The CBC’s anti-Israel bias is finally out in the open!
For months … no, more than a year … I have alerted readers to what I observed to be a sustained, consistent anti-Israel bias in the CBC’s reporting of the Mid-East conflict.
It has manifested itself repeatedly in the CBC’s extensive coverage of Palestinian casualties, deaths, injuries, suffering, funerals, destruction, hardships in Gaza … accepting almost without questioning Hamas’ figures, claims and narratives. Lots of wailing women, old men and children … but including very, very few explanations from Israeli spokespersons pointing out (even naming) exactly the Hamas/Islamic Jihad fighters eliminated in the fighting.
Meanwhile, correct me if I missed it, but the CBC gave little coverage to the fact that 46 Thai civilian migrant workers in Israel were also murdered by Hamas … including three who were taken ALIVE as hostages, but “died” in captivity in the hands of Hamas.
You would also hardly know, watching the CBC, that in addition to the 1,200 Israeli civilian music festival patrons and migrant workers murdered and 250 hostages taken in the Oct 7,2023 Hamas terrorist attack … another 1,150 Israelis have been killed and 8,500 injured in the ensuing war since then. Where was the CBC coverage of their funerals? Injured women and children? Mourning families? Or the traumatized kids, woken up almost every night at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. by alarms signalling incoming rockets as the conflict has droned on?
Where have been the CBC stories about all the wreckage/deaths/casualties on Israel’s northern border from Hezbollah rockets/missiles/drones … or the 60,000 Israeli residents (lots of women, elderly, kids there too!) forced to abandon their homes/schools/businesses/farms and flee south … thousands of them still evacuated.
Have we already forgotten the 12 Arab kids killed by Hezbollah while playing soccer in their schoolyard in northern Israel?
And yet, the CBC has insisted on NOT calling Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah terrorists but “militants” or “fighters” or even worse when they are targeted just referring to them as “people” killed … making them sound like just innocent civilians.
The innocent civilians are those the terrorists hide among, store and fire rockets from inside apartments or even schools and mosques. And their civilian targets in homes, schools, shopping malls.
In fact, it turns out, for 25 years, the CBC even refused to refer even the 911 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon “terrorism”, unless it was termed so by someone they interviewed.
“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” a leaked CBC memo reminded staff recently, in preparation for the 25th Anniversary of the 2001 hijackings/attack that killed almost 3,000 people, including 24 Canadians.
Three thousand innocent civilians killed by terrorists who hijacked full passenger planes …and those who did it are not terrorists????
“In a post on social media, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree wrote that condemning the terrorist attack “is not merely a political position.” Canada has legally recognized 9/11 as a terrorist attack, he said,” The National Post reported last week.
The leaked memo also drew attention in the United States.
“After political consultant Warren Kinsella revealed a recent memo about the CBC’s policy, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on X: “Any agency in Canada that doesn’t publicly reject this bastardization of history, and an insult to the souls lost during our largest terrorist attack in US history will no longer have [a] friend in this FBI,” The Toronto Star told its readers.
“Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had also taken issue with the CBC policy, stating that “to call 9/11 anything other than a terrorist attack is an appalling distortion of history.” He called on the CBC to “immediately apologize and retract this directive.” (Read the full story here: https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/cbc-reverses-restriction-on-labelling-911-as-terrorism/article_ada4e513-a803-4bc5-82d6-c91b8b82d347.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share.)
It finally did.
“In a blog post Friday, Basem Boshra, CBC’s senior director of journalistic standards and public trust, wrote that a leaked memo about the policy “has caused significant concern, anger and hurt for many people who believe CBC News seeks to minimize or obscure the horror of that day and who was behind it,” said The National Post. (Read their coverage here: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/cbc-reverses-policy-against-calling-911-a-terrorist-attack-without-attribution/ar-AA2b9q3G?ocid=socialshare.)
