Pow! Zap! Zing!

Couldn't have said it any better myself:

Tear it all down

"The CBC will never be able to exorcize its left-wing missionary zeal -- for global warming, for Islam, for big government, Barack Obama, multiculturalism, public health care, human rights commissions and so on. And it could never survive on private donations or ad revenues. So the only thing to do with Mother Corp is to pull down its office buildings and stations and pour salt in their foundations."

Well, At Least They Are Talking...

...about it:

Perhaps our politicians will eventually pay attention.

Media Bias, Anyone?

Post by The Israel Project.

Media Bias

Someone finally takes the media to task:



And the truth finally stares the UN in the face.

Pretty hard to deny it.

The times, they are a changing:



I don't think this is what Bobby Zimmerman had in mind through. I wonder what he would think if he were alive today?

Love It! Love It! Love It!

What John Baird says to a CBC reporter at the 4:39 mark:

"You're a member of our national broadcaster. We deserve better questions than that."

Gee. I Wonder Why?

Gallup: Public's Confidence in News Media Sinks to Record Low

"In its annual survey of the public's faith in 17 key institutions, TV news has fallen to a new low, with only the U.S. Congress ranking below it in terms of public esteem.

Just 18 percent of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in TV news, down from 23 percent who gave those answers last year. The previous record low was in 2012, when just 21 percent said they had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in TV news".

Faith in newspapers has also fallen to 22 percent, down from 23 percent last year and tying the record low in 2007. And less than one in five Americans (19%) said they had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in "news on the Internet," a lower level than when the category was last included by Gallup in their 1999 survey.

In contrast, Gallup found much higher levels of public confidence in institutions that are often criticized by the press: the military (74%), small business (62%), the police (53%), and the church or organized religion (45%). Faith in the U.S. Congress currently stands at seven percent, down from 10 percent last year.

Faith in newspapers has also fallen to 22 percent, down from 23 percent last year and tying the record low in 2007. And less than one in five Americans (19%) said they had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in "news on the Internet," a lower level than when the category was last included by Gallup in their 1999 survey.

In contrast, Gallup found much higher levels of public confidence in institutions that are often criticized by the press: the military (74%), small business (62%), the police (53%), and the church or organized religion (45%). Faith in the U.S. Congress currently stands at seven percent, down from 10 percent last year."

Emphasis mine.

Nice Little Summary

Don't you just love it when someone tells you the good news, the whole truth - which is to say, NOT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

For example...

Related:

Canada officially recognizes plight and status of Jewish Mideast refugees

"The Canadian government has officially recognized a report by a parliamentary committee that recognized the plight and status of Jewish refugees from the Middle East and North Africa.

According to the report, issued by Canadian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the committee “learned of the discrimination and hardship faced by Jewish people living in the Middle East and North Africa in the twentieth century,” after hearing expert testimony from Jewish refugees and Jewish organizations.

The report added, “The experiences of these Jewish refugees to be recognized; their narrative has to date been largely missing from international discussions” and that without recognition “the history of the region will be incomplete.”

“We commend the Government for accepting the Foreign Affairs Committee’s recommendation. Today’s decision brings Canada one step closer to recognizing the otherwise forgotten persecution of Jewish minorities across the Middle East,” the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Canada’s main umbrella group of Jewish organizations that helped organize the testimony of refugees, said in a statement."

It's about damned time we heard about this. All we hear is "Israeli Apartheid", mostly from people who would have no memory of the apartheid regime in South Africa.

CBC Gets Orgasmic

Patrick Brazeau on his new job at Ottawa strip club

"You have to go up two flights of stairs and into a mostly dark room where hip-hop plays loudly to see where suspended senator Patrick Brazeau works now.

There is a stage and mirrors and, of course, a brass pole at the Ottawa strip club."

[---]

"You have to go up two flights of stairs and into a mostly dark room where hip-hop plays loudly to see where suspended senator Patrick Brazeau works now.

There is a stage and mirrors and, of course, a brass pole at the Ottawa strip club."

