babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » CBC and Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: CBC and Israel
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 23 January 2003 11:42 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just saw the Mansbridge interview with Nethanyahu. That CBC. Not only do they insist on using the phrase "suicide bombers" but they actually made it look like Nethanyahu used that term as well. They must have gotten a voice actor to dub over Nethanyahu's voice when he must have said "homicide bombers", the term the right is trying to promote.

Aside from Mansbridge making "bunny ears" behind Nethanyahu's head when he was talking I saw no evidence of "anti-Semitism" or bias.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 23 January 2003 11:46 PM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just saw the Witness program on CBC about the US and the Gulf War and yup,it was biased.
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dogbert
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1201

posted 23 January 2003 11:52 PM      Profile for Dogbert     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, any questioning of any of Isreal's policies is anti-semitism nowadays, so I'm sure that Peter did something anti-semitic on that interview. Heck, just being associated with the CBC is enough... they're Nazi Communists, after all.


From: Elbonia | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 24 January 2003 12:02 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What we need in this country is a unbiased, professional media channel such as they have in the 'States. We must free ourselves from the shackles of this state-run commie-coddling organ of the liberal Liberal media (or is it Liberal liberal?).

We should privatize it! Sell it to Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner or Fox. They'll teach them beeyoorocrats how to run a station, by gum. They'll remove all the bias and make it completely value-free ('cept for the shareholders).

I read somewhere that "bias" and "unbias" are codewords for "against the status quo" and "status quo". The real meanings have been subverted. Any one else see that?


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 24 January 2003 12:06 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, the whole point of Witness is to air POV (point of view) documentaries.

Anyone see the Meretz ad during Macdonald's report today? It showed a dancing sheperd herding sheep with the face of Sharon imposed on the shepard and Mitzna and the other party leaders on the various sheep. It just cracked me up.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 24 January 2003 01:10 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, what is the CBC's lead anchor doing in the Middle East while the NDP is picking a new leader?

I know, who cares, but it's still a slight.

[ 24 January 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 24 January 2003 09:46 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, I was supposed to watch that Iraqi thing and then watch the news to see Netanyahu… but I feel asleep…

Otherwise I'd be making Mycroft's comment…

Goddamn work. Who supports the man? I do!


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 02 February 2003 11:54 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anti Semitic CBC had a piece today done by that holocaust denying reporter, Neil Macdonald, on the Israeli air force pilot that died in the shuttle.

And you know what? Norman Spector and his ilk are right. Not once in the piece did they refer to the Palestinians as terrorists. I was amazed. Of course, there wasn't a single Palestinian in the piece but little details like that never stopped a good polemists.

Macdonald also didn't link the pilot to the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor. The basta… er…

Hey, the CBC is pro-Israeli! It ignored that that the pilot was the one that bombed the nuclear reactor and made reference to Sharon without explaining his possible connection to the Shabra and Shatilla massacre. I'm firing off a letter to the CBC ombudsman right now!

Better yet, I'll plant stories in the anti-Israeli press hoping to generate this massive smear campaign on our public broadcaster.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 03 February 2003 12:41 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rabinovitch Defends CBC Coverage
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 03 February 2003 12:56 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Rabinovitch said it was Spector who pulled out of a planned televised debate on the issue when CBC decided to broaden the format from a one-on-one with Burman to a panel including Macdonald and "any representative" of the Canada-Israel Committee.)

Spector claims that Burman blew him off three times for a debate.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 February 2003 03:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Spector claims that Burman blew him off three times for a debate.

That's quite a high price to pay for a debate!

(so many straight lines, so little time...)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 February 2003 07:12 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the matter of CBC and Israel, the only real issue for me upon reflection is that once a reporter becomes the NEWS his/her effectiveness is compromised.

That is clearly what happened to Neil MacDonald.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 February 2003 07:16 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How did the reporter become the news?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 03 February 2003 10:53 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How dishonest. It was the CJC smear campaign which made MacDonald news in the first place.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 February 2003 10:55 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's what I thought.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 03 February 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
On the matter of CBC and Israel, the only real issue for me upon reflection is that once a reporter becomes the NEWS his/her effectiveness is compromised.
That is clearly what happened to Neil MacDonald.

Hm, a few discussions ago, Mishei, you said that you weren't really concerned about MacDonald but about the CBC policy of using the term "militants" instead of "terrorists".

Anyway, as for a reporter "becoming the news" I suppose this means a good way for an interest group to compromise a reporter it doesn't like is by launching a smear campaign against him. What stops a group from continually smearing and protesting individual reporters until one is put in who says what the group wants to hear? After all, it's not just MacDonald who the CIC doesn't like, it's also the reporting of the entire media, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, CBC, everyone, in fact, except the National Post and Southam where any views critical of Israel are summarily suppressed.