““That is the last thing we want to do,” said Boshra, who is the senior director of journalistic standards and public trust of CBC News.”
Some journalistic standards!!!
It took 25 years for the CBC to call 911 exactly what is was: a TERRORIST attack on civilians.
Now everyone should understand why I see Canada’s public broadcaster today as under siege: much of it under the control of anti-Israel leftists and even some Jihadi sympathizers . (Any doubts? Check out https://honestreporting.ca/ eye-opening catalogued litany of CBC one-sided bias … far too numerous now to be ignored.)
Maybe in another 25 years, the CBC will also cleanse itself enough to call attacks by Palestinian terrorists on innocent civilians in Israel (Jews, Christians, Arabs, foreign visitors/workers) exactly what is: TERRORISM!
Harv Oberfeld
🇨🇦🇨🇦Labour Day week, remember Canadian workers! BUY CANADIAN!🇨🇦🇨🇦
(Follow @harveyoberfeld.ca on “X” for FREE First Alerts of new postings on the Blog.)
Sorry Harvey, but this is almost comical. And I am too invested not to respond.
About the Kinsella report I said that there was no discussion of the nuances of the CBC policy, just rage against the CBC. I present a policy to see if that would be acceptable and you ignore it for another rage against the current crop of journalists.
And I don’t even know what to make of that. You called me naive when I said that I “wasn’t even sure if journalists need a policy”. Does that mean that maybe you think they do??? And if so what?
As for your comment. “As for the CBC having a “long held policy“ that was stupidly exposed, my only regret is that it was not exposed earlier”
Harvey this exposure is not new. I think the policy (don’t use terrorism without attribution of some kind) predates 9/11 but I can’t verify that. But it isn’t a secret. Here is an article about it from three years ago ironically written by the CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mps-spar-cbc-coverage-israel-hamas-1.7006441
,
Like 9/11, I would hope that one day CBC makes an exception for Oct 7 but otherwise I still think the policy is sound. Without attribution from some other source I don’t think any reporter or news organization should be determining what to call horrific events. Isn’t that just opening the door for more propaganda?
(Response: If the CBC policy regarding the terrorist attack 911 was indeed no secret … despite the official position taken by Parliament …that increases the shame our politicians and our media (especially REAL journalists at the CBC) should feel that it took them 25 years to force the change, after an internal “reminder” to staff was leaked. As for journalists and “policy”, I was only pointing out how naive you are if you don’t realize that these days many journalists are compromised by editorial policy/bias imposed from above. What they need are the principles and integrity to tell the truth and, in conflicts, both or competing sides, even if it differs from that being pushed by the brass. Or quit! Ho)
The CBC has a long held policy about the use of the word terrorism and its variants. A top editor or whatever his title is stupidly decided to remind his reporters of said policy days before the memorial for the victims of what virtually everybody would call a terrorist attack.
The memo is given to a reporter of another newspaper. And the rage of the CBC haters begins. Which is exactly what Kinsella was hoping for. Great for clicks. No discussion of the nuances of the policy mind you, just rage.
I love discussion about bias and how people view the same thing differently. I also love words and how they are used to trigger certain emotions. So I sucked myself into this discussion. And I get further sucked in defending myself when my words are misinterpreted. And I am not necessarily blaming the interpreter because I might not be writing clearly. That is the difficulty with language. Words mean something differently to different people. And that’s the dilemma facing reporters.
Anyway Harvey. I am suggesting this policy free of charge to the CBC and I am going to preface this by saying that reporters are professionals and I am not even sure if a policy is needed.
“Reporters should be careful when using words like terrorism. As much as possible attribute their use to some acknowledged authority.”
I am saying “words like” because there are other words – genocide for example – that get tossed around loosely.
