# The Commies at the CBC-Turned into a Debate About CNN vs. CBC



## Medic34Canada (18 Apr 2003)

I dont know about you Troops but the CBC's Reporting of the Iraq was terrible. They took any chance to attack our allies and act like the iraqs where are friends. Those folks would have killed everyone of us if they could get away with it just because we go to the wrong church. The CBC is where all the deserters from the vietnam conflict hid I guess. The one thing about peace protesters is that they have never given there lives for anything. They use the freedom that we have given them to waste our time and resouces and garbage.


----------



## Korus (18 Apr 2003)

> The one thing about peace protesters is that they have never given there lives for anything.


If they had, they wouldn‘t be around to protest, would they?


----------



## typhoon85 (19 Apr 2003)

I personally think that CBC did a better job then CNN at least.


----------



## 2Lt_Martin (19 Apr 2003)

Have to agree with Sean85 on this one. CNN has been treating the war like the ultimate reality TV show, it‘s become overwhelming to turn on that particular channel. I mean for crying out loud, I was watching one day during the start of the war and the announcer said the weather report would be coming up next; so I wait through the commercials and what do I see the weather report for freakin for Iraq.    

People just get sick of hearing about it every minute of every day. Which is exactly what you get with CNN. Talking with some of the Vets who are honoraries etc.. at my unit they say it was much different during WWII. In that the only video coverage you saw was in a movie theater. 

Different times...


----------



## Jay_Dee (19 Apr 2003)

good day,

It my view of things, regardless of the which media organization, the media always reflicts the stance of the goverment, for example the U.S. goes to war with Iraq and so to help the war effort at home the media is feed information that is benefical to the gouverment, which in turn is benefical for the media, which in turn is benefical to the people cause it reflects the opions of the country.  Now in canada our goverment adopts a offical "no to war attitute" thus reflecting the peoples favor, the media jumps on board because they need ratings so they reflect the goverments stance and report anti-war rederect.  

Now if our goverment had said yes to the war I believe that the media of this country would be more harder on Iraq and more positive about our allies and the war movement.  

Off topic I would agree that CNN over did it with way to much useless information and the cbc did to many reports that attacked our allies crediabilty, for example they did a show on the patriot missle system and how ineffective it was during the first gulf war, and how the defense dept. of the U.S. still believe it can shoot down enemy missles.  I mean come on they ran that special right in the middle of the war, please come on.  In all honest opion I found the BBC the overall leader in news during the war, no crap, just facts, a little pro-goverment, which is understandable.

anyways later ladies and gentlemen


----------



## Fader (19 Apr 2003)

I agree with Sean and Rob;

I think CBC ranks as one of the best news agency in the world; regardless of the the conflict.  My justification is that CBC tailors to Canadians, while at the same time, maintains a strong sense of objectivity about the news they‘re reporting.  What‘s more, they always present the other perspective.  
I recall the Afghanistan war how all the American news agencies reported how great it the war was for the people of Afghanistan, while the CBC presented the perspective of several Arabs who opposed the war for the number of civilians dying as a result of it.
What pissed me of the most about CNN was a week ago, after the US took Baghdad.  They showed an interview with an Iraqi Engineer trying to get into Tikrit who was turned away by US troops  The man was frazzled to say the least, and of course the reporters on CNN attributed his reluctance to answer thier questions to fear of Saddam.  Wether or not that was the case is unknown; but I know personally that if my country were invaded in 3 weeks, thousands of my countrymen killed, and invaders I know next to nothing about occupied my home; I‘d be afraid of them more than any dictator.


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Apr 2003)

It‘s funny how peoples‘ perceptions differ. Here in the US, most people I talked to felt CNN was anti-US, and have switched to Fox News.


----------



## Albertan (19 Apr 2003)

I don‘t know how you could possibly mistake CNN‘s coverage as anything close to anti-US. I remember them a couple times cutting off some of the freelance reports they were talking to in Bagdad when it seemed like they were towing the american line. Along with all their guest generals bragging about their latest military hardware. There was nothing ‘anti-US‘ about CNN.

On the otherhand I find CBC news a bit more willing to show both sides of the story. I prefer CBC.


----------



## Pikache (19 Apr 2003)

I prefer BBC.

I find them to give most objective and balanced news than any other agency.


----------



## Fader (19 Apr 2003)

What was funny was this report CBC had on the objectivity of the various news agencies in their coverage of the war;  I think they concluded that  US coverage was very sensationalist, British was very direct, and how thier own coverage was interpretive.

I guess I interpreted that as saying that the US coverage of the war asserted "We‘re so awesome cause we kick so much *** ;" I can‘t really say anything about British coverage, as I didn‘t turn to it at all, I‘d guess that thier reporting is very much along the lines of "This is what happened today."  What I got out of the Canadian perspective was "This is what happened today, and perhaps this is why."


