Reader and astute Lamestream Media crtitic Orville H., as I've been CC'd in an email, writes to Craig Oliver of the CTV:
"Are Editing of Remarks on CTV Becoming a Problem"?
In your comments on the Egypt story in which you referred to "eloquent remarks" by Obama, but in referencing Harper's remarks, all you and CTV news could come up with was an analogy that he made with a tooth paste tube ( which maybe a few Canadians found difficult to assimilate when taken in isolation).
So for your benefit and so you are fully informed, which I wish you would have done for the sake of your viewers, here is a transcript of the remarks in their entirety made by Stephen Harper - uncut and unedited (the way news should be presented). I think you will agree CTV viewers were shortchanged on this story and deserve better.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, first of all, you know, let me just be clear, as I’ve been clear every time I’ve answered this question, that the future of Egypt is for Egyptians to decide. What I think we all want to see and what I think is clear most of the people of Egypt want to see is a transition to a democratic Egypt. We want to see free and fair elections. We want to see the rule of law and stability. We want to see respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, including the rights of religious minorities, and we want to see a government that will continue to respect peace treaties and seek peace in the Middle East. As I say, we are all seeing what’s happening. A transition is taking place in Egypt. That transition, in my judgment, there is no going back. I think the old expression, “They’re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one.” Our, you know, our strong recommendations to those in power would be to lead change: get in front of it, be a part of it, and make a bright future happen for the people of Egypt.
When CTV viewers are presented with Harper's total remarks, I think it is safe to say, that they will conclude Stephen Harper need not take a back seat to anyone, on addressing the Egyptian crisis, including Obama, if and when they are presented the uncut and unedited version.
Given that only a few days ago Robert Fife presented CTV viewers an edited or doctored version of Ignatieff's remarks, where CTV neglected to show Ignatieff's gaffe and play the full clip ( although gaffes were the story of the day on CTV when it came to Peter McKay and Schwarzenegger), of when Ignatieff referred to Bill Gates (of Microsoft fame) as United States Secretary of Defense. I have some concern that this may be becoming a habit with CTV in how they present their news stories to viewers. Because of the obvious political implications, managing the presentation of the story in this way, does not make it a news item but rather commentary, with a political bias, which we can expect from political pundits, but not from news reporters, for a national TV network.
OK now... is not there a CLEAR NEED for fair and balanced hard news/straight talk in the form of the soon-to-be-launced SUN TV News channel?
As far as I'm concerned, if the likes of George Soros don't want to give this new network a chance, then it's gotta be frickin' gosh-darned good! AND Americans should have access to this channel as well, because otherwise they'll receive nothing but far-left propaganda from both Canadian and American "news" networks and such...
25 comments:
Given that "Orville H" seems to have trouble with his grammar and punctuation, it doesn't surprise me that he's impressed by Mr. Harper's flat, cliché-ridden and and equally ungrammatical statement.
It's interesting that the media chain whose network you suggest will offer "fair and balanced hard news" is vehemently protesting CRTC's proposal to prohibit the deliberate broadcasting of "false and misleading news". Alan Shanoff of QMI was quite eloquent in his defense of Sun Media's right to lie on air,: but it does make a joke out of your suggestion that's they're going to be a credible news service.
It's fascinating how you so easily dismiss the validity of someone's arguments just because his grammar and punctuation are somewhat average or actually thereabove.
A nice spin you got there, though.
It's fascinating how you've fallen for the CRTC's hidden, deceptive agenda and are willing to trust that oppressive state apparatus so readily just because they use all the right words that one won't want to dis unless one knows that such state apparati tend to use euphemisms to cover rather less-than-good agendae.
You disappoint me with your spin, Mr. B.
Why do you do this? Why do you trust the oppressive, ideologically extreme CRTC, who, for a while, refused to allow FOX News into Canada, and yet refuse to accept SUN News as a potentially helpful addition to the news and opinion media?
Sorry, man, but you puzzle me.
Oh... and as for "credible news service", what constitutes such? Reputation based on belief and based on adherence to Elite-approved political correctness spin and content control?