(Response: You are very naive if you believe since “ reporters are professionals” therefore “ you are not even sure if a policy is needed“. There was a time when reporters would stand their ground and even quit their jobs if they disagreed with the editorial bias or push by their managers or producers: those reporters and days are sadly now very few and far between! In observing reporters today, I see MANY pushing their own beliefs, favouring their own religious or cultural or political biases and ignoring completely or severely downplaying those with which they disagree…. both on international and domestic stories. In many cases, they are also being directed by managers and producers above. It is not real journalism; it is propaganda!
As for the CBC having a “long held policy“ that was stupidly exposed, my only regret is that it was not exposed earlier… not 25 years after it started!
Meanwhile you did not get sucked in: you saw a viewpoint with which you disagreed and you countered with your own view. Even though you were incorrect (🤣😁🤣) you contributed substantially to the discussion and that strengthens our democratic system. Ho)
Cherry picking through this sounds ridiculous and horriibly biased. All sides have and are committing acts of terrorism. America under Trump and Vance in Iran like Iraq under Bush and Cheneys crimes against humanity, war crimes and terror and outright slaughter of the innocence during illegal wars started on total lies for proppung up the walls of their hegemony. Hundreds of Thousands of deaths displacement and injuries and thousands of American soldiers deaths for a lie in Iraq and for Bushes pychopathic misplaced revenge streak and of course as always for the miltary industrial complex billions of bucks cash flow. Oh my, my, gee whiz, I wonder if big oil is tied into all this warmongering and butchery. Sorry, I don’t deal with hypocrisy on such a grand murderous scale to well when it involves this madness. Big American media is probably the worst for being captured. It’s mostly all propped as big entertainment and are to spineless to call it out because their afraid of maybe thinking Trumps FCC will shut them down.
Anyways as I said all sides have and are committing acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity. I’ll never forget that even after all the American blood spilled on the battlefields Trump displayed his disgusting contempt for the fallen and wounded he called them suckers and losers. If any of my Prime Ministers ever said that I would be constantly protesting when I possibly could in front of parliament or otherwise as much as possible.
(Response: I disagree with you somewhat on this one. The deaths of innocent civilians are of course terrible: however there is a BIG difference between civilians inadvertently killed during legitimate military actions and civilians DELIBERATELY targeted by terrorists. Millions of civilians sadly died in Allied bombings during World War II: but I would never call those who flew our planes or dropped those bombs “terrorists”. They were heroes! Ho)
Ahh, you can’t compare WWII with any of this stuff. It was a completely different monster and a true exetential WORLD dominating threat by Japan, Germany and Italy. There was no choice but to stop it. No choice wht so ever. You left something out. Most of those bomber crews did not see themselves as hero’s. Even the two atomiic bombs dropped on Japan was a horrific event to the bomber crews who took them to the targets. The crews and pilots seen themselves as soldiers on the battlefield fighting a grim horrific but necessary war. A world war. Some of the stuff done today is not a world war threat to us. Trump and his complete incompetent idiots have started the unessecary mess that is transpiring right now that did not need to be. Fighters are seen as heros by the people on all sides because each side fights for what they think is right. In these regional bushfire battles every side is a terrorist targeting public infrastructure and the innocent also. America is doing it . Isreal is doing it, Hamas is doing it, Iran is doing it. But the difference is this shit going on now was brought to you by the nut and his new robots in the military general staff and War mongering department of war Hegseth and their Isreali lobbyist masters. Look now what the maniacs have done. The Houthis are advancing across Yemen and maybe since Americans as usual stabbing their allies like Saudi Arabia and others in the back signaled by Trump to Iran and thier Houthi proxy that the road to Riyadh may be open. Isn’t that just amazing what the maniacs caused that didn’t need to be caused. But come on you can’t be serious relating WWII to all of this. 9/11, Iraq Oct 7, Gaza, Lebanon, now Trumps maniacs hitting into Iran is all terrorist acts on grand scales, just implemented and carried out in different ways.