[---]

"Brazeau says he’s doing OK, his health is better, he’s learning the ropes on his second day. He doesn’t seem thrilled with his new job, but neither is he embarrassed.

“It is what it is," Brazeau says, “I’ve got four mouths to feed,” referring to his children." [Emphasis added]

[---]

"Isabelle, another dancer, comes along to chat and offer me some “company." When I tell her I’m a reporter, the conversation turns to Brazeau. She has only met him briefly and has no idea who he is or who he was. She doesn’t follow mainstream news, she tells me. She doesn’t really care who he is anyway. She is a little miffed, however, with how the day has unfolded. Earlier she got a text from one of her best customers who told her he wouldn’t be at the club today — too many cameras. She smiles and tells me she knows he’ll be back.

The cameras are gone now.

The club and the dancers are hoping they can just get back to their regular, rather discreet work.

I ask Brazeau whether he expects to see other people he knows at the club.

“It might attract some other clientele now,“ he says with a smile. It is true it's just a five-minute walk from his former place of employment.

He disappears through a back door marked Employees Only. The hockey game is over and Canada managed to win. Most of the gentlemen cheer and get up to leave."

And that's what should be expected in the early afternoon, dingbat.

Hey, CBC, it's a real job in the private sector. Can't say the same for yours. It must just kill you to see a First Nations man taking responsibility for himself and his family, and he`s a Conservative, too. So ripe for the picking, so pick, pick, pick you will.

The Toronto Star isn`t any better. Surprise, surprise.

Good Grief!!

 

You can't get any more blatant than that!!

Another Rant

This time it's about that old whipping boy of mine, the lamestream press:

"The Death of the Press?

The press throughout the western world is preoccupied of late – engaged in an existential convulsion that threatens to cast down the foundations of some of its greatest and most august institutions. They’re losing money, and they’re firmly convinced that it must be because of some new technological advance that is irresistibly and irrevocably changing human behaviour: it’s the Internet; it’s blogs; it’s Twitter; it’s tablets and smart phones.

The great institutions of the press have convinced themselves that the only way to save themselves is to re-invent the way they deliver the news. They think that perhaps if they write shorter stories and deliver them with trendy appliances, people will be more eager to read them.

Hogwash. One might as well blame the failure of the press on the invention of coloured ink or radio. Maybe, just maybe, people are less convinced of the value of organised journalism because organised journalism is failing to provide value. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the majority of people employed in the business of journalism are desperately, almost religiously committed to a particular world view, and that they will go to tremendous effort to avoid seeing, hearing or speaking anything that contradicts the little narrative that they have built for themselves. The insipid, willful credulity of the press is quickly approaching the level of parody.

A few weeks ago, when the American ambassador to Libya was murdered in an attack on what was in theory a secret CIA safe house in Benghazi, the press obediently reported the glib and somewhat bizarre explanation offered by the US State Department that somehow this was the result of a spontaneous outpouring of righteous anger in response to an unwatchable amateur video, (in English, no less), on YouTube that only a few thousand people had even seen.

When I first saw this reported, I was thunderstruck. I could instantly see that it was a lie. Surely at least one of the reporters at the press conference would ask the obvious questions that would inevitably occur to a child of the meanest intelligence! If this was a protest, why did it happen at a secret location far removed from the American embassy? If only a few people had seen this video, how could it provoke a firestorm of protest half a world away? Libya is a French Arabic country, and hardly anyone there speaks English, so how did they even know what was in the video? Wasn’t it a funny coincidence that this “just happened” on the 11th anniversary of 911?

Not only did no one question the transparent silliness of this cover story – the press committed themselves fully to the deception, and pontificated dutifully for days about hate speech and “Islamophobia”.

