FEDERAL DEBATE SCANDAL

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

Sounds like the courts will have to be more specific next time. I suspect the distinction between activist and advocate will need to be spelled out more clearly.

$10 bucks says being an advocate won't cut it.

You are 100% wrong and if you actually go and read the readings you'll understand why

The fact that one division or element of rebel news is it paid advertiser does not change the fact that the divisions that have journalists are still journalists.

From the original court cases:

“When an organization: becomes an actor in the stories it tells, including providing and applying financial and legal assistance to some of its sources to work toward a desired outcome or offering free legal services, crowdfunds to help some individuals in stories hire lawyers, purchases political advertising and launches petitions;

There you go

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

If they tried again to prevent Rebel from being there after being ordered by the courts twice that they had to allow them, the courts might look even more unfavorably upon them. That is probably why they caved and gave Rebel more questions when they threatened to sue.

Well not just that, based on the previous rulings rebel structured itself in such a way that had they won again they would have been granted by law the right to send 11 journalists. And they knew they would win that.

So the commission said well how about you take five and we won't fight it.

Had it gone to court rebel news would have won again and would have been granted 11 reporters to be there. I'm not actually a million percent sure that they have 11 reporters but I'm sure that is scratched up someone. 

The commission needs to think of a better way to invite and manage the number of people that can be sent by an organization. And it has to be something that applies fairly to everyone. But having said that it's really not easy to do

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

More importantly though the CBC is not a registered political advocate. You saying they are doesn't make it so.

That's not important in the slightest. In fact that would make it worse because if you connected those two things then it would be an contribution that wasn't registered and they would be breaking the law

You're making my point for me. They're separate and they cannot be considered together and that's exactly what rebel news has set up.

[Moonbox]

24 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

If they won't cover stories important to conservatives, then they shouldn't have to be funded by them. End of.

Again, that's not how it works.  Journalists report the actual news, not the news that you want to hear.  

24 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

But the issue here is not that the CBC does not ask those questions. It's that someone else did. They were allowed to be there. And CBC and other mainstream lost their minds.  They even resorted to pretending that they were somehow threatened by their presence. Too bad.

Because they weren't even really asking questions.  They were peddling grievances and making accusations disguised as questions.  Rebel "News" is in the business of crying foul about confrontations they themselves start.  How many videos have we seen from these clowns of them jamming mics in people's faces and yelling asshat questions at them, and then crying foul when someone shoves the mic away or pushes them aside?  A LOT.  

Edited April 21 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

Again, that's not how it works.  Journalists report the actual news, not the news that you want to hear.  

 

No, that's how it works if you're private. That is not how it works if you're public. If you are a public news organization you really do have to make sure that your coverage is even in balanced and that is not the case with the CBC

Quote

Because they weren't even really asking questions.  They were peddling grievances and making accusations disguised as questions.  

In your opinion but other people absolutely think those questions need to be asked.

For example the question of why the government did nothing when 200 churches, 200 mind you, we're burnt to the ground with virtually no investigation or any action on the federal part. That's entirely valid even if perhaps you aren't interested just because you don't believe in having an imaginary friend that doles out colored eggs at this time of year for reasons that have never been entirely clear to me.

I also think that the question about whether or not there are two genders after carney is a silly one but nobody said so when other news outlets asked that of Poilievre just last month. 

Journalism isn't just about the masses. Journalism is not supposed to be only questions that the group at large have approved. Journalists are supposed to ask all the questions, and that's why you have more than one journalistic organ ization.

[CouchPotato]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Again, that's not how it works.  Journalists report the actual news, not the news that you want to hear. 

It's not that it is the news I want to hear. It's that they only cover stories and issues that the left deems important. Tax payers have a right to complain about that.

Quote

Because they weren't even really asking questions. 

Sounds like the CBC.

Quote

How many videos have we seen from these clowns of them jamming mics in people's faces and yelling asshat questions at them, and then crying foul when someone shoves the mic away or pushes them aside? 

Irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Edited April 21 by CouchPotato

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 Because they weren't even really asking questions.   

Here's a "question" from Keean Bexte:

"You're hoping that Canadians won't connect the dots... the man that moved Paul Bernardo from a maximum security prison is your chief of staff..."

It's not a question, it's an accusation.  They're there to elect Poilievre, period.

They also stacked the line and were said to have added extra people.  There's no way a podcast/scandal sheet should have the same number of questions as a national broadcaster.

I couldn't expect to go there and ask more questions than anyone, as a 3rd party advocacy group or fledgling journalist...

 

Edited April 21 by Michael Hardner

[CouchPotato]

 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here's a "question" from Keean Bexte:

...........
They also stacked the line and were said to have added extra people.  There's no way a podcast/scandal sheet should have the same number of questions as a national broadcaster.

They did not add extra people. A man there accused them of that. But Ezra pointed out to him that was not true. It's all on the video. Those were people from other independent outlets. Keann Bexte for instance is not from Rebel. Not sure where he works now. Great guy though. Love Keann. The guy who asked about the genders was from Juno I believe.

