Opinion CBC's Journalistic Hypocrisy Laid Bare For All to See

[Jack V Savage]

@Siver! and @Jack V Savage - is "terrorist" an accurate description for Hamas?

I think so, but I don't think it's bad to be careful about the term in news coverage. I think the distinction is if you *target* civilians, which they have.

 

[Fake Doctor]

I think so, but I don't think it's bad to be careful about the term in news coverage.

What makes you unsure enough to not just say "yes" like Siver was comfortable doing?

 

[Jack V Savage]

What makes you unsure enough to not just say "yes" like Siver was comfortable doing?

The context is what is appropriate for news coverage. I'd be more careful there than giving my personal view (or opinion coverage).

TBH, i'm not really interested in foreign conflicts generally. I don't think I've ever posted about Israel, and I don't get why it's so important to some Americans.

 

[aunshi189]

The BBC (Britain's state funded media) has also said they won't be using the word terrorist to describe Hamas. They're saying it's not their job to offer moral opinions. I haven't gone back and checked if that's been a consistent policy they've followed.

 

[tastaylvr]

Calling someone a terrorist is an easy way to abolish yourself from any responsibility when you engage with them.

It's a tactic that has been used by every country when they engage with weaker groups.

 

[Snackbar]

This upsets me. I expected more from my state propoganda machine.

 

[Wadtucket]

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter

It's good to not use politicized language

 

[Fake Doctor]

The context is what is appropriate for news coverage. I'd be more careful there than giving my personal view (or opinion coverage).

TBH, i'm not really interested in foreign conflicts generally. I don't think I've ever posted about Israel, and I don't get why it's so important to some Americans.

So you're - as in, you - are unsure about clearly saying that Hamas are terrorists because of what is appropriate for news coverage?...

Are Hamas terrorists Jack? Do you know they are terrorists?

 

[EndlessCritic]

To be honest, I think we need to do better than pretending 'far right' is the same kind of label as 'terrorist'.

To me, 'far right' means 'further right than the average right-leaning guy', but if you associate that stance with terrorism, that might be on you.

If you're talking about emotional language on the whole, some networks and publications are far worse than others, granted.

What on earth are you talking about? This thread is about the journalistic treatment of statements of opinion. Nowhere did I suggest that the terms "terrorist" and "far right" were qualitatively similar things.

Furthermore, I would disagree with your claim that the term "far right" simply means "further right than the average right-leaning guy". The term "far right" is a dismissive slur which is designed to signal to the reader that the people being described are dangerous extremists, who have views which are unworthy of consideration.

The point of this thread is to highlight that the CBC has actual journalistic standards when it comes to statements of opinion, and that it applies those standards very differently depending on the statement of opinion being used.

 

[Scerpi]

If true, then why are the Left siding with Hamas?

Amazing Jews still vote blue

Its almost like they have Democrats in their pockets about key issues that really matter, yet they can ignore stuff like this



Savages…

 

[Scerpi]

What on earth are you talking about? This thread is about the journalistic treatment of statements of opinion. Nowhere did I suggest that the terms "terrorist" and "far right" were qualitatively similar things.

Furthermore, I would disagree with your claim that the term "far right" simply means "further right than the average right-leaning guy". The term "far right" is a dismissive slur which is designed to signal to the reader that the people being described are dangerous extremists, who have views which are unworthy of consideration.

The point of this thread is to highlight that the CBC has actual journalistic standards when it comes to statements of opinion, and that it applies those standards very differently depending on the statement of opinion being used.

For progressives..: anyone Right of a full blown Trans activists is Far Right

IE… A Nazi. Except now they kind of fucked up using Nazi as an insult

Lol

 

[therealdope]

So the objection is that they're careful about describing Hamas as "terrorists" and also about describing far-right groups and individuals as "far right?"

They were very aggressive about calling the trucker protestors "terrorists" while their overseers used the terrorist finance provision to enact martial law (yes, I know it's now called the 'emergency powers' act).

As much as people here post about the dangers of government overreach in the US, the reality is that Canada is well ahead of the curve.

 

[SammyPops]

The CBC is the propaganda ministry of Federal Liberal party of Canada. It should be defunded.

 

[jrams]

Maybe they're afraid Trudeau is going to give them a standing ovation at the next session and wants to give him plausible deniability.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you're - as in, you - are unsure about clearly saying that Hamas are terrorists because of what is appropriate for news coverage?...

Are Hamas terrorists Jack? Do you know they are terrorists?

I said they are, but the standards for news coverage are different. Not sure what you're unclear on (my guess is nothing but you're just a very unpleasant person trying to find something to argue about).

 

[Jack V Savage]

They were very aggressive about calling the trucker protestors "terrorists" while their overseers used the terrorist finance provision to enact martial law (yes, I know it's now called the 'emergency powers' act).

As much as people here post about the dangers of government overreach in the US, the reality is that Canada is well ahead of the curb.

I have a hard time believing that (that news coverage called the protestors "terrorists"--that's different from quoting someone or opinion pieces). Do you have any evidence?

 

[Siver!]

What on earth are you talking about? This thread is about the journalistic treatment of statements of opinion. Nowhere did I suggest that the terms "terrorist" and "far right" were qualitatively similar things.

Furthermore, I would disagree with your claim that the term "far right" simply means "further right than the average right-leaning guy". The term "far right" is a dismissive slur which is designed to signal to the reader that the people being described are dangerous extremists, who have views which are unworthy of consideration.