Inevitably, elements of the truth emerged, but not through the press. Instead, the story was taken up by bloggers, and by talk radio. The facts that did come out ought to have made this one of the biggest news stories of the decade – it certainly had all of the elements of a blockbuster movie: The US State department secretly dealing in restricted weapons with Al-Qaeda operatives; an 11th-hour recantation by a disillusioned diplomat; the flight to a safe house; a betrayal by a friendly power; gunfire in the night, and a last desperate battle on the rooftops, with an ineffectual President unable or unwilling to act while hopelessly outnumbered Navy Seals beg repeatedly for help that is held just out of reach. The shame, the tragedy, and the final horror of this affair were like something that Shakespeare might have concocted in one of his darker moods.

To date, I have yet to see a single significant story about the Benghazi affair by a major news organization. The press held back their hand, because telling this story would unmake the narrative they had so carefully crafted. They inhabited a bright and brittle universe which held at its center the absolute imperative that Barrack Obama should be re-elected as the American president.

What happened yesterday is equally disgusting. General Petraeus, a man with a brilliant and storied career – and the former director of the CIA, was charged with “throwing the president under the bus”, when he revealed certain facts about the Benghazi affair that contradicted the State Department’s cover story. He had acted in an honourable and straightforward manner, but by telling the truth, he had embarrassed the president. A mere three days after President Obama’s re-election, he was forced out of office."

[---]

"Surely, this is a story that merits attention, and yet the response of the press is contemptible. According to a New York Times story, General Petraeus resigned after it was revealed – apparently by an accidental and unrelated FBI enquiry – that he had been having an extramarital affair with his biographer.

The explanation in this story as to why the FBI should be investigating his personal email, and why the revelation of marital inconstancy should have any damn thing to do with his appointment as director of the CIA is convoluted and tenuous to the point of lunacy. This makes no sense, and I call shenanigans.

What’s disgusting to me is the fact that the New York Times seems to be perfectly satisfied. They might as well have announced that there’s “nothing to see here”. Move along.

Here’s what it looks like to me: the director of the CIA refused to accept the blame for the perfidy of a lame duck president. Within three days of the president’s re-election, he was forced to resign. It also appears that the president has used the FBI as an instrument to investigate and undermine the director of the CIA. Should this be the case, the constitutional implications are enormous.

The press ought to be screaming bloody murder. They ought to be affronted at the insult that has been offered them with this glib, tenuous, convoluted, and incoherent explanation for what looks like a gross abuse of power. They are either very, very stupid and credulous, or else they are complicit in this abuse.

Dear journalists, this is why you are losing the faith of your readers. It’s not the Internet that’s killing your profession. It’s you."

Oh. But they have more important things to cover: Justin Bieber sings break-up song

Permit Me To Gloat

Every once in a while, I do a search of my own blog to see what I have said in the past. This morning was one of those occasions. Using the term "mainstream media" this is what I came up with:

mainstream media

My views haven't changed. I suppose I could do a search of "lamestream media", too. There will be plenty under that heading. Or "media bias".

But, dammit. So many of the links are now dead. That's why I quote articles at length. Although I realize long quotations detract from the readability of my entry, that's the only way I can guarantee the essence of the link's contents can be preserved.

Big Green At Work?

This one is a toss up between Media Bias and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria. I'm calling it both.

First, the media bias: See what a difference one little word can make? If we only use the word "only", we can make it sound so much worse.

Survey finds 2 per cent of Canadians don't believe climate change is happening

Only 2 per cent of Canadians don’t believe in climate change: survey

Of course there couldn't possibly have been any vested interest behind this survey, either, - could there?

From the Leader Post:

"The findings are in a survey conducted by Insightrix Research, Inc. for IPAC-CO2 Research Inc., a Regina-based centre that studies carbon capture and storage.

The online poll of 1,550 people was done between May 29 and June 11. The results were to be released on Wednesday.

"Our survey indicates that Canadians from coast to coast overwhelmingly believe climate change is real and is occurring, at least in part due to human activity," said centre CEO Carmen Dybwad."

Or maybe I'm not permitted to call attention to who commissioned and, presumably, paid for the survey. That's something only leftard environuts are allowed to do. And they don't even need to provide evidence of their claim that "Big (Bad) Oil" is funding deniers.