It seems therefore that a good way to suppress reporting you don't like is by making all reporters you don't like "the news" and thus "compromising" their credibility.

Isn't that really the CIC strategy? So after they get Macdonald, who is next? Richard Gwyn? The Middle East correspondents for the Globe or the Star?

[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3517

posted 03 February 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for rubble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Norman Spector and his ilk are right. Not once in the piece did they refer to the Palestinians as terrorists

Well Spector talks out of his A**

Anything that Spector says is indirectly racist and anti-peace through his whole career. What about the horrible crimes that the IDF commits ??? This is terrorism at it's worst, especially at an unarmed people.


From: Earth | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 February 2003 05:00 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How dishonest. It was the CJC smear campaign which made MacDonald news in the first place.
I believe it was the CIC that brought this issue forward. That said surely interest groups have the right to express their concerns about the CBC even if you dont like it or disagree. It is the public broadcaster after all.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 03 February 2003 05:07 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But surely it's unfair for you to say Macdonald had "become news" because of the CIC campaign and thus should be removed.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 03 February 2003 05:22 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Surely the rest of us have the option to dismiss their concerns as utterly groundless and move on? We are the public after all.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 February 2003 05:37 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
once a reporter becomes the NEWS his/her effectiveness is compromised.

That is clearly what happened to Neil MacDonald.


Franz Kafka, where are you, now that we really need you?

Mishei, that is easily the worst thing you have ever said -- strike that: done -- on babble.

As Mycroft and others have said:

quote:
It seems therefore that a good way to suppress reporting you don't like is by making all reporters you don't like "the news" and thus "compromising" their credibility.

I'm wondering whether this is the first time I've seen pure McCarthyism on this board. I'm wondering.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 February 2003 05:41 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Time out:

I'm thinking more about this. I'm even more uncomfortable about what has happened here than I was in my last post above.

Suddenly, it seems to me that babble has been used as one of the places that significant questions about Neil MacDonald got raised and publicized.

And if that was the point -- to turn Neil MacDonald into the news, so that he could be claimed to be no longer an effective reporter of the news -- then I'm disturbed.

I think a line just got crossed. I want a moderator.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 03 February 2003 05:57 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
I agree with skdadl.
From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 February 2003 06:03 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl, you want a moderator...why? this is a discussion board and the CBC is a public broadcaster. The CIC lodged reasonable concerns, as is its right, about an employee of the CBC and it is being discussed here.

Why is that a problem? Are you claiming that Babble can no longer discuss such things? That would be in complete contradiction to what this Board is about.

You and others (as you do often) are free to agree or disagree with any position taken by anyone or any entity. If a moderator is needed here then I would srgue that it is time to shut down babble because the ability to post ones thoughts about issues on the public plate or tax payer funded entities like the CBC, can always therefore be questioned.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 February 2003 06:04 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find myself in the somewhat unusual position of agreeing with Mishei.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 February 2003 06:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I want Judes, as publisher of rabble.ca, to read this thread. I will accept her judgement.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 03 February 2003 06:05 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Grow a spine. (not you skdadl, yours is pretty obvious)

[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 February 2003 06:08 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, there is a public campaign on in this country to destroy the very particular career of a very particular human being.

This isn't just a "discussion" any longer, as Mishei made perfectly clear in his argument above, that once MacDonald has become the news, he can't report it.

This is one of the places MacDonald became the news.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 03 February 2003 06:12 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If a moderator is needed here then I would srgue that it is time to shut down babble


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 February 2003 06:13 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, if there is already a public campaign underway, addressing it on babble is one way of exposing and refuting it.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 February 2003 06:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see your point, skdadl. I think the CIC made MacDonald the news and then said he couldn't be effective because he was the news. I agree with you there.

Whether babble has been used for those ends though - well, I'm not so sure about that. On babble we've been discussing this whole thing as it has unfolded, and it's true that rabble.ca is supposed to be "news for the rest of us". But my personal opinion is that we can't consider conversations between individuals on babble expressing opinions on this issue to be a problem. People can express their views about public figures...

Anyhow. This is my personal opinion. The complaint you're making goes beyond moderating in my opinion - it's something that needs to be taken up with the editor or publisher if you believe this forum and rabble as a news source is actively contributing to the ruining of someone's career.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 February 2003 06:16 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is one of the places MacDonald became the news.


This is just nonsense (with all due respect). The MacDonald issue became news in the Star, Globe and Mail, CBC, Global, National Post CJN, and practically every other newspaper and radio station /TV network well before anyone posted a word about it here.

The only reason it became a topic here is because it was being so publicly discussed in all the other media.

Come on Skdadl, the CBC was preparing to actually have a debate on this entire matter.