In the end it‘s like that commercial for the globe and mail, where one of thier editors talks about how theres alot of information, but no sense of meaning.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Apr 2003)

HAHA - Fox news is defintely more pro-government than CNN, so good call.  Most of the Americans I‘ve chatted online with are mortally embarrassed by Fox‘s over-the-top right-wing ultra-convservative Gung Ho-ism.


----------



## humint (21 Apr 2003)

> I dont know about you Troops but the CBC‘s Reporting of the Iraq was terrible. They took any chance to attack our allies and act like the iraqs where are friends. Those folks would have killed everyone of us if they could get away with it just because we go to the wrong church.


I think you have the wrong impression of Iraq and it‘s people. 

First off, Iraq is/was a secular state -- that‘s why bin Laden hated Saddam. And, while Sunnis and Shias have a history of battling it out (and there is repression of overt expressions of religiosity in Iraq, especially the Shi kind), a small percentage of the Iraqi population is Christian. 

In fact, Tariq Azziz, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, is Christian. I really don‘t think they give a sh!t if you go to the wrong church or if you are a Christian or even a Westerner. So no, they aren‘t a blood thirsty lot looking to kill everyone of us. 

Have you ever been to the Middle East? Yes, you meet some freaks over there, but most are kind and considerate, especially if you can speak a little Arabic. The same here. Not all Canadians and Americans are Joe-smiley faces and will help you out in a jam. We have a fair-share of pyschos and knob-ends in this country.

That said, may be you weren‘t watching enough CBC!

CNN was good for live coverage, but not for analysis (they were the US cheerleading squad). CBC was good for analysis. CTV was OK. 

But you need to watch all sorts of reporting, and not just news from one country. In addition to the North American mainstays, I watched Deutsche Welle and Arabic TV on satellite to get the full picture. Aljazerra online was good as well. 

Remember, you take it all with a pinch of salt and make up your own mind.


----------



## tommyprince (21 Apr 2003)

I was disappointed with just about all coverage of the war.  It was either too pro or too anti.  I like good neutral news.  I want to see the facts (or as much facts as you can get) and make my own mind up.  CNN was just annoying after awhile.  They‘re either standing in front of those big towers givin ‘analyis‘ or riding on top of tanks in the middle of nowhere.  I saw nothing on there that stuck with me.  CBC had some good coverage,  and the BBC was better.  I was really impressed with french CBC.  I don‘t speak french but I‘m a very visual person when it comes to news.  I  like to see as much imagery as possible and french CBC had loads and loads of imagery.  Same with BBC.

But as for getting my war news I‘d have to say that I was very happy with the online stuff. Especially www.reuters.com.  They had a streaming raw video feed that was awesome.  No commentary, just raw video of the war.  It‘s still up, it‘s free and i recommend people to check it out.


----------



## Pugil (24 Apr 2003)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030425/media_nm/iraq_media_bbc_dc_4 

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. broadcasters‘ coverage of the Iraq (news - web sites) war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of America‘s electronic media, the head of the BBC said on Thursday. 

BBC Director General Greg Dyke singled out for criticism the fast growing News Corp. Ltd.‘s Fox News Channel, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, and Clear Channel Communications Inc., the largest operator of radio stations in the United States, with over 1,200 stations, for special criticism. 


"Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war," Dyke said in a speech at a University of London conference. 


"If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism. This is happening in the United States and if it continues, will undermine the credibility of the U.S. electronic news media." 


Dyke singled out Fox News, the most popular U.S. cable news network during the conflict, for its "gung-ho patriotism," saying: "We are still surprised when we see Fox News with such a committed political position." 


A spokesman for Fox News declined comment. 


The British media veteran also attacked U.S. radio broadcaster Clear Channel and warned against British media becoming "Americanized." 


‘SHOCKED‘ BROADCASTER INVOLVED IN RALLIES 


"We are genuinely shocked when we discover that the largest radio group in the United States was using its airwaves to organize pro-war rallies. We are even more shocked to discover that the same group wants to become a big player in radio in the United Kingdom when it is deregulated later this year," Dyke said. 


Officials for Clear Channel said that any pro-war rallies linked to the company have been organized by individuals, such as popular disc jockey Glenn Beck, or individual stations, rather than as a result of overall corporate policy. 


"The idea for Glenn Beck Rallies for America actually started with a DJ at a Susquehanna Media radio station in Dallas trying to show his son -- due to ship overseas -- that there was indeed support for U.S. troops in this country," the company said in a statement. 


John Hogan, president and chief executive officer of Clear Channel‘s radio division, told Reuters: "to categorize this as a Clear Channel policy is just laughable." 