(Response: To the civilians killed or maimed in war, there is no difference between WW II and Vietnam or Gaza or Iran. However, in law, there IS a difference between civilians killed/injured during military assaults against foes and terrorism, in which civilians are DELIBERATELY targeted/attacked/killed/injured. That’s why debates still occur among historians about the bombings of London, Dresden and even Nagasaki, the second atomic target … but not so much about the military legitimacy of attacking Pearl Harbour, Berlin, and Hiroshima, the first. Ho)
(Response: i’m not sure why you are having trouble with this. It is actually very simple..I never used my own definitions to interpret whether somebody should be called a terrorist. Almost all journalists back then went by official or established criteria set by governments or Courts or recognized established organizations etc)
First of all, this isn’t simple, and second of all I am not disagreeing with you here.
I am trying to keep this as objective as possible. As hard as it must be for you, forget the CBC. Let’s pretend it is the Associated Press. Google search: “The Associated Press generally avoids independently labeling individuals, groups, or events as “terrorists” or “terrorism,” preferring instead to describe the specific actions and attribute the labels to authorities.”
Now why are they, like the CBC and others, doing that. Look at what you said in your response above. You don’t use your own definitions. You went by the criteria set by authorities. Good. But how do your readers know that unless you tell them. If Canada says an organization is a terrorist group would you just call them terrorists or would you tell your readers that the government of Canada has designated them terrorists. That’s the attribution that the CBC is requiring. How many times have we read in CBC articles that Canada has designated Hamas a terrorist group. Lots. They repeat it because nobody reads every single article and might not know that particular fact . And, I believe that that attribution is just as or even more powerful than randomly tossing terrorist into a story.
Look again at how you described the events of Oct 7 in one of your responses. Three years later it still shook me. That is powerful writing. And you didn’t use terrorist once. But I recognized terrorism in the power of your words. Good reporters describe the events. Let others do the labelling.
Besides Harvey, despite what each of us think, nobody will ever agree on whose authority we will use to call someone a terrorist. (How about the UN?) The British foreign minister while explaining why the government was stopping trade with some companies in the West Bank referred to some Israeli settlers as terrorists. The US Ambassador to Israel said something similar. Is that enough for a pro-Palestinian reporter to start using terrorist to describe them. I don’t. The reporter can certainly quote Huckabee and Miliband but then we are mad or not at Huckabee and Miliband. Shouldn’t the reporter stay out of the story.
I think that’s why I have no problem with the CBC policy. Reporters should report the facts. Good reporters can describe horrific events without using the word terror. Good reporters can still pull in the word terror as long as they attribute its use to someone other than themselves. And it applies to both sides in a conflict. As it should.
(By the way, did you read the article I linked about the British (and France and Canada) stopping trade with Israeli companies in the West Bank. You criticize the CBC of being one sided and never explaining the Israeli side. Much of that story was comments from the Jewish communities in both Britain and Canada. Sometimes I think we are reading different CBCs)
(Response: Actually very interesting that you mentioned that the CBC used to refer to Hamas as being designated by the Canadian government a terrorist group. They started out doing that… But then stopped it! The CBC used to quote Hamas statistics and point out they were from Hamas a designated terrorist group, then they changed it to quoting Hamas spokespersons or officials, without mentioning the designation… or questioning in any way their accuracy. despite Hamas, having a long proven record of lying and being inaccurate in their casualty figures.That not only showed their bias but also plain old bad reporting.
As for AP, they are an independent private organization: they can call terrorists whatever they want. The CBC is a public broadcaster, funded by taxpayers and subject to the rules and legislation laid down by Parliament. And if the parliament of Canada designates a group as terrorist, the CBC has no right to make up its own rules, but should follow the legislation under which it operates.
I still find it hard to believe that it took 25 years after 911 to call those who carried it out “terrorists”! Inexcusable! Bias! Anti-Americanism! Ho)
haven’t thought of CBC as far left but rather they just never seemed too keen on Jews. Some of them are right wingers, some are left wingers, some are stupid, some are well educated, smart, they just don’t like Jews.
