  

 

Cochrane said on CBC that Ezra/Rebel had their press pass revoked and removed from the property.  Ezra says this never happened.  So that's potentially a 4th lie (slander defamation) from a journalist on our objective public broadcaster.  Cochrane can't be trusted, he needs to be fired for lying to the public 3-4 times.  What else does he lie about?

Ezra also has FOOTAGE here of him talking to Cochrane/Barton.  It shows they weren't "live on the air" when they spoke, which Cochrane lied about when he did go back live on air.  CBC also had to post a correction about when Barton said something factually incorrect when she fact-checked the question about indigenous unmarked graves by Rebel News.

Ezra did say Rebel didn't have those ad truck vans, which is technically true but Ezra owns ForCanada, so it's deceptive and bad faith to not mention that, but not a lie.

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

LOL "you guys".

Yup, with the same mistrustful suspicious mindset of a paranoid Roman Inquisitor and all the tenacity of a pitbull. It took 359 years for you people to finally pardon Galileo.

Like I said right wing conservatism has been bonkers over the news for a very long long time. It's as bad as it's ever been in my lifetime and I suspect we'll never hear the end of it.

 

Edited Tuesday at 03:34 AM by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yup, with the same mistrustful suspicious mindset of a paranoid Roman Inquisitor and all the tenacity of a pitbull. It took 359 years for you people to finally pardon Galileo.

How am I behaving like that.  Address me.  I'm not responsible for anyone else but myself and i'm not on any "side" other than truth and democracy.

FYI you're the one that wants to exile Ezra Levant based on lies of the state (CBC) that never happened.  So I guess you're the Roman Inquisitor.  Not saying Rebel didn't do things they shouldn't have (e.g. David Menzies putting a bright light close to a Liberal staffers face), but they deserve a fair "trail".  You want to throw him in journalism jail without even considering the evidence because of your personal feelings about him.  That's not how justice works.

The Rebel asked some loaded and insulting questions.  That's their crime.  Not nearly as bad as the CBC lying 4-5 times on air to get back at some media outlet they dislike.

Haven't heard you or @Michael Hardner criticize the CBC's undemocratic behaviour (and illegal aka defamation).

Edited Tuesday at 03:45 AM by Moonlight Graham

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It doesn't say advertisers working for a candidate have a right to being in a press pool either.

It does. And the section I specifically mentioned to you from the case I quoted it specifically addressed advertising as well as advocacy work said it clear as a bell.

Mind you that was more than 45 seconds ago so you've probably forgotten

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yup, with the same mistrustful suspicious mindset of a paranoid Roman Inquisitor and all the tenacity of a pitbull. It took 359 years for you people to finally pardon Galileo.

 

 

Says the guy who is desperately trying to argue for the suppression of media freedom.

So anyone who questions the CBC is basically a 359-year-old roman catholic. That makes a lot of sense

The only people to blame here are the media freaks and the established media who lost their crap because rebel media did something perfectly legal that any of them could have done but didn't.

That is the only blame to be had here. "Hey guys, everyone has to follow these rules." "We followed the rules" "WHAT!!! HOW  DAAAAARRE YOU FOLLOW THE RULES!?!?!?!!? "

Pathetic

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Here's Ezra's take

Get back to us when Ezra uses his evidence to convince a judge to find Cochrane and O'Donnell guilty of libel and slander.

Maybe he can recoup the $80000 he was ordered to pay when he was found guilty of it.

[blackbird]

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Like I said right wing conservatism has been bonkers over the news for a very long long time. It's as bad as it's ever been in my lifetime and I suspect we'll never hear the end of it.

That's a very broad baseless claim.   It's easy to make false broad claims.  Putin does it all the time.  So does Trump.  

[eyeball]

46 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

How am I behaving like that.  Address me.  I'm not responsible for anyone else but myself and i'm not on any "side" other than truth and democracy.

How? You've overdosed on conspiracy gas.  You're responsible for that. Give your head a shake.

 

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So anyone who questions the CBC is basically a 359-year-old roman catholic. That makes a lot of sense

No, anyone who is firstly and foremostly informed by their belief that CBC journalists like Cochran and O'Donnell are paid political advocates and advertisers for the LPOC, WEF, W.O.K.E. and whoever else happens to have your political ginch in a knot at the moment.

I don't know how long you've been like this but people who sound an awful lot like you have been suspiciously barking at journalists for decades and decades.

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The only people to blame here are the media freaks and the established media who lost their crap because rebel media did something perfectly legal that any of them could have done but didn't.

Probably because they have some integrity and don't go out of their way to find some pretext to be perennial dinks about things.

Edited Tuesday at 04:25 AM by eyeball

[eyeball]

47 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Haven't heard you or @Michael Hardner criticize the CBC's undemocratic behaviour (and illegal aka defamation).

What undemocratic illegal behaviour?

Like I said get back to us when Ezra is awarded a penalty for these indignities.

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's a very broad baseless claim.   It's easy to make false broad claims.  Putin does it all the time.  So does Trump.  

Yup, it's definitely a very broad problem alright.

You just don't get irony do you?

[eyeball]

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It does. And the section I specifically mentioned to you from the case I quoted it specifically addressed advertising as well as advocacy work said it clear as a bell.

No it does not say clear as a bell at all that advertisers working for a candidate have a right to being in a press pool or media scrum.

[CdnFox]

55 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How? You've overdosed on conspiracy gas.  You're responsible for that. Give your head a shake.

Guess that's your way of admitting that you haven't got an argument    I'm sure shortly you will say it was all a joke

 

 

Quote

No, anyone who is firstly and foremostly informed by their belief that CBC journalists like Cochran and O'Donnell are paid political advocates and advertisers for the LPOC, WEF, W.O.K.E. and whoever else happens to have your political ginch in a knot at the moment.

I have never mentioned any of those things.

And in fact it is not me who has their ginch in anything. That would be you. You're the one foaming at the mouth over this. All I said was quite correctly they did nothing wrong and they are journalists

Quote

I don't know how long you've been like this but people who sound an awful lot like you have been suspiciously barking at journalists for decades and decades.

Oh you mean like Mark Twain?  Who said if you don't read the paper you're uninformed and if you do read the paper you're misinformed? Really weak minded people like that?

If you're hearing barking it's probably one of the voices in your head. You've been saying it for decades.  

 

Quote

Probably because they have some integrity and don't go out of their way to find some pretext to be perennial dinks about things.

Oh yeah we saw the respectability and integrity of that hill times reporter didn't we   

What were you saying about barking angry !diots again? I'm afraid that's your side not theirs   Their bark was worse than their sound-byte it would seem  

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

How? You've overdosed on conspiracy gas.  You're responsible for that. Give your head a shake.

You're nuts dude.  What conspiracy exactly?  Give me specifics.