Either we are free to discuss all issues here or we are not. There can be no sacred cows.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 03 February 2003 06:27 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl: deep breath. Another deep breath.

babble's important to us, but it ain't gonna get that particular journalist ousted from that particular job. And I'm speaking based on my experience working at that particular news program.

Complaints, if you want to make them, go to Audra (audra@rabble.ca).

If you want to raise some concern with the publisher, she's easily reached at rebick@rabble.ca. But she's got a lot on her plate: I wouldn't hold my breath for her to weigh in about this thread.

If you don't want Mishei to continue monopolizing discussion, don't engage with him. The power you are so worried he has is the power folks are willing to give him (as is true for every poster here).

And, on a lighter, more Scottish note, I think that Neil is a small "d" if you know what I mean.

edited to add: Michelle, there is no longer an editor in chief for rabble.ca. Lisa Rundle is strictly the editor for rabble news, and has no duties related to babble.

[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 February 2003 06:29 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd just like to say one more thing to babblers in general.

I know a bit, not much but a bit, about getting and holding a job in the media in Canada. To say that it is not easy would be an understatement.

And believe me, something terrible has been done to Neil MacDonald. It may not show today, or tomorrow, or for as long as most people are paying attention. But it is terrible, and it was done for political reasons, in defiance of the respect we all must show to one another as decent human beings. He has been and is being treated as an expendable pawn in a political game, and that should make all of us want to vomit.

Is babble a significant media site in Canada? Should we suddenly feel humbled by a list of powerful national media sites where this story was first exploited? Should we decide that the repeated raising of questions on this site about Neil MacDonald's reporting really didn't matter?

Whether it did or it didn't in the broader world, it was a destructive and ignoble thing to do.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 February 2003 06:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, hi, writer. Sorry: wrote my melodrama before I read you.

Small d, you say. Sheesh, but that clan has been causing trouble from way back in the mists of time. They do this to torment us.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 03 February 2003 06:44 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In some ways I disagree with you, skdadl. Neil's reputation as a gutsy journalist who refuses to be cowed or intimidated is only being augmented by this crap. Not to say that this means it isn't still crap, but I think he's got a pretty bright future, regardless. (Though not at the Post ... but then, I don't know that he's eager to work there.) And he's not really considered management material, from what I understand ... never has been ... too independent. Again, I don't get the sense he's dreaming of becoming management.

The truth is, there aren't many who are prepared to go into situations like the one Neil covers. Too dangerous.

As for the critics: it's so easy to sit back and snipe, with no real understanding of what journalistic objectivity is supposed to be about.

Specter's mewling with regards to a debate has shown how little he understands TV news.

His final Great Suggestion was a one-hour debate, featuring him for a full hour, bringing in Burman for the first half hour and Macdonald for the other half hour. Yeah, right.

edited to add: I wrote this before your cute little follow-up post followed up.

[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 03 February 2003 06:51 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure, babble is not going to be the reason Macdonald is fired, but something distinctly distasteful along the lines of this is not out of the realm of possibility... "Even on the left, in places like Judy Rebick's Rabble, MacDonald's controversial and obvious bias is openly discussed and widely acknowledged."
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 February 2003 07:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Could be, ronb, but I don't think it's anywhere near "widely acknowledged". I think only a couple of posters here have "acknowledged" it - the rest of us see it for what it is - a total smear campaign.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 February 2003 07:02 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree wholeheartedly with writer, though I resent the insinuation that I monopolize anything. I post just like anyone else, difference being that on Middle East matters i represent a view that many here passionatley disagree with. That is your right as it is your right to ignore my posts if you wish. That is what makes Babble the free spirit it has become.

As for Neil macDonald, I have a grudging respect for him and you may recall that it was I who posted the CBC response to the accusations leveled against him by "honestreporting.com". (yes after I engaged the issue here on babble, which was already very much in the public eye).

I accept the CBC's version of what happened there and believe that nothing the CIC or anyone else says will have an effect on Neil's carreer. In fact I believe as does writer that in certain circles within the CBC he may be seen as a folk hero for his moxy.

Being a correspondant in the Middle East is fraught with difficulties and Neil Macdonald is not the first to run into problems from both sides of the issue. Just ask Bob Hepburn or Sandro Contenta of the Star both of whom were publicly chastised by Israel and Palestinian supporters for their past coverage. Both actually have improved their careers not lessened them as a result.

So, IMHO, there is way to much being made of this. Neil Macdonanld is a solid journalist. Some (including me) may believe that he has made some errors in coverage but surely that is our right to feel that way. The fact that the issue has become a public debate speaks more to the tensions and passionately held beliefs emenating from the Israel/Palestinian conflict. I believe it is a sign of a healthy democracy that we can discusss these matters on boards like babble and agree to disagree,


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 February 2003 07:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei:

How can you believe this:

quote:
once a reporter becomes the NEWS his/her effectiveness is compromised.

