CBC's Move From Liars and Propagandists to Evil Smut-Merchants

[John Johnston]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

Of course humour works when it's on point, skilfully delivered, and not punching down, like Chapelle.

But with what's going on in the US 'Through the Looking Glass' politics' now, it must be hard to satirize events. The reality is so bizarre.

A person cannot even make this shit up that is going on with America. The term Bizarre does not give it justice. 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, John Johnston said:

A person cannot even make this shit up that is going on with America. The term Bizarre does not give it justice. 

No they can't, so why do you keep on making these inane attempts?

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, John Johnston said:

A person cannot even make this shit up that is going on with America. The term Bizarre does not give it justice. 

My favourite part was when the Dems and the entire MSM all pretended that they had never seen any evidence of Biden's cognitive decline 😂

He was talking to drapes, falling off bikes, falling up the stairs, and they all knew that they couldn't ask him a question any more challenging than "Is Twumpy bad" or they'd get fired, but "They didn't see nuthin'!"

Your side is 100% worthless ret4rds, John. There are maybe 3 human beings on the left side of the aisle in the US that are capable of saying anything intelligent and honest. 

Yeah, it's bizarre alright, doofus.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Your side is 100% worthless ret4rds, John. There are maybe 3 human beings on the left side of the aisle in the US that are capable of saying anything intelligent and honest. 

The title and topic of this thread tell us everything we need to know about how much intelligent thought is happening in that head of yours. 

You're a ridiculous, silly man.  

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

OK, I have to ask. Do you disagree with the fact that:

No, I don't disagree.  I remember before the last Biden/Trump debate saying something the effect that "All Biden had to do was not be a vegetable" to win that debate.  He couldn't meet that test.  

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Personally, I think it was the most bizarre denial of reality that I've ever witnessed... are you suggesting that anyone who saw it prior to the debate was

No, I'm suggesting that his thread title, the OP, his idea that the so-called Left is all full of retards and there's only three smart ones in the entire world is what makes him a ridiculous, silly man. 

[Canadaisintrouble]

CBC is garbage! I have not watched it in almost 7-8 years.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Venandi said:

Only when the proof of it was manifestly obvious for all to see did the two entities even entertain the possibility.

I think that's why Biden passed on the opportunity to speak at the Superbowl. 

To any other president, or any company in the free world, that 90-second opportunity to speak to all of America is worth tens of millions of dollars, but to a guy in Biden's predicament, who can't really predict at what point of the day he might have his brief moments of lucidity, doing 90 seconds on live TV in front of millions was actually a huge risk that he didn't need to take. Especially when answering 1 question a week at the ice cream parlour was already working for him. 

If he had a huge gaffe-fest at that superbowl, it would have instantly become part of the national discourse, and the MSM would have no way of covering it up at that point, like they did with his 100 other gaffes. 

TBH, the debate brain-freeze wasn't even one of his worst, it was just the most widely seen one. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The title and topic of this thread

Can you honestly say that you don't think the CBC is biased?

Would you say that you've never caught CBC News lying?

Quote

tell us everything we need to know about how much intelligent thought is happening in that head of yours. 

There's a difference between CBC being the liars and propagandists that they are, and CBC paying their propagandists to run hidden camera scams on people, gang up on them on camera, and then edit the hell out of all the footage to try to make them look bad. 

As a national broadcaster they're getting billions of taxpayer dollars every year, and that's not to be used as a weapon against decent taxpayers. 

CBC could be crossing a line they dare not cross. It's one thing to ruin politicians with lies and omissions, it's another thing entirely to run scams on innocent civilians and destroy their lives.  

[Moonbox]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Can you honestly say that you don't think the CBC is biased?

No, I can't, but that's a separate thing entirely than your utterly ridiculous characterizatization.  You have already lost the thread when you posted that thread title as a non-parody of yourself.  

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, I can't, but that's a separate thing entirely than your utterly ridiculous characterizatization.  You have already lost the thread when you posted that thread title as a non-parody of yourself.  

OK, well, thank you for at least admitting that the CBC is biased. 

But just in case you're unclear on the definition of lying, it includes things like exaggeration/minimization, omission, etc, and you can't really be biased without incorporating some of those tactics.

Sure, CBC is being biased when they downplay the massive lies that Carney gets caught on, or when they downplay a Trudeau scandal, or put a 3-yr spotlight on something like Duffygate, blame actual LPoC failings on Trump, etc, but those are also all forms of lying.

Can you explain how CBC can be biased without some form of exaggerating, minimizing, or omitting? 

Can you explain how CBC's election-influencing isn't bad for our democracy? 

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 

But just in case you're unclear on the definition of lying, it includes things like exaggeration/minimization, omission, etc, 

Like when you said that the CBC was editing content for a production that they are not in charge of? 