I have little hope things will change.
Perhaps we can get Benni and the leader of Hamas a room some where and they can spend the rest of their lives call each other names. They’ll be too cowardly to fight. Both sides prefer to kill children, those with out armaments, etc. The CBC and other organizations are just as repulsive as Benni and Hamas. Benni ought to stop the settlers from acts of violence against people living in areas where they have lived for a very long time. Perhaps there ought to be an end to religion in the middle east Its not like its made it peaceful and caring. Of course if Benni and some of his friends took a hike and Hamas found another hobby the world would be a better place.
(Response: I have no problem calling out the West Bank Israeli settlers who are attacking, destroying homes and even killing Palestinian farmers “terrorists“. So I have to wonder, given the parliament of Canada‘s official designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, why the CBC can’t bring itself to call the murderers who attacked the civilian music festival, farms and villages in northern Israel “terrorists”? The CBC needs a cleansing of the anti-Israel (anti-Jewish?) pro-Jihadists in their midst! Ho)
OK I am still very confused by your responses to me.
(UN reports are not worth the paper they are printed on … and you give it undeserved credibility when you quote its reports or “findings”, especially when it is cited (surprise! Surprise!) by the CBC! Ho)
So now you are deciding what news articles people can use to make a point. Once again my use of the article was not to give the UN expert any credibility. I used it to show how the CBC reported that several countries (France, Germany, Italy and the US) had been critical of this expert, thus undermining her credibility. Isn’t that what you want the CBC to be doing?
Let me try one more time. We are discussing the policy of the CBC (and other news organizations) to not use the word terrorism without attribution. We all agree that the memo about 9/11 was dumb. (By the way welcome back e.a.f. I liked your line about the CBC leaning stupid not left.) It is pretty much an established fact that 9/11 was a terror attack and no attribution should be needed.
But and let’s go back to the e.a.f. post where she asserts that what some Israeli settlers are doing in the West Bank is also terrorism. That’s her opinion and she is not alone. We can agree or disagree with her depending on how we feel. But do you think the CBC should be making those assertions? I don’t think they should. But, can they report that the foreign minister of the UK said some Israeli settlers are terrorists. I do. We might not like it. We might disagree vehemently with what the foreign minister said but it is a newsworthy story especially when it was said while introducing legislation to sanction West Bank companies.
In your response to e.a.f. you said that the CBC is making up its own definition of terrorism. They aren’t. They just won’t use the word unless they are reporting its use by someone else.
You don’t like the CBC. You think they are horribly biased especially against Israel. But I don’t think this is the best place to be arguing that. The CBC doesn’t want its reporters to use terrorism/terrorists without attribution and that applies to both sides in any conflict not just the one in the Mideast.
I am willing to have my mind changed. Do you think CBC reporters should be allowed to call any group terrorists without attribution. I get it. It is all semantics. But it applies to both. The CBC won’t call Hamas a terrorist organization. But they often remind us that Canada has designated Hamas a terrorist organization. They won’t call Israeli settlers in the West Bank terrorists although they did report that US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee referred to one settler attack as an act of terror. Just for a moment take the emotions out of the conflict of the mideast and your feelings about the CBC. Go back to your days as a journalist. Should Harvey Oberfeld be the judge of when polarizing words like terrorist are used or should he be careful and only use it when quoting someone of importance.
(Response: i’m not sure why you are having trouble with this. It is actually very simple: when I was a reporter, unlike today where politically biased managers, producers and reporters inject their own opinions and biases into stories, I never used my own definitions to interpret whether somebody should be called a terrorist or thief or an expert for example. Almost all journalists back then went by official or established criteria set by governments or Courts or recognized established organizations etc. So if the federal government, by Order in Council or Act of Parliament designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, we called them that. Plain and simple. When some TV activists decide to ignore official designations and call anyone or any group what THEY prefer, they are showing their own biases and descending into propaganda. .. which clearly is what the CBC did for 25 years in the case of 911 and is still doing in the case of Hamas. Terrible.. especially for a taxpayer funded network! Ho)
You have its right on. I watched Trumps tribute to the 9/11 event and not one mention of Newfoundlands participation … not one .. maybe he does not want to give credit where credit is due to a nation that has heart Canada ….just saying ..