That is clearly what happened to Neil MacDonald.


and this:

quote:
nothing the CIC or anyone else says will have an effect on Neil's carreer. In fact I believe as does writer that in certain circles within the CBC he may be seen as a folk hero for his moxy.

at the same time?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 03 February 2003 07:11 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My reference to not wanting you (Mishei) to monopolize a conversation is based on the assumption that you monopolize threads - a position several folks have complained about in one way or other.

This isn't necessarily my position (though I think it's easy for any of us to derail a thread as a result our own personal obsessions).

As I later explained in my previous post, nobody can monopolize anything if others aren't willing to let it happen. I'm actually challenging the people who complain about monopolization while they contribute to it themselves to take responsibility and break the cycle.

edited to add: I share skdadl's puzzlement about those two positions, Mishei. You say the CIC won't damage his career in one breath, but in another you claim that the coverage the CIC's complaint has triggered has made the journalist "the news", and thus "compromised" him. So what is a "compromised" journalist - who has simply become the target of some group's vendetta - supposed to do? Quit? Move on to reporting for HGTV or Star TV - something nice and apolitical? (Though for the former I guess you could be accused of publicly preferring Bauhaus over Arts and Crafts.)

[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 03 February 2003 07:17 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's my point, Michelle. These campaigns run on innuendo and misinformation, and by the time the quote is researched and proven somewhat false, the impression is already created and the damage is done.

Which is it Mishei, is MacDonald an "issue" or a "solid journalist"? Do you really respect him, or do you feel his effectiveness has been compromised? Stop playing footsie.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 February 2003 07:36 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is the best you can expect from mishei, I am afraid.

I tell you what I find greatly disturbing. Great organizations, and I mean Great, such as the CJC, the B'Nai Brith and others, along with once great men and women, have turned to the snivelling, cowardly acts of smear campaigns against individuals, organizations, entire ranges of peoples, in order to defend an occupation and repression of some 3 million people across the sea.

If this is what it has come to, what can it be worth?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 03 February 2003 07:55 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Move on to reporting for HGTV or Star TV - something nice and apolitical? (Though for the former I guess you could be accused of publicly preferring Bauhaus over Arts and Crafts.)

Dear Gawd, no. You'd never work in TV again in this country. You'd be lucky to end up doing late-night radio in Fort McMurray!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 February 2003 08:58 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mishei:
How can you believe this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
once a reporter becomes the NEWS his/her effectiveness is compromised.
That is clearly what happened to Neil MacDonald.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nothing the CIC or anyone else says will have an effect on Neil's carreer. In fact I believe as does writer that in certain circles within the CBC he may be seen as a folk hero for his moxy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at the same time?


Ask any journalist, the rule for a reporter is to never become the story. When it happens (and it does) it should be acknowledged and if possible to move on...take the spotlight away.

I simply do not understand you people. CIC made a well researched complaint. The article about this from the CJN appeared here on Babble. It has yet to be fully addressed by the CBC. It's possible that their complaints are valid. They have the right to complain. Are you suggesting they do not?

You can disagree with their complaint. You can write the CBC in support of Macdonald. You can write the CIC and complain to them. You can expose the CIC's position to scrutiny, indeed write an op-ed piece tearing the organization apart if you want, but good God just because it is an advocate for Israel does not mean it cannot critisize the CBC or any other public entity.

For progressives that believe in freedom of expression and association some of you have a very strange way of showing it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 February 2003 10:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are so full of it, it is amazing.
quote:
Ask any journalist, the rule for a reporter is to never become the story. When it happens (and it does) it should be acknowledged and if possible to move on...take the spotlight away

Actually, journalists are not supposed to burn their sources. But the type of media the CIC and CJC has no complaints about, Der Sun and Der Post, often makes the reporter the story. It is how they sell newspapers.

And to be clear, it was the CIC that made MacDonald the story.

quote:

For progressives that believe in freedom of expression and association some of you have a very strange way of showing it.


Which I guess defines the difference between us. We do believe in freedom of expression while the CIC believes in slurring anyone who would dare report the truth as it appears.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 February 2003 11:14 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Which I guess defines the difference between us. We do believe in freedom of expression while the CIC believes in slurring anyone who would dare report the truth as it appears.
This is hyper-exagerration if not an outright falsehood. You claim that the CIC believes in SLURRING anyone who would dare report the truth as it appears clearly you believe it is doing this to Macdonald, but who else has been singled out by the CIC. In fact prior to this case, I think most people on this Board probably never heard of the CIC or thought it stood for the Canadian Islamic Congress.

quote:
Actually, journalists are not supposed to burn their sources. But the type of media the CIC and CJC has no complaints about, Der Sun and Der Post, often makes the reporter the story. It is how they sell newspapers.
And to be clear, it was the CIC that made MacDonald the story.