I'll apologize in advance if I'm wrong about this, but it's already been stated that another production company was was doing all the content and they were hosting the Show on the platform.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Like when you said that the CBC was editing content for a production that they are not in charge of? 

Wow.

You're going to quite great lengths to pretend that my commentary on the CBC scam show is the main problem.

FYI I never claimed that "CBC themselves would be editing the footage", but this is a CBC-funded program, so they're responsible for the final product, which would absolutely be edited to the point of being unrecognizable. That's how the CBC works.

Quote

I'll apologize in advance if I'm wrong about this, but it's already been stated that another production company was was doing all the content and they were hosting the Show on the platform.

It's still CBC-funded. Our gov't is paying for that disgusting garbage, as usual. 

[herbie]

Once again Mr  Freedom-of-speech berates the CBC as propaganda because they aire something HE didn't like.

A joint production with APTN and a cop feels injured by Native pranking them?

Awww! Gee! My f*cking heart bleeds like a stuck pig.

As hurt as being ignored, tasered, punched, mocked, locked up over the last 200 years?

Edited May 21 by herbie

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1.  pretend that my commentary on the CBC scam show is the main problem.

2. "CBC themselves would be editing the footage", but this is a CBC-funded program, so they're responsible for the final product, which would absolutely be edited to the point of being unrecognizable. That's how the CBC works.

3. It's still CBC-funded. Our gov't is paying for that disgusting garbage, as usual. 

1. No - you submitted a principle which is a precious thing, and something a true conservative would live by - objectively.  So I'm looking at whether you follow what you preach.
2. I guess I didn't understand this properly, I'll give you that:
" CBC paying their propagandists to run hidden camera scams on people, gang up on them on camera, and then edit the hell out of all the footage to try to make them look bad. "

But they didn't direct the production company to do this, unless you have evidence to back that up.  They hosted the series, I think I read, on their platform.
3. Don't watch it then.  I myself like listening to all sides, that's why I listened to Rex Murphy when he was on...

[Moonbox]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

OK, well, thank you for at least admitting that the CBC is biased. 

Thank you for at least acknowledging that I said that, and not trying to pretend that I'm a CBC swill-drinker or that I pay it much attention.  

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

But just in case you're unclear on the definition of lying, it includes things like exaggeration/minimization, omission, etc, and you can't really be biased without incorporating some of those tactics.

That's not the "definition of lying".  The things you list can be a type of lying, but that depends on the framework and the context.  A news site cannot cover everything, so by default they must choose to publish some stories and "omit" others.  Whether they're exaggerating or minimizing a story's importance is also a matter of perspective, and if we use your definitions, then you're probably lying every time you comment on CBC...

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No - you submitted a principle which is a precious thing, and something a true conservative would live by - objectively.  So I'm looking at whether you follow what you preach.

It's weird to assume that I wouldn't practice what I preach after all this time.

The CBC are a bunch of liars and propagandists, 24/7/365.

Quote

But they didn't direct the production company to do this, unless you have evidence to back that up.  They hosted the series, I think I read, on their platform.

Come on, Michael... ffs. 

Would CNN fund a series on the Iran war and have it hosted by a neutral or conservative-leaning production company?

Would Fox fund a series on the Iran war and have it hosted by a neutral or left-leaning production company?

CBC funded the program specifically because it is being run by a bunch of blue-hairs and anti-Christian propagandists.

Bottom line: People came to CBC with an idea to belch out vile left4rd propaganda, and that's the only reason why the funding got approved. 

Quote

I myself like listening to all sides

Oh, man.

FYI the "other side" isn't allowed to speak on this issue, Michael. Not at all.

Have you not been paying attention to what happens to people who bring unwanted facts to this debate? 

Dude... When the story about the 215 tree roots initially came out, did anyone - ANYONE AT ALL - ever go on CBC and say something like: "If there even are bones there, the most likely culprit isn't "a murder cult"; it's Spanish flu, TB, smallpox, or the cumulative effect of all those diseases. There's actually no good reason at all to assume that even 1 child was murdered and buried there." 

What's your honest opinion, Mike? I'll just play devils advocate for a second and say: If there actually are bones from 215 children there, what is the most likely cause of death?

1. diseases like Spanish flu, TB, smallpox, etc that ran rampant in the school
2. a child-murdering cult that somehow went unnoticed?

CBC only allowed people to talk about #2. And I truly mean "ONLY ALLOWED...."

No one ever said "Spanish flu" on the CBC in conjunction with that story.

No one was allowed to challenge that narrative anywhere in this country or they were accused of hate speech. CBC also went all-in on the "The one and only reason for the Res Schools was to destroy native culture" narrative. They tell Canadians that there was never any good reason for trying to give those kids a 20th-century education. It was only important to racists who wanted those kids put into schools."

