| Bad Egg |
| Check out the April 8th small dead animals . Confirms what should be obvious to anyone who watches the news in this country. |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
Don't believe everything you read.
This is what is on the http://www.cbc.ca/ main page.
There you go, right front and center. The reason it's not sitting on the top of the news page is because it's already here.
 |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
Don't believe everything you read.
This is what is on the http://www.cbc.ca/ main page.
There you go, right front and center. The reason it's not sitting on the top of the news page is because it's already here.
8 hours later it is...they have got to be hating this. Anybody thinks that CBC is impartial and only American networks try to spin news stories needs to give their head a shake.
Don't worry snuggles, most people grow out of their liberal stage of life, unless they are making money at it. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
8 hours later it is...they have got to be hating this. Anybody thinks that CBC is impartial and only American networks try to spin news stories needs to give their head a shake.
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
I guess if it compliments your pre-conceptions, it must be true, eh?
;) |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
| You are so boringly predictable snuggles...wake me when you have something original. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
You are so boringly predictable snuggles...wake me when you have something original.
:D
Lighten up buddy. :beer: |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
| Actually, I'm pretty sure that the site would have been the exact same at the time that the Small Dead Animals person took the screenshot. They just happened to choose to take a shot of only the news page. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the site would have been the exact same at the time that the Small Dead Animals person took the screenshot. They just happened to choose to take a shot of only the news page.
You may be right, Chromey, I don't know for sure. I think the most interesting fact was the campaign contributions chart. Of course they would not support anybody but the Liberals, look at what Mulroney did to them in the 80's. I find most of the CBC influence I see to be subtle; like when on the news reports showing newspaper boxes full of screaming headlines of the sponsorship scandel they find one with a taped message "LIES" in the middle of the box.
...and snuggles, you got me yawning again. Keep searching, you may find something informative... |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the site would have been the exact same at the time that the Small Dead Animals person took the screenshot. They just happened to choose to take a shot of only the news page.
I checked it at the time and it looked exactly like the SDA screen capture. The CBC website had the links to the whole sponsorship story at the top right of their page (you can see it on the pic), but they just didn't have a huge fonted banner of it like they do now. :)
 |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
You may be right, Chromey, I don't know for sure. I think the most interesting fact was the campaign contributions chart. Of course they would not support anybody but the Liberals, look at what Mulroney did to them in the 80's. I find most of the CBC influence I see to be subtle; like when on the news reports showing newspaper boxes full of screaming headlines of the sponsorship scandel they find one with a taped message "LIES" in the middle of the box.
What I find interseting is how you automatically assumed that graph was correct, you didn't analyze the source, you didn't back-check the stats, you just ATE IT UP!
This applies PERFECTLY:
"I guess if it compliments your pre-conceptions, it must be true, eh?"
That chart has no real source, it's only listed as www.stephentaylor.ca.... and lo and behold...to my surprise...he's a Conservative party supporter...
Before you just eat up these little gems of wisdom why don't you obectively question them first?
Who is the source? - A Biology Student
Are they biased? - Yes, he's biased
Are there any other sources that corroberate the info? - No.
CBC has always existed regardless of the party in power, what do they have to fear? They will always be funded, they will always be there, I just don't see much motive for them to suck up to anyone.
And I also can't remember the last time I saw a CBC news story that was PRO Liberal party, they are always bashing our government so how does that play into your "Liberal Punks" logic?
CBC is not liberal punks, it seems very clear to me they have the same views as mainstream canada, and I think they do an excellent job representing our point of view. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
What I find interseting is how you automatically assumed that graph was correct, you didn't analyze the source, you didn't back-check the stats, you just ATE IT UP!
This applies PERFECTLY:
"I guess if it compliments your pre-conceptions, it must be true, eh?"
It must be a pretty astute quote since you guys are all using it...If you take the quote in the context of the thread in which I posted it; some "alleged" ex-Marine in Lebanon claimed that he was in on Saddam's capture - proving that those nasty Americans were lying again! No corroboration or evidence existed there, yet you all lapped it up...maybe in a better world, we would all expect a higher standard of proof.
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
That chart has no real source, it's only listed as www.stephentaylor.ca.... and lo and behold...to my surprise...he's a Conservative party supporter...
Before you just eat up these little gems of wisdom why don't you obectively question them first?
Who is the source? - A Biology Student
Are they biased? - Yes, he's biased
Are there any other sources that corroberate the info? - No.