And good on us Prairie folk:

"According to the survey, Prairie respondents are least likely to believe that climate change is occurring due to human activity, while residents of Quebec, Atlantic Canada and British Columbia are most likely to hold this belief.

The survey found 44 per cent of Quebec respondents, 34 per cent of Atlantic Canadian respondents and 32 per cent of those surveyed in British Columbia are likely to believe climate change is occurring due to human activity. Alberta and Saskatchewan came in at 21 per cent while Manitoba was at 24 per cent."

Wouldn't You Know It!!

The CBC is involved:

Jack Layton's story coming to the small screen

Mind you, with the Liberals no longer in first place, you gotta butter up the Dippers.

Climate Conference

I've been slowly going through the videos of speakers at the recent Heartland Institute's latest Climate Conference.

They are all good. Some are, perhaps, a bit too technical for a layperson. But one, in particular, is about public funding of science and the bias that creates.

Patrick Michaels's presentation is especially worth a listen, in this regard.

First of all, he is introduced by a Canadian scientist who relates an egregious instance of bias at the CBC, which filmed a conference held at the Museum of Civilization down Ottawa way and at which Patrick Michaels was a speaker. The CBC conveniently removed an inconvenient part of his words from their broadcast. Surprise. Surprise.

But Patrick Michaels presentation itself is chock-a-block full of examples of bias. Y'all no doubt have heard lefties quoting President Eisenhower's famous statement about the Military-Industrial Complex. (I wonder how many of these little minions know they are quoting a Republican president? But I digress.)

Michaels reveals other quotable quotes from the same Presidential address which lefties will not find nearly as convenient.  Check it out at the link above.

Compare and Contrast...

...CBC's coverage of the foreign funding of environmental groups:

Power and Politics

May 4th

May 4th

Power and Politics

May 8th

May 8th

With Sun TV here and here:

Now, whose side is the "some would say" CBC on? Who do they come down hard on and who gets treated with kid gloves?

I Don't Know Whether...

...this story is more about the AGW scam or about the failure of the MSM.  It's probably both,  because without the blind obedience and willingness of the media to promote the hysteria and deep six anything that contradicts,  the AGW scam would not exist.

Anyway, here's a two-fer (thank God for journalists like Lawrence Soloman):

 Censored science

"True to form, the overwhelming majority of press outlets failed to report the juiciest global-warming gossip of the week — a change of heart on the issue by one of the world’s most celebrated environmentalists. Also true to form, the press failed to report the most profound science story of the week — a startling theory that not only absolves humans of blame in global warming but sheds light on another taboo subject: shortcomings in Darwin’s theory of evolution."

[---]

"Several years ago, environmentalist James Lovelock made headlines when he announced that global warming would end the world as we know it — he predicted that “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” Google searches associating his name with global warming and climate change now exceed one million hits, and understandably so, given his reputation. Lovelock has infused environmental thought for decades through best-selling books describing Earth as a living organism — Lovelock is the one who coined the Gaia concept. Among many other honours heaped on Lovelock, Time magazine featured him in a series on Heroes of the Environment. So, why, when Lovelock this week recanted his past views on global warming as being “alarmist,” did virtually every major news outlet on the planet ignore his change of heart? It wasn’t because he minced his words. “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago,” he admitted, adding that temperatures haven’t increased as expected over the last 12 years. “There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.” What else has the press, in its wisdom, decided to keep from the public in recent days? One eye-opener is the advance of ice in both the Arctic and the Antarctic — both are now at or above average levels. Another is an announcement by researchers at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and the Riken research foundation that the world may be heading into a prolonged period of global cooling — the Japanese study compared sunspot activity today with sunspots that preceded the Little Ice Age in the 17th century to find close similarities."