That's fkin stupid, MH. Racists would have said "Don't spend good money trying to educate those brain-dead savages! *puuuh-tingggg*" The majority of people who wanted to educate those children in Northern Canada would be the exact same type of people who truly want to see black children in the US get access to a good education today.

There was a realistic attempt made to CRIMINALIZE the truth about the res schools:

• NDP Member of Parliament Leah Gazan introduced a private member's bill (Bill C-413) to amend the Criminal Code. It proposes making it an offense to "willfully promote hatred against" Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying, or justifying the Indian residential school system in public.

Look at the thoroughly evil wording of that. C-word Gazan tried to equate "sharing facts about the res schools" with "willfully promoting hatred". That's literally what's at stake there. If you downplay, by saying something like "The schools weren't created just so that priests could r4pe and abuse children", even that's hate speech to a lot of people. That's how fking stupid Canadians are in the 21st century. You can't say "Some people thought that they should have a chance to come into the 20th century, as a people" because that challenges the new narrative, and is therefor hate speech. Etc, etc.

So you're not gonna hear "another side", Michael. Not in this fkin communist shithole. You're gonna hear 1) ayatollah Trudeau's version and 2) you're gonna nod your head like a good little cultist, or 3) MH is gonna get fking cancelled, bigtime by the left4rds here. 

 

MH, I can promise you that there are fully 10M people in Canada who feel like they thoroughly understand the res school topic, who actually have no knowledge and understanding of that issue whatsoever. None. They have been fed nothing but lies for their entire lives, and they lack the common sense to think for themselves.

There's not a single person talking about this issue on CBC that I wouldn't spit on if they came at me with their stream of lies and BS. "Liars only need apply here at the CBC."

Edited May 21 by WestCanMan

[Michael Hardner]

@WestCanMan A very long post but I don't see any evidence. You think CBC did this as a hit piece but I'm not so sure. 

Again, the context of it was they funded a show and they were going to host it on their platform. Doesn't say anything about editorial control. That is your assumption. 

So practice what you preach and retract your statements until you get evidence. 

That's what the CBC would do. They would issue a correction. They do that quite regularly.

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

@WestCanMan A very long post but I don't see any evidence. You think CBC did this as a hit piece but I'm not so sure. 

Again, the context of it was they funded a show and they were going to host it on their platform. Doesn't say anything about editorial control. That is your assumption. 

So practice what you preach and retract your statements until you get evidence. 

That's what the CBC would do. They would issue a correction. They do that quite regularly.

If Al Jazeera funds a show, do you think it's gonna make Hindus look good? Is it gonna make Jews look good?

Of course not. The answer is "nard no" to both. 

AJ will only fund people who have a shitty agenda, and a plan to make someone look bad. 

 

If BLM funds a show, do you think it's gonna make police look good? Is it gonna make any white people in the community look decent?

Of course not. The answer is "hard no" to both. 

BLM will only fund people who have a shitty agenda, and a plan to make someone look bad. 

 

If the SPLC funds a show, do you think it's gonna make Republicans look good? Is it gonna portray a community with a white mayor as racially harmonious?

Of course not. The answer is "hard no" to both. 

The SPLC will only fund people who have a shitty agenda, and a plan to make Republicans and white communities look bad. 

 

CBC's blatant bias and lies were reflected by the people who they gave funding to. If anyone has an idea for a fair and balanced show with political undertones, there might as well be a sign on the door at CBC that says "Decent people need not apply". But it's not there, people just have to apply and get rejected.

Think of these types of productions as the minor leagues of the CBC... They fund shitty people to do disreputable projects, and if the propaganda they produce is slick enough then some of those shitty people will be offered jobs at CBC. 

Did you think that CBC was gonna be looking to hire intelligent, promising young journalists who are dedicated to fairness? 😂 Of course not. CBC will never hire anyone like that. That person is guaranteed to become a whistleblower.

CBC is actively looking for the kinds of people that worked on that show. 

 

So, no, CBC didn't need to do the editing themselves. They might have had people check in and see how the show was going, and make some technical/content "suggestions", but they're not gonna advertise that, and now that the show has been exposed, you're never gonna find out. 

Just remember that CBC is one of the main orgs that helped cover up Trudeau's scandals. Do you think they can't hide their own? Do you think the Libs won't protect them?  

Quote

So practice what you preach and retract your statements until you get evidence. 

The last 20 years of CBC's lies and deception is evidence. They're vile, so they fund vile people. That's how that works.

I'm not retracting the only intelligent statements that you looked at today.

Quote

That's what the CBC would do. They would issue a correction. They do that quite regularly.

😂

CBC: "Sorry for the last 20 years, suckers." 😉

Edited May 22 by WestCanMan

[Legato]