Firstly, could you give us any example of what you are referring to here.

Secondly, why exactly have you brought the CJC into this since you claim yourself that it was a CIC story in the first place? Is that not a form of a smear?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 03 February 2003 11:31 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree!

I would hardly suggest that the CJC should be used as reference point for discussion. They, I assume, often comment on affairs in Israel and the Arab World. You yourself have stated that the situation in the Middle East is irrational, so how can anyone take organizations that comment on the Middle East as being rational.

Anything they say is of dubious value, given that they would pursue rational discourse on an irrational situation.

[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 04 February 2003 12:11 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is far bigger than a complaint or two. This is a vendetta, aided and abetted by one of our national media companies that has a twin interest in attacking media that it views as hostile to Israel and, as gravy, taking on our national public broadcaster (gee, who broke the "what a moron" story? Who was Ducrose talking too? What does Canwest argue in front of the CRTC about the CBC?).

Izzy Asper complains of a media conspiracy against Israel, specifically singling out Macdonald. Nary more than a couple months later, Canada's former ambassador to Israel, and a Globe columnist, is given space in the National Post for his campaign against the CBC. Then, oddly enough, Spector appears on Global TV as a panelist on a discussion about "trusting the media" and guess what? Spector brings up the CBC yet again. I like to absorb the news media, but who knows what else I'm missing? CanWest has a lot of holdings and occansionally life knocks at my door asking if I'd like to play.

B'nai Brith brings a lawsuit against the government (or CBC, whatever). Some Jewish interest group that has an office in New York misrepresents Macdonald as trying to start a boycott of a Sharon soirée.

And, and, and! Someone can gather 400 people together that hate the CBC and one reporter unparticular in one room. Like, come one. If I commissioned an Environics poll tomorrow, I bet you the name recognition of Neil Macdonald wouldn't even be statistically significant. I didn't even think that many people watched the National.

A complaint is a letter to the CBC Ombudsman. Maybe a letter to an MP or minister. Goodness knows there are a number of people who could write this letter and have it taken seriously. I know I don't have the power to get Rabinovitch to appear at Brampton Town Hall. I'll fire off my op-ed to the National Post right now. ("Hi, I'm a factory worker in Brampton, ON, and I believe there is a Jewish conspiracy against the CBC…"). But that is neither here nor there.

A campaign, well, how can I describe a campaign, Mishei? I don't know. I've never been involved with one, except for my own pet peeves here on babble. I post links to babble, complain to my friends, etc. But my friends don't hang out in the rarefied circles of the public sector or in Canada's private publishers. Hell, my friends complain about me complaining to them. I can't easily find out if the person I dislike is learning Arabic but not Hebrew.

If there is a legitimate complaint and if there has been real research about bias at the CBC, as you have mentioned Mishei, let's go Chomskyesque. Spector is farting in the wind and we should all hold our nose. I've seen better rants here on babble. Let's see a segment by segment breakdown. How many questions or statements are critical of the Israelis? How many of Palestinians? How many times is a Palestinian viewpoint sought out? Israeli? How many pieces are on just Israeli issues? How many on Palestinian? Are frivolous statements aired more than substantial ones? Are statements critical to, or supportive of, a particular side reasonably warranted with the evidence presented? I've never taken a journalism course, let alone a TV journalism course. How do the kiddies test for bias? I assume they at least look at the source material.

Some complaints could be valid, no denying it. Maybe I'm just young and naive, but I haven't come across this level of orchestration against a target recently. Well, the last time I can recall a journalist being targeted was after the APEC summit when Terry Milewski got suspended. But, oh wait, that was the PMO doing the complaining to the CBC Ombudsman. Spector could probably comment about that, much like he could comment on his use of media influence that results in political pressure.

quote:
For progressives that believe in freedom of expression and association some of you have a very strange way of showing it.

What? They want to gain influence on a medium in order to control it? Gee, I could never figure out where that tendency comes from. Perhaps it's a foreseeable reaction to another campaign that is tying to influence another medium. But I believe babble is a private board and just like the National Post would surely not print my op-ed, they can decide what they want. I certainly don't want to see you go, even though I'm not particularly impressed with some of your behaviour (which, I readily admit, behaviour towards you hasn't been exemplary either but maybe that is part of the plan [yeah, yeah, I'm not an angel either]). Like it or not, you've been an integral part in the development of my views.

