CBC chat moderator biased!
- Thread starter Fireseal
- Start date
This thread is completely unfair.
Why single out the chat moderator? Everyone at CBC is biased.
For example, the only time a global-warming skeptic gets mentioned on the CBC is when it's in a documentary about the "conspiracies" to undermine Al Gore, or some such foolishness.
Why single out the chat moderator? Everyone at CBC is biased.
For example, the only time a global-warming skeptic gets mentioned on the CBC is when it's in a documentary about the "conspiracies" to undermine Al Gore, or some such foolishness.
No, it's another way of saying "fool in denial". How anybody can be a skeptic is beyond stupid. Oh, I guess these are probably the same type of people who think there was Adam and Eve and humans magically appeared on earth. Yeah if I was the CBC I wouldn't waste airtime on these morons either.
Nothing personal, but I would remind you that the people who share your views -- those who like to mix their science with their politics -- also believed AIDS would be the number one killer in North America by the start of the 21st century.
We're well into the 21st century, and I would say cancer is much more widespread than AIDS. And I don't have to believe in Adam and Eve to reach that conclusion.
Sorry Dr'moron' ,but the whole global warming thing is a new age religion. You better tow the doctrine or else. Non-believers are to be stoned to death. Questioners are to have their tongues cut from their mouths. Anyone with conflicting data is to be dropped into a volcano. What do U mean there is only educated guesswork data from beyond 40 years ago? How is it possible that the planet as a WHOLE hasn't warmed this decade? Sea levels may actually have lowered a fraction this decade. Antarctic ice volume is increasing more that the arctic is melting. This could even be the start of the next ice-age. Good old mother nature sure does like to change around the climate on this earth. I'm going to hide now,cuz I sense the Zombies are coming for my soul.
Given the manmade global warming coverage on CBC with multiple appearances by David Suzuki, I was impressed that the CBC aired this editorial by Rex Murphy on climategate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8
Transcript from: http://http://www.peeniewallie.com/2009/12/the-cbcs-rex-mu.html
Transcript from: http://http://www.peeniewallie.com/2009/12/the-cbcs-rex-mu.html
As usual, Mr. Murphy puts it quite well.
I don't know if it's my imagination, but as a society we seem to be progressing backwards in our ability to attain a basic grasp of large issues. The two that I marvel at most are health care in the U.S. and climate change.
It seems likely that human activity has affected climate. The degree to which we've done so, the possible consequences and what we should now do about it, are the points at issue. They crucified Lomborg for simply pointing out that the kind of money some environmentalists were saying should be spent on climate change could be better spent on other more pressing and immediate concerns.
One things seems certain, in order to better inform ourselves, it seems self-evident that the coziness between science and advocacy has to end. Good science should be conducted without the intention of proving a hypothesis. It should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Right now, it seems we don't even have enough for a good theory.
I don't know if it's my imagination, but as a society we seem to be progressing backwards in our ability to attain a basic grasp of large issues. The two that I marvel at most are health care in the U.S. and climate change.
It seems likely that human activity has affected climate. The degree to which we've done so, the possible consequences and what we should now do about it, are the points at issue. They crucified Lomborg for simply pointing out that the kind of money some environmentalists were saying should be spent on climate change could be better spent on other more pressing and immediate concerns.
One things seems certain, in order to better inform ourselves, it seems self-evident that the coziness between science and advocacy has to end. Good science should be conducted without the intention of proving a hypothesis. It should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Right now, it seems we don't even have enough for a good theory.
All comments are pre-moderated. You can send a message and it may not appear for minutes. Even non offensive comments are often filtered to keep the spam factor down as this chat room is used across all CBC NHL live broadcasts. They also don't even like mentioning other broadcasters; for instance when someone asked if CBC would have the 'all-access' camera for the Olympics, I replied that CTV held the rights. My comment never appeared, and instead a comment that said "CBC got outbid for the rights" was instead approved.
This is why I found it offensive that a personal attack comment would be approved, of all things.
