CBC Caught Misreporting Harper Statement

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[geoffrey]

The civil rights movement in the US caused a lot of blood to be spilled.

I'm surprised any would get worked up over this minor a complaint

All I did was make it seem like another poster's unrelated question was the one being asked. How do you feel about your response? Would you be ok if that was broadcast across the nation tonight?

What CBC did was below any form of journalist integrity, which is saying alot since journalists generally have little integrity to begin with.

Hopefully my example put things in perspective for you, how ridiculous and dangerous a media outlet that does this is.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Good work geoffrey. Illustrated the point perfectly.

What are the odds Figleaf will actually respond? As likely as the CBC airing a falsely *positive* editing of a Harper quote I would say.

All I did was make it seem like another poster's unrelated question was the one being asked. How do you feel about your response? Would you be ok if that was broadcast across the nation tonight?

What CBC did was below any form of journalist integrity, which is saying alot since journalists generally have little integrity to begin with.

Hopefully my example put things in perspective for you, how ridiculous and dangerous a media outlet that does this is.

[Figleaf]

Another word for rooster is COCK.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[watching&waiting]

I am more then a little surprised at all the hyperbloa over the CBC misquoting a statement made by the PM. It is not that this is the first time this has ever happened and I am sure it will not be the last. I do not put much faith in what TV news says and I prefer to read the papers and then online sites before I make any conclusions. The CBC is really a terrible station and it is very politically bias in its reports, but it also could not exist on its own programming revenues as they are just incompetent about all they do. We all pretty much view it as a government sponsered channel that pushes canadian content, and not much good even at that. Yes it is a drain on the taxpayers and if it were any other channel it would have been gone long ago. But are we ready for relying on the other channels to supply us with the things that while not be commercially viable they are domestically relavent. Oddly enough we here in Canada are seeing more and more Canadian productions getting fair and even playing even in the USA. So we are closing that gap, but does that mean then that the CBC is totally without merit? I am not sure and while I am still inconclusive about it, I guess the status quo is where I will say it should be. While I can say I lean more and more each day to the close it down, firness says give it a bit longer. I guess I am hoping that they just die a natural death so no one will be to blame but the channel itself.

[Ricki Bobbi]

What are you talking about, and what does the longth of Harper's response got to do with anything?

The CBC story made it look like he was directly responding to Elsaadi Daad. Had his quote actually been a direct response to her statement it would have been a very cold-hearted answer indeed. However, that isn't what he was responding to. So the Prime Minister was shown in an unfavourable light. There truly was a *context shift* (wtf?) in the CBC story.

Your example does not match what the original complaint was about. I tried to read what the complaint was about, and I quoted the only passage that made any sort of sense. It indicated to me that the problem what that Harper's long-winded response was not quoted in full. I did not see any clear reference to a context shift, despite the piece's headline.

[Figleaf]

'

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[jbg]

The report didn't say Harper's comment was a reply to one person, but rather a position on an issue. An issue on which he was not swayed.

As the basis for an allegation of bias, this is incredibly thin.

I nsaw the report. The clear implication was that Harper "was not moved" by that woman's plight, even though Harper was, in point of fact, not responding to that woman at all.

[Ricki Bobbi]

That is *exactly* what the CBC apologized for. Why are people defending the CBCs actions when they have admitted they were in error and apologized for them?

I nsaw the report. The clear implication was that Harper "was not moved" by that woman's plight, even though Harper was, in point of fact, not responding to that woman at all.

[Figleaf]

..

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[M.Dancer]

I can't get worked up over reports from Canada Free Press.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Harper said he was not concerned about domestic reactions. Obviously this woman falls within the category of people by whom he was not swayed. Lawand never suggested that Harper was responding directly to this woman. She merely pointed out that his position was not changed by those kinds of appeals. Only someone with a paranoid suspicion that the CBC is out to get Harper would fasten on this nonsense as an accusation of bias.

The CBC chose to apologize for the impression it left with the report. Are you saying that the CBC has a paranoid suspicion of itself?

[gerryhatrick]

Harper said he was not concerned about domestic reactions. Obviously this woman falls within the category of people by whom he was not swayed. Lawand never suggested that Harper was responding directly to this woman. She merely pointed out that his position was not changed by those kinds of appeals. Only someone with a paranoid suspicion that the CBC is out to get Harper would fasten on this nonsense as an accusation of bias.

The CBC chose to apologize for the impression it left with the report. Are you saying that the CBC has a paranoid suspicion of itself?

Kind of like saying "Sorry if you're too stupid to see what we were talking about".

And after reviewing the tape and the complaint and the so-called "apology" it's apparent this was a bunch of BS cooked up by CPC shills.

Here's what was said by Diana Swain:

“It appeared as if the Prime Minister was responding to that particular protester. In fact, he was responding to a general question from a journalist about public reaction to his stand on the war. We did not make that clear. We should have. And we regret that we didn’t.”

What she left out was that it appeared as if the Prime Minister was responding to that particular protester TO PARTISAN IDIOTS. To the rest of the world it just appeared like he was stating he wouldn't be swayed by protesters in general.

The complaint is so bizarre it had to have come straight out of CPC shill land.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Kind of like saying "Sorry if you're too stupid to see what we were talking about".

What she left out was that it appeared as if the Prime Minister was responding to that particular protester TO PARTISAN IDIOTS. To the rest of the world it just appeared like he was stating he wouldn't be swayed by protesters in general.

Wow!

Any other insults to hurl at people who took offence to the CBC's *fair and balanced* reporting of the story in question?