Edited April 21 by CouchPotato

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here's a "question" from Keean Bexte:

"You're hoping that Canadians won't connect the dots... the man that moved Paul Bernardo from a maximum security prison is your chief of staff..."

It's not a question, it's an accusation.  They're there to elect Poilievre, period.

 

and all the other were there to elect Carney, period.

Dots connected 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here's a "question" from Keean Bexte:

"You're hoping that Canadians won't connect the dots... the man that moved Paul Bernardo from a maximum security prison is your chief of staff..."

It's not a question, it's an accusation.  They're there to elect Poilievre, period.

 

We've seen hundreds of very similar things from many of the other left-leading media sources including CBC. Just the other day I heard a CBC reporter ask "you're doing terribly in the polls and people don't seem to trust you, why is that?'   That's exactly the same sort of thing. 

But you, who will go on ad nauseam about how other people won't acknowledge basic points will not acknowledge that basic point

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Bullshit.

You said in your link...

The first was after Singh's scrum. A Rebel reporter stated in her question that no human remains have been confirmed at former residential school sites initially reported since 2021. But after the scum (see 10:45 in the below video) Rosemary Barton claimed that human have indeed been found at former school sites. 

This is FALSE. (consult your favorite AI chat bot like ChatGPT or Grok to confirm yourself):

Ok....I did what you said and this is what I got.

AI Overview

Yes, human remains, particularly those of Indigenous children, have been found at some former residential school sites in Canada.

Now what?

CBC corrects mistake on indigenous residential school graves

Now you go try and find a smarter AI. I suppose that's easier than becoming intelligent yourself   

[WestCanMan]

51 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Again, that's not how it works.  Journalists report the actual news, not the news that you want to hear.  

Moonie won't tell us how he feels about his "news" channels receiving nearly $2 Billion in taxpayer funds, courtesy of the LPOC, immediately before the 2019,2021 and 2025 elections, plus another $675 Million taxpayer dollars immediately after the 2015 election....

He truly believes that the Libs ALWAYS give billions of dollars to the MSM right in the heart of media bribery season, "to ensure media integrity" 

He also believes that his Liberal MP takes his wife to the Motel 6 to ensure her marital fidelity 😂

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So this specific thing has specifically been tried in court twice. The courts have said they are journalists and they cannot be denied access given to other journalists.

No, they have no said that. 

They overruled the debate commission's decision to bar them from attendance, and for numerous reasons. 

Not only has a federal judge since ruled that Rebel doesn't qualify as a news journalism organization, Rebel themselves apparently don't either, registering for this years debate as a political advocacy group.  

Edited April 21 by Moonbox

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If there's another way, that's on a par with that, any press outlet should be thoroughly admonished for using it.  I can't think of one. 

 

2. That's a legitimate point of view, and the one echoed by Jesse Brown of Canadaland

You can't really reject them for being bad at journalism. Otherwise, lots of other post media outlets would be rejected. 

You can reject them for not being journalists though.

Define what a journalist is though...

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If there's another way, that's on a par with that, any press outlet should be thoroughly admonished for using it.  I can't think of one. 

 

2. That's a legitimate point of view, and the one echoed by Jesse Brown of Canadaland

You can't really reject them for being bad at journalism. Otherwise, lots of other post media outlets would be rejected. 

You can reject them for not being journalists though.

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If there's another way, that's on a par with that, any press outlet should be thoroughly admonished for using it.  I can't think of one. 

 

2. That's a legitimate point of view, and the one echoed by Jesse Brown of Canadaland

You can't really reject them for being bad at journalism. Otherwise, lots of other post media outlets would be rejected. 

You can reject them for not being journalists though.

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If there's another way, that's on a par with that, any press outlet should be thoroughly admonished for using it.  I can't think of one. 

 

2. That's a legitimate point of view, and the one echoed by Jesse Brown of Canadaland

You can't really reject them for being bad at journalism. Otherwise, lots of other post media outlets would be rejected. 

You can reject them for not being journalists though.

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If there's another way, that's on a par with that, any press outlet should be thoroughly admonished for using it.  I can't think of one. 

 

2. That's a legitimate point of view, and the one echoed by Jesse Brown of Canadaland

You can't really reject them for being bad at journalism. Otherwise, lots of other post media outlets would be rejected. 

You can reject them for not being journalists though.

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

But it turns out that an organization can be two things. It can absolutely have an activist Wing, and you can still have a journalistic wing that pursue stories.

You have three things here; journalism, activism and campaign advertiser. You're saying activist and campaign advertising are the same thing?

$10 says the court won't.

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If there's another way, that's on a par with that, any press outlet should be thoroughly admonished for using it.  I can't think of one. 

 

2. That's a legitimate point of view, and the one echoed by Jesse Brown of Canadaland

You can't really reject them for being bad at journalism. Otherwise, lots of other post media outlets would be rejected. 