The CBC heavily censors its boards. And I'm not talking about censoring abusive comments, just anything that they might not agree with. I tried posting a comment yesterday in response to the article on the protests in Denmark. My statement was something to the effect that Capitalism will be the cure for Global Warming (My comment was in response to one big banner reading something like, "Save the Planet - outlaw Capitalism). I then went on to discuss the hipocrisy of every socialist I have ever met - including Jack Layton. Guess what - my comment did not even get posted, let alone cesnored. The CBC is infested with leftists and if they don't like what you say, they won't post it. (Though they WILL post idiotic right wing comments - again, another form of censorship.)
I don't know why your comment wasn't posted, but I can tell you there is no censorship of the kind you describe at the CBC. I worked there for a short time a few years back and have friends there. They don't do that.
I disagree.
They simply will not post your message to the board if they don't like what you said. This has happened to me several times. Case in point yesterday. My post was well written, it was not abusive, but it was critical of Socialists and I pointed out several instances of Sociailists who were hipocrits - Jack Layton (living in subsidized housing while a City of Toronto Councillor), Noam Chomsky (setting up off shore tax shelters), etc.
They simply don't post it if you present a well written arguement that the moderators don't agree with.
The will post right wing nutbar posts though.
I'm not going to try to convince you you're wrong, I'm simply pointing out that I have some personal experience of how they operate, and censorship isn't a policy. Is it possible, or even probable that someone who works there is censoring based on their own political opinions? Of course. But you may as well say the same thing about any network or news outlet. For the most part, CBC tries very hard to ensure balance.
I can't help but note that your two examples of hypocritical socialists aren't as convincing as you seem to think they are.
Jack Layton (and I'm not a particular fan of his), lived in a building that was intended for mixed incomes. You may not agree with the policy, but Layton and Chow did nothing wrong, morally or legally. That opportunity was available to anyone. It was Jakobek, that paragon of virtue, who "leaked" the story. In fact Layton was hiding nothing, it was just an easy political hit.
As for Chomsky, I admit I chuckled when I read that he'd created a trust for his daughters and grand children. After all, he criticizes others who do the same thing. But I believe he sees it as a matter of degree. Chomsky is wealthy, but not wildly so. I've read that he's worth about 3 million. He put away some money for his daughters and their kids. I think even the nastiest Chomsky critic would admit that's a little different from those who are worth hundreds of millions and more, avoiding tax through shelters.
I can't help but note that your two examples of hypocritical socialists aren't as convincing as you seem to think they are.
Jack Layton (and I'm not a particular fan of his), lived in a building that was intended for mixed incomes. You may not agree with the policy, but Layton and Chow did nothing wrong, morally or legally. That opportunity was available to anyone. It was Jakobek, that paragon of virtue, who "leaked" the story. In fact Layton was hiding nothing, it was just an easy political hit.
As for Chomsky, I admit I chuckled when I read that he'd created a trust for his daughters and grand children. After all, he criticizes others who do the same thing. But I believe he sees it as a matter of degree. Chomsky is wealthy, but not wildly so. I've read that he's worth about 3 million. He put away some money for his daughters and their kids. I think even the nastiest Chomsky critic would admit that's a little different from those who are worth hundreds of millions and more, avoiding tax through shelters.
every network has some people with what are widely considerd ethics, please note that I said widely considered , what most people would consider ethics.
The fact that the CBC is for teh most part a little slanted in its editorial slant is widely known. That fact should be taken into account when watching or listening, some reporters actually think about their reputations and do their work with that in mind. Murphy and I don't agree with him all that much, is at least honest in that he reports facts as opposed to what they think people want to hear or worse what they have decided people should hear.
The fact that the CBC is for teh most part a little slanted in its editorial slant is widely known. That fact should be taken into account when watching or listening, some reporters actually think about their reputations and do their work with that in mind. Murphy and I don't agree with him all that much, is at least honest in that he reports facts as opposed to what they think people want to hear or worse what they have decided people should hear.