The point of this thread is to highlight that the CBC has actual journalistic standards when it comes to statements of opinion, and that it applies those standards very differently depending on the statement of opinion being used.

Every outlet has standards.

One outlet might dismiss everything from environmental concerns to pay equality as 'woke', but might not label use language like 'brutal' to describe Israel's response to Hamas.

It's the media's job to draw red lines surrounding their own content. If this is hypocrisy, they're all hypocrites, yet here we are with one thread about one outlet for reasons I'm not gonna pretend to understand.

 

[Fake Doctor]

I said they are, but the standards for news coverage are different. Not sure what you're unclear on (my guess is nothing but you're just a very unpleasant person trying to find something to argue about).

No, what you said was:

I think so, but I don't think it's bad to be careful about the term in news coverage. I think the distinction is if you *target* civilians, which they have.

I think a lot of things about you but I don't know them, so if I were talking about you I'd preface the discussion with "Well, I think this..." but make it clear that I think that and not know it. I'm asking you to say, without equivocation and wording that can be interpreted one way or another and that you can back out of when convenient, that Hamas are terrorists - or say that they're not. Or, clearly admit that you're not sure.

I'm asking you to say what you didn't say but want to pretend like you said. Are Hamas terrorists? Yes or no. Siver had no problem with saying it in no uncertain terms. Jack, are Hamas terrorists?

And, to be clear, if you continue to be evasive, I think it's pretty clear to everyone here what your stance actually is, since it is so painfully easy to not be evasive about it.

 

[Andy Capp]

https://nationalpost.com/news/cbc-tells-journalists-to-not-call-hamas-terrorists-in-leaked-memo

With the intensification of the Israel/Palestine conflict, an internal CBC memo has gotten some attention as it directs CBC journalists to not use the term "terrorists" to describe Hamas.

"“Do not refer to militants, soldiers, or anyone else as ‘terrorists,'” the memo states, emphasizing “do not” with bold type. “The notion of terrorism remains heavily politicized and is part of the story. Even when quoting/clipping a government or a source referring to fighters as ‘terrorists,’ we should add context to ensure the audience understands this is opinion, not fact. That includes statements from the Canadian government and Canadian politicians.”

"As always, please use fact-based language, avoid loaded qualifiers and anything that sounds like opinion. The story, with its context, speaks for itself. There will obviously be a lot of external opinion to report as part of our coverage: it is important that those clips and quotes are very clearly attributed and not separated from fact-checking and context."


This above position, while not without controversy, is at least internally consistent. CBC is telling its journalists to avoid presenting opinion as fact. This is not a bad thing.

However, the problem with the CBC's position here, is that it runs directly contrary to their prevalent usage of the term "far right", which is obviously a statement of opinion, not fact. From the CBC's own ombudsman, Jack Nagler, in a report dated October 5, 2023: https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/ombudsman/reviews/Theory_or_Conspiracy_Theory

"On the subject of labels, I also encourage programmers to consider your concerns about the use of the term “far right”. It is understandable that journalists want to use a concise term to help the audience quickly grasp where on the political spectrum a group lies. And I can tolerate the use of the phrase in this article. But it is often better to describe people’s actions and statements with enough specificity that readers can judge for themselves who is reasonable and who is extreme, rather than declaring it for them."


Mr. Nagler is correct. It is the job of journalists to describe actions and statements with specificity, and to allow readers to judge for themselves who is extreme, rather than declaring it for them. And yet the CBC has no problem labelling just about everyone who isn't left, "far right", which is obviously a statement of opinion, not fact. (And self evidently, the term "far right" is intended to have a negative connotation, and imply that the people being described hold fringe, extreme, and unreasonable views.)

And this is what makes the CBC's hypocrisy all the more insidious. They aren't incompetent. They know exactly what good journalism is. And they choose to apply their own rules differently depending on the political leanings of the story.

"And I can tolerate the use of the phrase in this article. But it is often better to describe people’s actions and statements with enough specificity that readers can judge for themselves who is reasonable and who is extreme, rather than declaring it for them."

So, this gent doesn't point to any particular instance where he doesn't tolerate its use by a CBC journalist? Whoooboy what hypocrites the CBC must be then, hm?

But no. As he correctly points out, it's context dependent. If the story is about the Proud Boys it's absolutely appropriate to refer to them as far right extremists. In other cases, such as describing Trump supporters, I'd agree it might be better to use phrasing like "who are mostly on the far right of the spectrum" or some such. Please source some specific examples of this hypocrisy you believe they are perpetrating so we can see in which sort of context they lie.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, what you said was:



I think a lot of things about you but I don't know them, so if I were talking about you I'd preface the discussion with "Well, I think this..." but make it clear that I think that and not know it. I'm asking you to say, without equivocation and wording that can be interpreted one way or another and that you can back out of when convenient, that Hamas are terrorists - or say that they're not. Or, clearly admit that you're not sure.

I'm asking you to say what you didn't say but want to pretend like you said. Are Hamas terrorists? Yes or no. Siver had no problem with saying it in no uncertain terms. Jack, are Hamas terrorists?

And, to be clear, if you continue to be evasive, I think it's pretty clear to everyone here what your stance actually is, since it is so painfully easy to not be evasive about it.

OK, so after I twice said I think they are terrorists, you're saying that that means I don't think they are terrorists. What is the point of such obvious dishonesty? I'm genuinely curious.

It's funny, usually when Republicans want to lie about my position here, they accuse me of being extremely pro-Israel.