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 04 February 2003 12:21 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Izzy Asper has complained about the CBC for years not because of their reporting on Israel but because as a owner of Canwest Global he believes the CBC's mere presence eats into his profits. He's long campaigned against public broadcasting. Ironically, he appeared as a commentator election night a few elections ago on CBC rather than Global because Global preferred to run sticoms and dramas rather than full election coverage.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 04 February 2003 12:31 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All the more reason to ensure the CBC maintains support... It's not like that excellent drama they aired today, Chasing Cain II, competes against anything Global produces.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 04 February 2003 12:37 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, what about Black Fly?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 04 February 2003 01:55 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see all the intelligent posters have run over here to the relative safety of the Israel Palestin threads, in order to avoid the right wing Viking raid going on in the news section.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 February 2003 03:53 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Izzy Asper complains of a media conspiracy against Israel, specifically singling out Macdonald.

That's rich. He owns a good chunk of the Canadian media. He's like the mini-me of Rupert Murdoch.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 February 2003 08:07 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If there is a legitimate complaint and if there has been real research about bias at the CBC, as you have mentioned Mishei, let's go Chomskyesque. Spector is farting in the wind and we should all hold our nose. I've seen better rants here on babble. Let's see a segment by segment breakdown. How many questions or statements are critical of the Israelis? How many of Palestinians? How many times is a Palestinian viewpoint sought out? Israeli? How many pieces are on just Israeli issues? How many on Palestinian? Are frivolous statements aired more than substantial ones? Are statements critical to, or supportive of, a particular side reasonably warranted with the evidence presented? I've never taken a journalism course, let alone a TV journalism course. How do the kiddies test for bias? I assume they at least look at the source material.


I understand that the CIC, in fact did do a full analysis on this matter and the story was printed in the CJN. will see if I can find it.

Here is an interesting article in which the CIC finds no basis for the allegations against Macdonald leveled by honestreporting.comCJN 1

]QUOTE] After investigating the issue, the Canada-Israel Committee (CIC), which has been highly critical of Macdonald's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, told its members it found no evidence that Macdonald pushed for a boycott of the prime minister's speech. "The CIC now considers the matter closed."
[/QUOTE]

And here is the report on the CIC analysis of the CBC

CIC challenges the CBC

quote:
Joseph Wilder, national chair of the CIC, said the organization's staff had been following CBC reports on the Mideast for years and
their investigation showed the network's unbalanced coverage "wasn't just episodic. It was a pretty well-defined condition that the CBC was biased against Israel."

[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 February 2003 08:39 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And that report is a typical outright lie from the Israeli lobby.
quote:
wasn't just episodic. It was a pretty well-defined condition that the CBC was biased against Israel."

Translated: The CBC reports more than the homeginized information that always puts the murderous IDF in a pleasant light. The need to be more like CNN and only report what we tell them or more like Canwest and report only the Israeli side of the story. You see, balanced doesn't mean fair. Balanced means balanced in our favor. Biased means even the slightest, littlest, tiniest moesel of news that could possibly be seen as placing Israel in an unfavorable light.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 February 2003 10:14 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And that report is a typical outright lie from the Israeli lobby.

This is the typical kind of statement and hyperbole I would expect from WingNut.

So Wing since you have clearly done an exaustive study of the CBC to prove your conclusion above, would you please post it here on Babble so we can see it and judge it for ouselves.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 February 2003 10:43 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Y'know, there is an assumption developing in discussions like this one that I've been pondering overnight and that I guess I should start a thread on in another forum, maybe Ideas.

The assumption is that debate, very direct debate, is the only way that democrats sort through their issues and disagreements together.

It is beginning to seem to me that our notions of debate have become very narrow and airless, and are leaving us no room for people to make more complex investigations of why things are happening.

Just as a for instance, in this instance: I think that the CBC is a soft target for lots of politically motivated people in this country, but to do that argument justice, one would need a lot more room than the fisticuffs that have characterized this forum normally allow. Topics like that shouldn't just be "debated" -- first, they need to be developed.

Well, just a thought. Sadly, can't pursue it today. But conceiving of these discussions as "healthy" and "democratic" is beginning to bother me ...

[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 04 February 2003 11:56 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
After investigating the issue, the Canada-Israel Committee (CIC), which has been highly critical of Macdonald's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, told its members it found no evidence that Macdonald pushed for a boycott of the prime minister's speech. "The CIC now considers the matter closed."

Perhaps they should've done this investigation before publishing a report damning Macdonald's behavoir on the issue? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they've closed the matter and cleared Macdonald of wrongdoing on this issue, but they really should've gotten their ducks in a row before bringing the issue to the public.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 February 2003 12:01 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know and I know and Mishei knows but he can't tell us that he knows that we know it, that the only reason they shot off their mouths so fast was to plant the "seed of doubt" in peoples' minds, and then backtrack with a retraction later. It's a great drive-by smear job if you ask me.