"Clear Channel Radio stations are operated locally. Local managers make their own decisions about programming and community events -- including rallies to thank and support the men and women in their communities who are serving in the armed forces," he said. 


CORPORATE OFFICES NOT INVOLVED 


"At the urging of their listeners, a few, about one percent, of these local managers chose to have their stations participate in pro-troop rallies. The corporate offices of Clear Channel Communications are not directly involved in the Rallies for America," he said. 


In terms of plans for investments in the U.K., Clear Channel said it has no investments in U.K. radio stations and has no immediate plans to change that. "The company is not currently in talks with anyone to purchase U.K. radio assets," it said in a statement. 


Dyke said, "For the health of our democracy, it‘s vital we don‘t follow the path of many American networks." 




U.S. broadcasters came under attack for "cheerleading" during the Iraq conflict, with what some critics saw as gung-ho reporting and flag-waving patriotism. In one example, a U.S. network described U.S. soldiers as "heroes" and "liberators." 

Dyke suggested the problem stemmed from the recent fragmentation of media, with no single network having the clout to stand up to the U.S. government. 

"This is particularly so since Sept. 11 when many U.S. networks wrapped themselves in the American flag and swapped impartiality for patriotism," Dyke said. 

Dyke defended the BBC in the face of accusations -- some from the British government -- that the broadcaster had been soft on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)‘s government. 

"In times of war, British governments of every persuasion have sought to use the media to manage public opinion ... it‘s only a problem if the BBC caves in," Dyke said.


----------



## Marauder (25 Apr 2003)

Maybe this d!ck, oops, I mean Dyke, feels justified in supporting Saddam instead of his countrymen. Big deal, he‘s an a$$hole, everyone has their 10% (I think this board proves that maxim utterly correct). I would hope though, that if we were in the sh!t somewhere, those smug hairpieces Mansbridge & Roberts would at least wish the lads a "Godspeed"... although since that would offend pagans, atheists, and postmodernists, and be unacceptable at the alter of the PC gods, maybe just a simple "thanks" and "good luck" would be the most we could hope for.


----------



## RCA (25 Apr 2003)

Marauder, you are showing another case of black and white. If you are not for us, then you must be against us. This is not the case this time. 
The media is not a cheerleading section for the government. They are suppose to present unbiased news to the public. When bias is brought in it is not news but opinion. The US media is proving corporate America is taking over what people hear and see. A lot of what we saw was entertainment, but because it was on news coverage, people took it as gospel. Itâ€™s a dangerous precedent.  If you noticed it was US (or coalition except when liberating Baghdad) troops against Iraqis para-military or gunmen. Where was the Iraqis Army? It gave the impression it was Saddamâ€™s henchmen fighting, not the Iraqis themselves. And the whole nonsense about the â€œWar to Liberate Iraqâ€. The government can call it that, but the general media. Come on now. France was liberated from the German occupation. Iraq was run by other Iraqis whether they were good or bad. 
When the news becomes bias, what you get is a message that someone else what you to hear. It shapes your opinion. Suppose the owners of FOX love Bush but dislike Democrats. On every newscast is all good news of Republicans and no or bad news about Democrats. You donâ€™t think that would sway an election. Newsman can be fired for not towing the party line. As did happen. Is this not a form of censorship? And under what democratic principal does that fall under. As for freedom of the press. That is exactly what it means. Not report what people want to hear, for fear of losing sponsors or corporate displeasure.
And before any thinks Iâ€™m pro Saddam, this is about the news coverage not the war. TV can be a powerful tool to shape public opinion and news organizations must be very careful how they present. If they want to editorialize fine, but donâ€™t disguise it as news.


----------



## Pugil (25 Apr 2003)

Marauder, you are really getting on my nerve. You personnally attacked me before, now you seem to disrespect anyone that disagree with your political stance. If you want to follow the US blindly in whatever project they undertake, fine that is not my business but dont direspect other opinions. Next time you want to post something, please post something intelligent and constructive.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Apr 2003)

Pugil - good - I look forward to you writing a constructive and intelligent post....

Boy - people being patriotic - that‘s awful. I haven‘t seen much objective media reporting in my entire life. The fifth estate seems to think it has a duty to educate the masses. I have seen media make candidates into non-candidates, and vice versa. I have seen this in Canada, and the US. So, CBC sportscasters are 100% neutral, when covering the US vs Canada curling championships... c‘mon      

Pugil - RCA - How many Clearchannel radio stations do you listen to? Maybe the BBC is 100% on, and not to be questioned. I can tell you this. I listen to 3 Clearchannel stations here in Phoenix. It is the 6th largest city in the US, so I suspect, fairly representative. On the talk radio station I listen to, one of the hosts was vehemently anti-war. The other 2 were for the war. There were no "pro-war" rallies sponsored by the radio stations in town. I can tell you, however, that once the war began, several "support the troops" rallies were held. Maybe you won‘t see a difference, but I do.