We’re dealing with a complete unadultered lunatic as is much of the rest of the world.
“But you lose your argument and credibility when you rely on the UN for your arguments!”
Say what?
I wasn’t relying on the UN for anything. The CBC wrote a story about a claim made by a UN official. I used the article to point out two things.
1. The CBC policy of avoiding the use of the word terrorism without attribution.
The article referred to the events of Oct 7 as a deadly raid and the Israeli response (which some people claim is an act of terror) as an assault. As I pointed out, I have no problem calling 9/11 an act of terror and the same is true for Oct. 7. I think this is all semantics but the CBC and other news organizations with a similar policy are being extra cautious so as not to be taking sides. Here is another example from today.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canada-uk-france-ban-goods-israeli-settlements-9.7335551
The article quotes the British foreign minister: “The British government,” Miliband told parliamentarians, “agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists.”
Those are harsh, controversial words but they are attributed to Milliband. At no point in the article is some form of the word terror used in the voice of the reporter. That is the essence of the CBC policy. The reporter can’t say for example “these terror attacks have been ongoing since …” because that would suggest that the CBC reporter had taken a side, in this case against Israel. I am pretty sure that you don’t want CBC taking sides against Israel.
Speaking of which.
My second reason for using the UN article was to point out that that particular article at least, did everything that you claim the CBC does not. You claim that the CBC is one sided, that they don’t seek out the Israeli side that they only report on Palestinian issues etc.
Reread the article. A UN representative claims that atrocities are buried under the rubble. The reporter sought comment from three Israeli sources who didn’t respond. Instead of just saying the Israelis didn’t respond the reporter added that the Israelis have denied these allegations in the past AND that Italy, France and Germany have criticized this UN rep for her negative criticisms of Israel AND that the US had sanctioned her.
That is why I asked if you thought that article was anti-Israel because we are left wondering about the credibility of that UN rep and her accusations even without an Israeli response.
This is an interesting topic but I think it is far more nuanced than the CBC is a Hamas loving, Jihadist supporting extremist wing of the radical left NDP.
(Response: UN reports are not worth the paper they’re printed on. As I stated, the UN has been proven time and time again to be terribly biased against Israel… Largely because of the large block of Islamic countries who have the UN in their grips. The General Assembly is a farce; the International Court of Justice issued the arrest warrant for three Israeli leaders as a result of the Gaza war; then… Pretending to be fair… They issued three arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders. The only problem was the Hamas leaders they cited were already dead and they knew that! Absolute hypocrisy! Not a single warrant for those identified as having participated in the Oct 7 slaughter, despite women being raped, one having her breasts sliced off while she was still alive, babies being murdered and even hostages taken alive, later found in tunnels, their hands bound and bullets in their heads. The UN is a disgrace.. with little credibility in any regard when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict … and you give it undeserved credibility when you quote its reports or “findings”, especially when it is cited (surprise! Surprise!) by the CBC! Ho)
Sorry Harvey, I just feel like being a bit contrarian.
First though, there is no doubt that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. It happened 25 years ago so it is pretty much an historical fact. We don’t need the attribution of some third party to tell us that. Sending of the memo was dumb.
But is the policy dumb? The CBC and several other news organizations avoid the words terrorism and terrorist without attribution to prevent them from looking like they are taking sides.