Amazingly enough in all your excitement you cannot refute the allegation, you can only challenge the source, and you have not proven him incorrect. This guy posts his stuff for all the world to see on his blog, people are free to challenge his findings. I don't find that being a Biology student or a Conservative to be incompatible with telling the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
CBC has always existed regardless of the party in power, what do they have to fear? They will always be funded, they will always be there, I just don't see much motive for them to suck up to anyone.
The CBC gets a billion dollars a year in federal funding, you can bet your ass they have something to fear. Mulroney's Conservatives in the 1980's forced a large scale down sizing on them.
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
And I also can't remember the last time I saw a CBC news story that was PRO Liberal party, they are always bashing our government so how does that play into your "Liberal Punks" logic?
CBC is not liberal punks, it seems very clear to me they have the same views as mainstream canada, and I think they do an excellent job representing our point of view.
So, what member of your family works there? If the CBC have the same views as mainstream Canada how come they have such low ratings? I, for one, am glad to be paying my share of the billion dollars so that I can watch hockey...oh yeah, forget that too. |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
#1 - In the thread you're referring to my first reaction was disbelief, so I don't know who you think was "lapping it up" but it wasn't me.
#2 - So now random pie-graphs are deemed as fact? The onus is one the person making the claim to backup their statement with evidence, if they can not provide credible sources then the claim is obviously false. it does not need to be dis-proven as it's never been proven in the first place.
#3 whether the CBC feels threatened enough by their financial situation that they would feel the need to suck up to the Liberal party is open to opinion, I doubt. If you look at reality they run almost no pro-liberal pieces, so to me, I don't think reality supports your opinion.
#4 I have no ties with CBC, I just like feeling that I can finally get a piece of half decent news that actually gives both sides of the story. |
|
|
| PraxRX7 |
either way...the sponsorship scandel cost craploads of money and they made a bunch of their buddies rich...
Well guess what...the stupid inquiry is going to end up costing more than the sponsorship scandel and GUESS WHAT?? Its making MORE of their buddies rich...big friggin suprise...
I hope this is enough to make people stop voting for the stupid liberals...although in reality we need a complete overhaul of our entire government structure and system because no matter who we elect, liberal, conservative, ndp, bloc, whatever...they are all still structured to operate in the same, flawed, useless, money wasting manner...
We need to start a group that is a new government party that will re-structure the entire government...like instead of paying 15,000 people to do all the books, you get like 20 people with some friggin quickbooks lol (not that easy, but you get my drift).
I would love to get together and start an alternative party that was TRUE democracy (votes on important issues, true freedom of education...regardless of financial situation...better health care...like no more monopolies with equipment companies so that we have to charge $100,000+ for a heart transplant etc.).
Lots of changes have to be made, but most Canadians are to lazy to actually do anything about it. :dunno: |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
http://www.fairvotecanada.org/ :bthumbup:
There are better ways to elect our officials. I personally would love to see a system put in place that allows regular referendums on pressing issues. Our government representatives are no longer representing us and it has got to change.
As for the CBC thing. Of course they have bias, every media outlet has a bias. The difference with the CBC is that their bias isn't so much towards their advertisers like all the others. Journalists can try as hard as possible to avoid bias, but the bottom line is that some bias will always come through. Even choosing the story that you decide to report shows a bias. Who you choose to interview, what quotes you decide to use, etc. Many of our biases are rooted deep within our morals, and you can fight it all you want, but you want people to read/see/hear what you think is right. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
As usual Chromey provides the voice of reason, and you can't deny his point on bias. We are all guilty of it and therefore must try to be aware of it.
And Scooby, don't think I am picking on you, I apologize if I lumped you in with the rest on the Saddam post. You were the guy that still believed the CBS "memo" that CBS apoligized for and fired staff members over.
CBS covers it's ass.
Oh, and those random pie charts? If you clicked his links on the story in stephentaylor.ca you would have been directed to these:
Elections Canada, where political contributions are listed.
...and
CBC board of directors
I have been watching CBC for a long time and while they are obviously not as blatently biased as, say, Fox News, I have obserbed a subtle "spin" on a regular basis.
Finally, I agree with you Scoob in that CBC is a quality news outlet. I just watch it with both eyes open. |
|
|
| DeathBy240 |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
Finally, I agree with you Scoob in that CBC is a quality news outlet. I just watch it with both eyes open.
Chromey summed up everything I would have said. but this is a very good point. Any medium, newspaper, television or radio, must be perceived with the understanding of bias. Every news organization has it, and you really have to watch it with two eyes open to catch it. |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
And Scooby, don't think I am picking on you, I apologize if I lumped you in with the rest on the Saddam post. You were the guy that still believed the CBS "memo" that CBS apoligized for and fired staff members over.