Are you, furthermore, agreeing with the way the CTV has spun the story to make PM Harper look dumb while artificially, yet again, attempting to fool folks into believing that Mr. Obama is some kind of awesome intellectual political leader?
By the way, the media folks with whom Mr. Heschuck communicates actually frequently DO respond to him. They actually take him seriously, and so should you, Mr. B., ie. according to your obvious "open-minded" ideology. ;)
It never ceases to astonish me, the hostility of so-called "progressives", towards the expansion of the marketplace for information and opinion dissemination, particularly when it appears that such expansion might threaten their stranglehold-monopoly on the perceptions of the electorate for the purposes of minimizing dissent and opposition to extreme left-wing social reengineering nonsense and obviously pro-Axis foreign policy.
Oh, and based on my grammar and punctuation, you, Mr. B., ought to, by your own spin, be agreeing with pretty much everything I write. I mean, excellent writing acumen, in your belief, somehow entails that the writer is right... Right? LOL
By the way, do remember that Mr. Obama is pretty much fully dependent on either teleprompter or memorizing talking points fed to himself by his puppetmasters' minions, so don't be getting the idea that the chap actually has any inkling whereof he speaks... ever. But I know that you just WANT to believe in him, for some reason...
Wow!
Where to start .
Well Balbster, my first question would be regarding your use of “and and”. Were you intending to show a stammer brought on by vexation, or was it just bad grammar? It also interests me that you are so keen to preserve the established rules of grammar. So you are a conservative; one might conclude. No, perhaps not. It is the authoritarian thing you really like. No, no, that doesn’t really jive with the whole four quadrants of government stuff I’ve seen posted on your site and how you are against authoritarian prescripts. So what’s up with the grammar police shtick? Oh wait. I get it! Balbsy! You’re being an asshole again. Oh mirth!
Let me be the first to remind you that there is no single recognized regulatory body for English grammar. You are, no doubt, familiar with descriptive linguistics. The core principal is that language is fluid, evolving, and is governed by predominance. Its merits and deficiencies are critiqued by description and analysis of which you provided none. Descriptive linguistics is a fairly liberal concept and one, I might add, which you just pissed all over.
Further, allow me to drill into your pointed head the fact that P.M. Harper was engaged in a public speaking. Therefore everything goes in quotes. You may have noted in all of your years and years of earth shattering experience that the rules are relaxed in laudo. Be thankful your PM was not regurgitating pre composed prose from a teleprompter like the dolt unpresident we are enduring.
As to the second part of your comment I must ask why do you even bother trying this crap? The false and misleading news clause has been on the CRTC books for years and it’s never been used. In light of your supreme court’s recent ruling governing such concerns Mr. Shanoff is interested in establishing the rule of law and proper legal authority and clearing the apparatus of censorship. Liberals are very interested in eliminating censorship. Are you pissing on another liberal precept? Why are you turning the story here? Why suggest Shanoff is defending (your words) “Sun Media’s right to lie on air.?”
In reference to those who defend the principal of the rule, Shanoff wrote: “I don’t blame them. Who could be in favour of broadcasting falsehoods?”
Let’s sum this up. I am addressing a liberal who suddenly is enamored with rules, exhibits authoritarian behavior, enables censorship, twists and distorts the truth,……
Balbulican, are you playing with Fascism again?
AHHH,,, I see another nice game being played today..lol.Ill be adding today,and I hope I can write my blog well enough for all of you ;)
Aargh...just wrote a lengthy response, and lost it in the log in process. Be patient, o best beloved, I will try to recapture its fading brilliance.
Best to use it after the log out process if you know what I mean.
I'm sure that's all it's worth.
;)
Here's lookin' forward to some more of Gabriella's shootin' from da hip... :)
And I'm soooooo sorry that Balby made a booboo after his excellent reponse. Wish I could've seen it before it went buy-bye...
You will, dear boy, you will.
*Crickets farting*
testing
Ah. The problem seems to have been that I was exceeding some kind of allowable length. Guess I have to chop the response up a bit.