Funny enough, this morning this story was on CBC’s online news site with this headline:
Israeli clearance of Gaza rubble could destroy evidence of ‘atrocity crimes,’ says UN expert
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-gaza-un-expert-atrocity-evidence-9.7334972
Here is the second sentence:
Israel’s assault on Gaza — started after the deadly raid into Israel by Hamas in October 2023 — has generated around 61 million tons of wreckage and debris that could take seven years to clear, according to the United Nations.
No mention of terror. Israel’s assault. The deadly raid by Hamas. Both accurate although very understated as far as I am concerned. Nobody can really take a side unless they have already done so.
The words “atrocity crimes” are attributed to a UN expert. The CBC asked the Israeli foreign minister, the Prime Minister’s office and the military for comment and while they didn’t receive a response, the author noted that in the past the Israelis had denied the allegation, that France, Germany, and Italy had condemned the “expert’s” negative criticisms of Israel and that the US had sanctioned her.
I think this story is typical CBC. Is it anti-Israel?
The memo was stupid especially because 9/11 is so obvious. But that doesn’t mean all events are obvious. I would call the October 7 attack terrorism. Some people would call Israeli settler violence in the West Bank terrorism. I don’t see it the same way as I see Oct 7, but I can see why some people might see it differently and I certainly wouldn’t want news stories claiming it without attribution.
(Response: You contrarian? I expect nothing less! 🙂 But you lose your argument and credibility when you rely on the UN for your arguments! The UN and its agencies (esp UNRWA/IJC/Human Rights Commission) have long been controlled/co-opted/corrupted by the UN’s 57 Islamic states that have worked very hard for years to use their influence and other pressures (infiltrating the various administrations/bureaucracies etc.) to push their own domestic and anti-Israel agendas.
The IDF, after seizing thousands of documents in Gaza, reported (never saw it on CBC) that of 12,521 UN workers in Gaza, 1,462 (teachers, medical staff, administrators) had ties to Hamas … and up to 450 had active military roles, including some who took part in the Oct 7 terrorist massacre at the Israeli music festival. Don’t trust the Israeli info? Well, UN Watch, the independent SWISS monitoring group, also found up to 1,200 UNRWA staff had ties or membership in Gaza ‘extremist organizations.”
As for defining terrorists as terrorists, the Criminal Code of Canada is good enough for me: ” It is defined as an act or omission committed: In whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause
With the intention of intimidating the public or segment thereof, with regard to its security, or to compel a government to do something or refrain from doing something, with intent to cause serious violence to persons, property, critical infrastructure, or essential systems.”
Absolutely, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah fit the definition! And even a “contrarian” should expect/demand that Canada’s PUBLIC broadcaster use/uphold the definition laid down in our own law … not make up their own! Ho)
No more public money for CBC. Let them find their own dollars or shut their doors.
(Response: Not ready to do that ..yet. The CBC performs an important public service in many communities, especially covering the country from coast to coast to coast…something private broadcasters fail to do. But it sure needs a clearing out of far left activists who push their agendas and ignore the CBC’s own policies outlined in the network’s Standards and Journalistic Practices. Ho)
CBC News? Never listen to it, biased, badly researched and politically inspired.
A terrorist attack is an unprovoked attack on a civilian target and it doesn’t matter who is attacking, they are terrorists, trying to promote their cause via terror.
(Response: Exactly. So I can’t understand why the CBC board and successive governments (Liberal, Conservative) let the CBC get away with not calling the terrorists “terrorists” after they hijacked civilian aircraft filled with passengers and pilot them into office towers filled with civilians. Shame! Ho)
Yes Harv. The Corpse has lost the plot. Over a Billion for a small viewership, probably partially due to its steadfast instance on not covering all sides. CBC leans far left, and is sclerotically bureaucratic.
Global is mostly prattling pap (the ads and fillers are excruciating) given it is clear they have another problem, NO MONEY. Sad reminder of how it once was great here in BC.
CTV meh.
We are in an information desert here in Canada as far as the “main players” sad and dangerous. Investigative journalism is the lifeblood of a free and democratic society. Were the CBC to change its mandate and behave like a real 4th estate it would likely impact the others to the benefit of Canadians. Politicians need to step up and demand substantive changes of the network we taxpayers fund.