That document is "allegedly forged", it's not "forged" that was my point, in all the comotion over the fact that the source turned out to be a liberal/democrat, everybody seemed to assume the document was fake. In every test they've run it's been inconclusive whether it's a fake or not.
I think if it was a fake they would be able to tell, and Bush has a history of irresponsible behaviour when he was young, so that just leads me personally to think it's probably true.
On CBC, I'll say that after watching their coverage on this scandal, I noticed some pretty bad bias, it does seem like CBC has some vested interest in defending the actions of the people responsible. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
That document is "allegedly forged", it's not "forged" that was my point, in all the comotion over the fact that the source turned out to be a liberal/democrat, everybody seemed to assume the document was fake. In every test they've run it's been inconclusive whether it's a fake or not.
I think if it was a fake they would be able to tell, and Bush has a history of irresponsible behaviour when he was young, so that just leads me personally to think it's probably true.
On CBC, I'll say that after watching their coverage on this scandal, I noticed some pretty bad bias, it does seem like CBC has some vested interest in defending the actions of the people responsible.
I know I should be nice and be happy that you are least giving it a full evaluation...but that memo is a joke, and everyone knew Bush was a rich party boy as a young pup, but the memo was overkill by some people with an axe to grind...check out one of the sites that helped get CBS staffers fired...
little green footballs - yes, it is a conservative site
...and here is the real killer, believe your eyes or not, the site's author replicated the memo from the CBS site in a few minutes.
quote:
I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft’s Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date “18 August 1973,” then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.
And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”
Old typewriter my ass... |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
I know I should be nice and be happy that you are least giving it a full evaluation...but that memo is a joke, and everyone knew Bush was a rich party boy as a young pup, but the memo was overkill by some people with an axe to grind...check out one of the sites that helped get CBS staffers fired...
lol, and here I thought the CBS thing was dead.
Did you see the Schiavo talking points memo that went around and was judiciously decried as fake by all the conservative commentators and bloggers.... only to find out later that it was real.
http://rawstory.com/martinez_memo_406.htm
As for the CBC, I agree that there is a bit of a bent there, but I still think that suggesting they are a bunch of "liberal punks" because of the size of the font for the sponsorshit links is fairly silly, especially when you could probably find much more solid evidence elsewhere. :) |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
lol, and here I thought the CBS thing was dead.
Did you see the Schiavo talking points memo that went around and was judiciously decried as fake by all the conservative commentators and bloggers.... only to find out later that it was real.
http://rawstory.com/martinez_memo_406.htm
As for the CBC, I agree that there is a bit of a bent there, but I still think that suggesting they are a bunch of "liberal punks" because of the size of the font for the sponsorshit links is fairly silly, especially when you could probably find much more solid evidence elsewhere. :)
So you are saying that we can ignore all the evidence in one case because you think there was an error in another? So since the Justice system jailed David Milgard in error we should release all the prisoners that the same system processed over the years?
Pretty lame reasoning but I will give you an "A" for effort.
I didn't look elsewhere for evidence of CBC bias, which even you admit exists, but I have been watching it for years. Nobody here is denying the government influence in the CBC message, you are just whining about my phrasing of it, which is even more silly than font sizes... |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
So you are saying that we can ignore all the evidence in one case because you think there was an error in another? So since the Justice system jailed David Milgard in error we should release all the prisoners that the same system processed over the years?
Pretty lame reasoning but I will give you an "A" for effort.
.....what in the world are you talking about? :blink: :blink: :blink:
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
I didn't look elsewhere for evidence of CBC bias, which even you admit exists, but I have been watching it for years. Nobody here is denying the government influence in the CBC message, you are just whining about my phrasing of it, which is even more silly than font sizes...
Esh, you posted the link initially, it was lame, you got bagged for it, time to move on buddy. :) |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
Snugs, you followed your CBS "dead" comment with a point about another memo that was not a fake, the obvious inference being drawn that consevative blogs are not to be trusted when it comes to authenticating documents. This is a weak argument because it does not address the specifics of that issue, it only serves as an attempt to discredit the sources of my information. Oh, and the Milgard bit was a metaphor to illustrate the fault in logic but it must have missed the mark.