Of course, I didn‘t hear this from a reliable source, like the CBC, or the BBC - I was actually here...


----------



## RCA (26 Apr 2003)

Clarification- What I‘m talking about is news reporting. When I station wants to editorilize fine. But don‘t mix news reporting whith stating an opinion. They are two different things.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Apr 2003)

So, a question, and not a smart-a55ed one...  You mean to tell me that during the WWII, or Korea, even - that the Canadian news media was totally neutral and unbiased. "Just the facts ma‘am". I seem to remember the newspaper headlines from V-E day looking celebratory....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Apr 2003)

I would suggest the VE Day reporting represented relief that the killing was over and that Hitler was dead; these aren‘t necessarily "biased" reactions.  It‘s not like they printed photos of dead women and babies in Hamburg/Dresden/et al and put up WE ROCK headlines.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Apr 2003)

OK - perhaps VE day was not the best example. Most old newsclippings, film, etc., that I have seen, I couldn‘t call unbiased. That was my only point...


----------



## Marauder (26 Apr 2003)

Pugil, blow me. Then go wipe the tears from your eyes, blow your nose, and run home and tell mommy how the big scary Internet man was mean to you. You are a no go at this station, wang-weasel.

I don‘t agree with everything the Americans do, it‘s just that lately they‘ve been taking action to make the world a bit better, while you and your ilk have advocated Canada just sit at home with it‘s thumb in it‘s *** . I find it totally unsat.

RCA, I can understand where you come from, but I just find it laughable that anyone would consider the CBC unbiased. Any night you tune into The National, you can find at least one, usually more stories, where America, Bush, or American armed forces are slammed. It‘s not always overt, but it‘s always there. Additionally, I found that CBC does a fair amount of the "editoral as news" approach you saw with CNN. CBC is like the Liberals in that it feels the need to only show you things it thinks will make you agree with them, instead of showing the whole picture and letting the viewer decide for themselves. Which is why, like others, I stuck to watching the BBC nightly news to get a decent picture of what was happening.


----------



## Pugil (26 Apr 2003)

There you go again... you are doing exactly what I said. Im starting to get the picture of you psychological portrait. Are you by any chance trying to prove something? We all know that you are an big bad-***  infanteer, your trade is 031 and that the thought of going to a war doesnt make you flinch a bit...so? That doesnt impress me a bit. I dont know how you look like in real life but you seem to be a very unsecure person. I think im mature enough to not fall in your childish game. It is time for you to grow up!


----------



## Pikache (26 Apr 2003)

Chilax boys. No need to hurl silly insults at each other.

Or do it in private. Let‘s not SPAM stupidity here.


----------



## RCA (26 Apr 2003)

Going back to my fellow gunners question..  

   Yes itâ€™s true that same thing happened during previous wars. But the media is more pervasive these days and the reporting is in real time. As well back then (the World Wars anyway, we were in a declared state of war and the war measures act (and whatever US equivalent) were in effect. All news was censored the reporters were attached to the Armed Forces (I stand to corrected on this one though). But all frontline dispatches were at the pleasure of the Army.

  And does that still make it right. I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Then was a different time and place. People thought they were fighting potential world domination, and any means of mobilizating the home front was used. As well opposition to any measures was virtually nil and so there was no dissent. 

  I donâ€™t think you can say the same about this situation. There is opposition, and this side should be fairly reported as well. Itâ€™s the two sides to every story issue.
Vietnam taught the military and the government that giving free rein to the media wasnâ€™t a ****  of a good idea. They have leaned their lessons well, and the media at this point in time has swallowed it hook line and sinker. I think we both agree we do need a free press to report on what it sees fit to without fear of reprisal (unless the government wants to declare a state of emergency ands impose censorship â€“ In fact the did this partial. Media outlets not â€œembeddedâ€ were not allowed into Iraq until after most of hostilities had ended.). In the case of this war, I donâ€™t think the media distinguished themselves.

  And lastly, we can all agree to disagree. That is what makes us individuals. But when insults start flying, its time to step back and reasess. Debate is healthy, bashing is  counter-productive and adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## RCA (26 Apr 2003)

And I agree that the CBC is not totallly unbiased. However I find them in biased towards Ontario, Quebec and anti-military. But all in all they try to be objective, or at least give that illusion.


----------



## SNoseworthy (29 Apr 2003)

I think CBC did an adequate job of reporting on the Iraq War. It wasn‘t horribly bias. I pity all those who watched FOX News, they must be horribly brainwashed with half-truths and political spin by now.

Never let a network famous for shows like "Are Aliens Out There?" start reporting the news. When you do, you end up with people like Bill O‘Reilly, perhaps the biggest idiot in the United States! LOL


----------