"It's fascinating how you so easily dismiss the validity of someone's arguments just because his grammar and punctuation are somewhat average or actually thereabove."
Naw. There was no "argument" to reject - just the standard assertion that the MSM - in this case, CTV - is biased against the Conservatives. No, what I reject is "Orville's" capacity to judge the merit of a statement, since "Orville" can't write.
I'll suggest to Orville that comparing a prepared statement by Obama to an impromptu response by Harper is unfair to Harper. Harper's not a stupid man, but he's not a gifted speaker. You do him no service by presenting his trite response verbatim.
"It's fascinating how you've fallen for the CRTC's hidden, dece... (yadda yadda yadda)...yet refuse to accept SUN News as a potentially helpful addition to the news and opinion media? Sorry, man, but you puzzle me."
Perhaps I might puzzle you less if you read what I actually say. I support the licensing of the Sun Channel, as I supported the licensing of Al Jazeera, Fox News, and APTN. I believe the more voices on air, the better. Unlike...uh...some people, I don't believe in filtering the airwaves to screen voices I don't like.
Oh... and as for "credible news service", what constitutes such?
I`ve answered that before, but I guess you forgot. To repeat:
a) a publicly accessible journalism policy that commits the carrier to the principles of accuracy, honesty, and objectivity
b) a publicly accessible ombudsman service for those who feel the carrier is failing to live up to those standards
c) clear separation of commercial, journalistic, and editorial content
d) Editorial review of content and fact checking before publication
e) Immediate correction of errors, and withdrawal of inaccurate content with the same level of prominence as the original publication.
That`s credible. Now, instead of a simple dismissal, how about telling me which of those standards you consider irrelevant?
"the media folks with whom Mr. Heschuck communicates actually frequently DO respond to him. They actually take him seriously, and so should you, Mr. B..."
Sorry, CS. The fact that "media folks" answer emails fails to impress or astonish me, and frankly, I saw nothing in Mr. Heschuk's email to suggest that he has anything to say.
"the hostility of so-called "progressives", towards the expansion of the marketplace for information and opinion dissemination..."
Uhhh...what hostility, CS? I rather suspect I'm more open to the licensing of new signals than you. Did you support the licensing of Xin Hua, or Al Jazeera?
"Mr. Obama is pretty much fully dependent on either teleprompter or memorizing talking points..."
Good grief, dude, give it up. Every public speaker, including me, uses an aide memoir. Reagan and Obama - teleprompters. Bush - index cards. Mulroney - foolscap pads. Palin - notes scribbled on hand. So???
And now to Squiggles.
"Were you intending to show a stammer brought on by vexation, or was it just bad grammar?"
Naw. Lack of proofing. Understand the distinction?
I'd love to respond to the rest of your stuff, but if there's a real, actual point in there, I confess I missed it. :)
"No, what I reject is "Orville's" capacity to judge the merit of a statement, since "Orville" can't write. "
Well, quid pro quo ass-hoe. At least Orville can read. The point is obviously in your head and I said as much. The rest went way over I'm sure.
I'm trying to honour Sentinel's request that we keep the discussion grown up, so I'll just let that one sit, Squiggles. Thanks for the contribution. ;)
No brains and no balls. Sounds like a classic Fauntleroy to me.
Heh. Dude, one of the things I do for a living is negotiate. I'm afraid you have to troll a bit more cleverly than that if you want to get a rise out of me.
In any case, I'll just suggest in a friendly way that you treat CS's site with a bit more respect, and leave it at that.
Ha! Who pinned the badge on the difficult child? Damn, that’s funny! Textbook stuff there.
Bravo C.S.
On a more personal note Blabsey; It has become quite obvious that I make you feel insecure. Your recent chronic references to your employment, training, etc. are quite telling in that regard.
Get this: I DON'T CARE.
Your credentials are no good here. In the blogosphere you only stand on the merits of your ideas. You opened this thread with derisive commentary and lies. I’m sure that makes you a skilled negotiator, perhaps for a union, but it doesn’t fly with me. You stand rebutted.
Of course, my dear fellow. Whatever you say. :)
Post a Comment