I will respectfully disagree with you on the bagging, unless this is what you mean...
quote:
As for the CBC, I agree that there is a bit of a bent there
quote:
On CBC, I'll say that after watching their coverage on this scandal, I noticed some pretty bad bias, it does seem like CBC has some vested interest in defending the actions of the people responsible
quote:
As for the CBC thing. Of course they have bias, every media outlet has a bias
I would have left this thread alone long ago if I hadn't had to keep returning to defend myself and correct misinformation. Perhaps you should resist posting if you can't contribute anything new and we can all move on. |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
Man do you honestly think that if the memo could be reproduced in Word 2004 that the FBI would not be able to identify it as a fake??
They must have dozens of test to tell if a document is fake, obviously they can tell the difference between a document typed in 1970 and one that was laser printed in 2004.
I think the fact this document can't be proved to be a fake speaks for itself, it's much easier to prove something IS a fake then to prove it is not.
I wonder about your logic sometimes, to actually believe some blogger can prove something that the FBI and eveyone else with unlimited budgets has been unable to prove??
Man, where is your common sense? |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
Snugs, you followed your CBS "dead" comment with a point about another memo that was not a fake, the obvious inference being drawn that consevative blogs are not to be trusted when it comes to authenticating documents. This is a weak argument because it does not address the specifics of that issue, it only serves as an attempt to discredit the sources of my information.
I will respectfully disagree with you on the bagging, unless this is what you mean...
I would have left this thread alone long ago if I hadn't had to keep returning to defend myself and correct misinformation. Perhaps you should resist posting if you can't contribute anything new and we can all move on.
Move on? Nah, we're both here until at least 5 or later and this is the most entertaining thread going (besides that joke about the 18 year old). :p
I said the CBS this was dead because the freepers did a good job of identifying and killing it, end of story, no arguments from me. The TS memo was simply a point of interest which is why I asked if you had seen it. The conservatives in the US cited Rather as their way of marginalising and dismissing the damaging TS memo, so its semi-on-topic. :)
Anybody who pays moderate attention to the msm knows that there is inherent bias in all broadcast news (or anything that people get involved with in general). But solidly proving a clear bias is generally not as easy as making a screen capture of a splash page. The SDA link was weak and didn't prove any liberal punkery by the CBC, in fact it almost went to disprove it since you could clearly see the links on the screen capture. Both chromey and I pointed this out. End of story...... or is it? :fingersx: |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
Dammit Snugs, just when I had a good argument going you had to go and start making sense and being reasonable. Some people find the CBC to be gag-inducing, others find their editorial viewpoint right on. Guess we know who thinks which is which. If I did make some people pay more attention to the news it was worth it.
I tried not to get into the Schiavo thing because I thought that whole case was being overplayed and I was pretty sick of it. I know people in similar situations from accidents and nobody knows whats going on except those that are experiencing it first hand. How would you like to be married to a vegetable for years(not counting couch potato). Yes, I can't disagree that the conservative blogs are quick to react, but I find the ones I read will correct their own mistakes.
Good thing Scooby is still with us, though...did you look at the overlayed Word document and the memo from the CBS site. I don't think Danny boy and a handful of producers would have got the ax if CBS didn't know they were had by someone who had been out to get the bushman for years. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
Dammit Snugs, just when I had a good argument going you had to go and start making sense and being reasonable. Some people find the CBC to be gag-inducing, others find their editorial viewpoint right on. Guess we know who thinks which is which. If I did make some people pay more attention to the news it was worth it.
LOL, I hear ya man. I always appreciate having somebody with an opposing viewpoint to argue.... uh, I mean discuss things reasonably with, keeps you on your toes. :D |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
Good thing Scooby is still with us, though...did you look at the overlayed Word document and the memo from the CBS site. I don't think Danny boy and a handful of producers would have got the ax if CBS didn't know they were had by someone who had been out to get the bushman for years.
I saw the comparison, they look similar but we are not experts on forged documents, so to the layman it might look like proof, but is it actually proof of anything?
I overlayed the two and it wasn't nearly as perfect as the author's "overlay" some words were completely unreadable, although many others were very similar.
I think that if these documents were actually fake they would've been proven so long ago and the results paraded around on TV for all to see. I mean this is the president here, he has unlimited resources to clear his name and you have to know that they did everything they could to prove these documents fake. But they couldn't, why not?
Wouldn't you think it would be as simple as testing the age of the paper? Obviously the paper must be at least from the same time period as the memo oir it would've been declared fake already.
The fact they have quitely dissapeared under the status of "alleged forgery" makes me think they were probably real all along. Why else not clear the record?
If you listened to the american media after this happened, the documents weren't "allegedly" fake, they WERE fake, everybody was saying they were fakes....and everyone has just kinda taken it as fact, with no proof. Wierd? No? |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
| p.s. ya i'm bored too.... |
|
|
|