You can reject them for not being journalists though.

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

[Michael Hardner]

@Moonbox here's an example of one of their seasoned journalists ... keean bexte... He's known for having sold flags online, the far-right nationalist type...

Cute lad....

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, they have no said that. 

 

They did. That is why they overruled the decision to bar them. From the exact venue specifically that we're talking about now. Twice

This isn't going to be one of those cases where you have a meltdown and try and reinvent a word so that it's meaning is twisted enough that you can shoot horn it in is it?

The courts have ruled twice and they did so on these specifically specific circumstances from this specific commission

Rebel news journalists must be allowed even if rebel news itself engages in political activism or advertising as was specifically mentioned in the previous cases. There is no room for discussion here, this has been decided two times by different judges in different court cases.

 

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You have three things here; journalism, activism and campaign advertiser. You're saying activist and campaign advertising are the same thing?

$10 says the court won't.

They absolutely are the same thing and both were dressed in the previous quotes from the court cases so you now owe me $20

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Define what a journalist is though...

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

100%.  And this is why both Jesse Brown (being sued by the Rebel and lil Mr. Bexte last I heard) and Journalism maven AND PROFESSOR Jan Wong both agree that it's not possible to do so.

However, you can make people choose between being advocates or journalists, if they want to participate in a national process such as a debate.  

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

@Moonbox here's an example of one of their seasoned journalists ... keean bexte... He's known for having sold flags online, the far-right nationalist type...

Cute lad....

So now he's not a journalist because..... you don't like how he looks? You don't like the idea of making Alberta debt free again? What exactly about this picture proves that he is not a journalist? 

 

Anybody else want to take a guess of this? Mike hardener says this person isn't a legitimate journalist because of this picture, anyone  care to comment on why this person can't possibly be a journalist?

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

However, you can make people choose between being advocates or journalists, if they want to participate in a national process such as a debate.  

No actually you can't. A person can be both. And organization can be both. And this is what was tested in court

People have made your argument twice regarding this specific thing in court and both times the judge said no. It's amazing how you left these throw the courts right out the window the moment they say something you don't like

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

CBC corrects mistake on indigenous residential school graves

Now you go try and find a smarter AI. I suppose that's easier than becoming intelligent yourself   

• CBC corrects Barton's mistake on indigenous residential school graves

Yeah, it was "a mistake", because Rosemary Barton "got unlucky remembering things" again. 

She felt like she remembered when CBC was reporting about an actual mass-gravesite of children, because that's the kind of thing that you could forget, like what you had for breakfast last Thursday. 

• Dude 1: "Hey bruh, how long have you lived here now?
• Dude 2: "5 years."
• Dude 1: "Have there ever been any mass graves of children from the 1900s found in your backyard?"
• Dude 2: "Yup. There was a mass gravesite found in my backyard just last year."
• Dude 2's wife: "Nope. We live in a condo, so we don't have a backyard. You've never lived in a house with a yard, even when you were a kid."
• Dude 2: "Oh yeah. I forgot. 'Cuz, you know, that's the kind of thing that might slip your memory". 

 

Rosemary Barton's lie was so blatantly false that Mark Carney fell in love with her. 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

It's not that it is the news I want to hear. It's that they only cover stories and issues that the left deems important. 

These are the same complaints.  

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

Irrelevant to the matter at hand.

No, it is the matter at hand.  It's Rebel Media being Rebel Media - doing exactly what they always do. It's a tired routine and not even the least bit noteworthy outside of the folks already drinking their Kool-Aid.  

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Define what a journalist is though...

This is a tough situation with a lot of gray area

That's why this business of inclusion on press pools should be dealt with by broadcasters who know their business. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

If they tried again to prevent Rebel from being there after being ordered by the courts twice that they had to allow them, the courts might look even more unfavorably upon them. That is probably why they caved and gave Rebel more questions when they threatened to sue.

It sounds like they don't know what they're doing and it sounds like the courts are fumbling around in the dark too.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It sounds like they don't know what they're doing and it sounds like the courts are fumbling around in the dark too.

Because it's almost impossible to 'define' a journalist... and nobody wants the state to issue journalism licenses.  Nobody.

So you depend on that very elusive and valuable quality called 'goodwill' and the attendant value of 'trust'.  Most Canadians know what that is but not Rebel News.

I was going to link to the story where they ran at Trudeau's bodyguards then started blubbering that they were assaulted, but the only organization who covered that was The Rebel themselves.  Typical.

[Moonbox]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They did. That is why they overruled the decision to bar them. From the exact venue specifically that we're talking about now. Twice

No, it's not.  There's no requirement to be a journalist to attend.  All you have to do is be an organization that:

 covers political, social and policy issues.

https://www.debates-debats.ca/en/news/2025/opens-media-accreditation/

As mentioned, not only has Rebel's status as a journalism organization been denied, that ruling has been confirmed on appeal recently by a federal court judge.  They do almost literally zero journalism, which again is likely why they registered as a political advocacy group.