Yes, I'm a cynic. Have you noticed?

It's just the same as a newspaper that prints a big fat blaring headline and then prints the retraction to the whole thing on the back page.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 February 2003 12:10 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps they should've done this investigation before publishing a report damning Macdonald's behavoir on the issue?
I didnt think it was the CIC that released the information . As I recall it was some outfit called "honestreporting.com".

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 February 2003 12:49 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is the typical kind of statement and hyperbole I would expect from WingNut.

A compliment coming from the master.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 04 February 2003 12:54 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does CanWest have an ombudsman? Does the CIC?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 04 February 2003 01:05 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Does CanWest have an ombudsman?

Yes, his name is Izzy Asper.

[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 February 2003 07:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Does CanWest have an ombudsman? Does the CIC?
Neither Can West or CIC are public institutions. That said, nothing stops you or anyone else here from writing to these groups or indeed preparing articles and op-ed pieces for publication critical of it. In fact I would encourage you to do so. Put your keyboard where your mouth is.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 04 February 2003 07:37 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Neither Can West or CIC are public institutions.

Neither is the Toronto Star but they have an "ombud".

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 February 2003 08:14 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Toronto Star to its credit is one of the only news outlets in canada (other than the CBC) to have an Ombud. Now stop complaining and start writing.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 04 February 2003 08:54 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He is.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 February 2003 10:13 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Write outside of here. yes, there is more than just Babble
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 04 February 2003 11:35 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I didnt think it was the CIC that released the information . As I recall it was some outfit called "honestreporting.com".

When I said some "little Jewish interest group in New York," I forgot that I hadn't read it on this board (but on Frank), so here is what I was referring to:

HonestReporting
(aka MediaWatch International)
www.honestreporting.com
156 West 56th Street, Suite 1201
New York, NY 10019 USA

Words Can Heal
www.wordscanheal.org
156 West 56th Street, Suite 1201
New York, NY 10019

The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah
Help the Victims of Terrorism & War in Israel
www.jerusalemfund.com
156 West 56th Street, Suite 1201
New York, NY 10019

I didn't check if the addresses are right. I didn't even bother to check the websites. I don't want to.

quote:
"As I recall Neil's address to last year's CAJ annual meeting, he indicated that he tries to report on what he sees from the perspective of an ordinary North American who has no ties to either side. I think that's why his reports often have an `everybody here is totally f----d up and it's horrific and disgusting' tone that can be aggravating at times but also often seems quite appropriate.

The trouble with honest reporting

And in my rant above, I forgot the B'nai Brith lawsuit was against the government for allowing fundraising activities of a wing of the Hezbollah. Whoops.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 February 2003 11:37 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That said, nothing stops you or anyone else here from writing to these groups or indeed preparing articles and op-ed pieces for publication critical of it.

And then you to can be publically smeared:

The Asper family today released an editorial critical of a man named ronb. As is practice, the editorial ran in all Southam owned newspapers across the country including the National Post. The Post also ran an accompanying column from former Canadian Ambassador to Israel, Norman Spector, criticizing the same man.

Other news sources have been trying to track down the mysterious man at the center of the controversey. Until now, he has been unknown outside of his own family.

When asked why this person was of concern, Norman Spector responded "anyone who writes a letter must write that letter in a manner that is fair and balanced. Ronb's letter was clearly biased and an afront to the very idea fairness."

While it remains unclear what ronb wrote, Izzy Asper issued a public statement saying that CBC has outlived its purpose and cuts into private revenues. He says it offers Canadians too many view points and that many are confused by competition in the market of ideas. When asked what this has to do with the unknown ronb, he angrily replied: "Everything. This person wouldn't be writing his own ideas if there was but one editorial for the entire nation."

Ronb, himself, has remained elusive but according to an insider who wishes to remain anonymous, ronb composed a letter of one offensive sentence. Apparently, according to the source, he asked "Does CanWest have an ombudsman?"


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 05 February 2003 12:06 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WingNut that has to be the most paranoid fantasy I have ever read.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 February 2003 12:53 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think WingNut was being a smartass and doing a little, as we like to say, "tongue in cheek" statement.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 February 2003 06:41 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
WingNut that has to be the most paranoid fantasy I have ever read.

And I am the Walrus ...

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 February 2003 06:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WingNut:
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2003 09:29 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, getting published in the National Post is no easy thing. People here would have to ask themselves especially, "Can I write as badly as Norman Spector? Can I be that puffed up about myself, that comfy with derivative knowledge and my history of personal contacts with great men, that boring? Am I willing to make hysterical claims such as, oh, I dunno, Spector's claim that the CBC is the cause of outbursts like David Ahenakew's?"