He's not quite as bang on about the theory of evolution, though. Years ago, science has shown that the process of natural selection was not necessarily a series of long, slow, minute changes, but often occurred in sudden bursts, "sudden" being a relative term, that is "sudden" in terms of geologic time. But, I think this is the first time these bursts have been linked to cosmic events elsewhere in the universe - and to the resulting climate change:

"To the contrary, the planet owes its diversity to intense periods of productivity interspersed with immense periods of stagnancy. The mechanism for this evolving theory? Climate change on Earth, driven by galactic cosmic rays originating from exploding supernovas — the final act of stars. This study, Evidence (sic) of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth, does have a problem, although it convincingly correlates the development of life on Earth with the explosion of nearby stars over the past 510 million years. The problem is its author, Henrik Svensmark, a professor of physics at the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute, who is reviled in the global warming science establishment for studies showing that the Sun and cosmic rays, not man, drives the current climate on Earth. Reporters on the global-warming beat and their editors have long ignored if not disparaged Svensmark. His latest study, which shows cosmic rays to have also driven the ancient climate, provides most journalists with reason enough to continue to ignore him, even though his study has been published by the world’s oldest and one of its most illustrious astronomical societies."

No. Sorry folks. The general theory of evolution remains intact. It has already weathered, and survived, the "punctuated equilibria" adjustment.

Sometimes CBC...

...asks its readers to voice their opinions for them and sometimes they are afraid of our opinions.

Stuff You'd Never See...

...on CBC:



My uncle was one of those. He was shot down over France and spent the rest of the war in a German prisoner of war camp.

There's a bit about this in this video, too.



More truth about the CBC:



Sun TV tells it like it is:

Taliban Practice the...

..."do as I say, not as I do" principle:

13 women and children killed in Afghan bomb

"The blast hit a station wagon travelling on a dirt road in Uruzgan province, provincial police spokesman Farid Ail told AFP.

"There are 13 people dead: nine children and four women," he said. Two others were injured, he added.

Ail blamed the incident on "Taliban, the enemies of our people who plant bombs on our public roads to kill our innocent children and women.""

If this had been an American soldier gone berzerk, we all know what would happen. The soldier would be court marshaled and given due process and the media would have waves and waves of orgasms or dilute it by mixing it in to other stuff. But who will arrest the Taliban operatives who planted the bombs or gave the orders to do so? And more especially, who among the Western media will dare to use the word Taliban in their reports or go on and on and on about it? Well, a few will. Some, in the not so Western world, will quote Afghans themselves, but not many. If it can't be blamed on the West, it ain't news.

h/t Michael Yon, on facebook.

If You've Been...

...a regular reader of my blog for the past three or four years, you'll know that I have a thing for CBC and their left-wing bias, but I've been thinking lately that I should clarify that issue.

Even if CBC were to clean up their act and offer points of view that reflect the entire spectrum of opinion and ideology in Canada, I would still object to public funding of it, on the grounds that tax payers should not be funding broadcasters - period.

It gives them an unfair advantage over their competitors, who also pay taxes, for one thing. For another, why should tax payers of whatever stripe pay for political messaging that runs against what they believe in or supports a political party or cause that they don't support?

And no broadcaster can be completely bias free. That's the beauty of the free market, and that's why tax payers should not be funding a broadcaster. Let CBC sink or swim on the basis of how many people are attracted to their particular spin. If there are not enough Canadians whose political persuasion jives with that shown on/in CBC broadcasts, advertisers will head somewhere else and the Corpse will die a natural death.

Tax payers should not be supporting dinosaurs or political spin machines. Individuals can support whomever they choose, based on their own biases and preferences. Let those individuals who like the CBC pay for the CBC and leave the rest of us alone.

I'll support whatever broadcaster I so choose, or none, as the case may be. Personally, I prefer to follow new media, which itself has some risks to democracy, but my choice should not be made for me by bureaucrats and Ministries in Ottawa.

I'm willing to endure incessant advertising, to get the good stuff. But I should not be forced to pay for someone else's preference to not endure advertising. After all, if it wasn't for advertising, when would one be able to get up and go pee?