(Response: Hard to believe the CBC actually has a written out policy of Broadcast and Journalistic standards. I’ve called them out several times, but even I was unaware that for 25 years, the CBC wouldn’t even call the terrorists who killed 3,000 civilians in New York actual terrorists! Incredible and inexcusable: heads have to roll in CBC management and producers and “journalists” to get rid of the far left activists and Jihadi sympathizers in their midst and return the CBC to the ethics and standards set out in its own Official Broadcast Standards policy. Ho)
I wouldn’t say CBC leans left. Its more like they lean stupid.
Those jets crashing into the towers was terrorism.
As to the war in and around Israel, Gaza, etc. both sides have committed terrorist attacks. Settlers attacking Palestinians to drive them off the land is a terrorist activity. Its not an act in support of religion.
The attacks by Hamas on Israeli citizens are also acts of terrorism.
(Response; My own definition of terrorism is much more simple: anyone who deliberately targets and attacks civilian structures or people is a terrorist. I cannot understand what makes the CBC so arrogant that it decides who to call a terrorist, regardless of what Canadian law says or common sense. Very political! Very biased! Unacceptable! Ho)
Well now personally I wouldn’t feel right if I didn’t say that both sides, War criminal Netanyahu and Hamas are both butchers of the innocent. The IDFs razing of Gaza and its death toll while trying and to shut down Hamas there was by many sources approx in the the 70,000s range, of Palestinians killed and around 170,000 injured with around 20,000 children in there killed. Oh that worked out well. WW2 carpet bomb the whole city into oblivion to get to their enemy. Ohhh sorry, precision and smart bomb the city to weed out and shut down Hamas. Brilliant. Those bombs are sure smart and surgical.
As far as the MSM like CBC for one are concerned and their stupid biased and spineless ways, I think most regular people of the general public already know how to put things together and see the the whole picture. Like really, who gives a crap anyways about the MSM bullshit we already know. They can just carry on being the confused fools they are. Maybe the idiots are trying to find themselves. Lots of that going on.
(Response: I have no problem with critics of both sides: in any conflict that is to be expected and respected. The problem with the CBC is that it heavily weights (day after day, story after story) its stories showing damage/deaths/wounded/displaced victims of Israeli strikes …but only rarely the same damage/deaths/wounded/displaced victims on the Israeli side. However, this blog is more about the CBC’s refusal to call terrorists what they are: terrorists. I noticed that with their Hamas/Islamic Jihad coverage, but was shocked to learn that the lefties at Mother Corp wouldn’t even call the terrorists who DELIBERATELY targeted and killed thousands of civilians on passenger aircraft, in New York and at the Pentagon “terrorists!. That’s how bad things are at the taxpayer-funded broadcaster: it MUST be cleared out and cleaned up! Ho)
Harvey, there are many more issues at CBC than just their chosen editorial slant against Jewish people. The editorial liberties taken with most current events also calls to account their practice of lying by omission, a sad standard in CBC editorial efforts.
Cue up yet another round of executive bonus’s for all those editorial liberties! Trade labor backers, Avi Lewis & co., and the corduroy clad, history rewriting, silver spoon socialists will blither on ad nauseam about how you & I are wrong….
(Response: I agree … and readers of this blog have witnessed me (and others) calling out the CBC repeatedly for its far left one-sided bias in covering many domestic issues too (right to life, trans issues, Palestinian protests/anti-Semitism and First Nations). I’ve even often referred to the publicly-funded broadcaster as “the unofficial voice of the far left wing of the NDP”. But on the eve of 911, I’ve concentrated on the “news” that the CBC … after a leaked memo and ensuing public reaction … had finally ended its 25-year policy of not calling Jihadi terrorists “terrorists”. Twenty-five years late! Ho)