Sorry, you guys, but I offer it as a trained editorial opinion that most of you are way too good as writers to make it in the Pest.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 05 February 2003 11:09 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl, your biting humour notwitstanding, if babblers choose not to make their opinions known outside the little comfortable world created here, then why bother complaining at all? Here present writer excluded, you are preaching to the converted.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 February 2003 11:15 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But as skdadl, said, to be published in the Post one would have to ask all those questions. And even if one could answer in the affirmative, even then, one would still be hindered by the final qualification: See only Palestinian evil; here only Palestinian evil; speak of only Palestinian evil.

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2003 11:17 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, if that were true, or if babble were such a secluded, insignificant little site, I think some people who are here wouldn't be here.

Not naming any names, you know ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 February 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Skdadl, your biting humour notwitstanding, if babblers choose not to make their opinions known outside the little comfortable world created here, then why bother complaining at all? Here present writer excluded, you are preaching to the converted.

My emphasis. How do you know this is true?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 February 2003 11:32 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He doesn't need to know it's true. Implication is more than enough in his world where the enemies of academic freedom are the defenders of academic freedom and where journalists, made a story by lobbyists, should no longer be reporting when they become the story. Where bias on one side is balanced reporting and balanced reporting is bias.

Be careful or you will soon be through the lookiong glass.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 05 February 2003 11:46 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quite right, so those who have gone to the outside it would be nice if you acknowledged such. You don't have to say what you wrote but a simple acknowledgement would suffice.

Wing, there are many more publications other than the Post.

Skdadl, I never said Babble was insignificant. I suggested that those here come from a particular viewpoint. As well, it certainly is not as much in the public eye as are the large media giants.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2003 11:57 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha ha. Mishei: You first.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 February 2003 12:00 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Quite right, so those who have gone to the outside it would be nice if you acknowledged such. You don't have to say what you wrote but a simple acknowledgement would suffice.

This is a dodge. You've been beaten up in this thread over something you actually did. It's all there for everyone to see. Now you've made up an accusation out of whole cloth to throw back at your critics and to bolster this ridiculous idea that you're the lone voice of truth in the wilderness. It's such a transparent dodge that it's laughable.

Edited for spelling. Not that it matters much at this point.

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 05 February 2003 01:04 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Asper family today released an editorial critical of a man named ronb.

Dang. My fifteen minutes came and went and I missed the whole thing. Stupid computer age.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 February 2003 02:14 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fret not, ronb. If you can't be famous for 15 minutes, being infamous would seem the next best thing.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 05 February 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's such a transparent dodge that it's laughable.

He who laughs last best

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2003 03:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see that Mishei has declined my invitation.

Never mind. I have it on the best authority that Gore Vidal and Germaine Greer are both posting here regularly, and William F. Buckley Jr is occasionally posing as a friendly but troubled American liberal. So with them, Mishei, and sheep, I feel we pretty much cover the waterfront.

yrs,
Marie of Romania


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 05 February 2003 03:46 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Funny I thought I was Gore Vidal
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2003 03:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sure that josh told me you were Philip Roth. I've been waiting for some of the old spark, y'know?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 February 2003 04:13 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nonsense. I'm Philip Roth. And I want to register a complaint.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 05 February 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would you believe Larry Zolf?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 February 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At one time, I would have. But the last thing I read by him, something to do with the NDP, I remember being incoherent and ill-informed.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 February 2003 04:21 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, skdadl, I told you he was Saul Bellow. Or did I say that he liked to bellow?
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2003 04:21 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I know Larry Zolf. Well, I did once. He is such a sweetheart. I don't disagree with 'lance's comment about his later writings, but he is such a sweetheart.

Larry?!?!?!?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2003 04:24 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, seriously, have you ever seen Saul Bellow write anything as -- well, short -- as Mishei -- or anyone else, for that matter -- writes on babble?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 February 2003 04:29 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have it on good authority that babble is one of the man's "guilty pleasures."
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2003 04:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

At 88, too. We should all have some of those at 88. Hi, Saul!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 05 February 2003 04:57 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Judging by the CBC's coverage of the US-Iraq conflict, would you say the CBC is biased against Iraq? Or, if you prefer, biased against Saddam's regime? If so, would you insist that all journalists villifying the Iraqi government or supporting Washington's plans, be sacked for the bias?
Or would you say a bias is justifiable considering Iraq's history and disregard of Security Council Resolutions?

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 05 February 2003 05:30 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
good question darkhorse. let's hope the answer is even half as thoughful.
From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 February 2003 08:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A laudable attempt to get back on the subject, but this thread is really quite long now (this being the 101th post).

Maybe we could start that discussion in a new thread if we want to continue this.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca