Another example of why more and more people have less faith in traditional media.
I’m NDP, I support the CBC, I think everything should be owned and controlled by the public … I’m socially minded and that the world should be more equitable place for everyone regardless of wealth and status.
But to see the CBC dive further into this hole and it makes me wonder if the operators of this public broadcaster are the ones that actively want it to be eroded and eliminated.
If this story occured in any other part of the world with any other country other than Israel … there would be no debate and no confusion as to how to report it.
CBC took a turn many years ago, somebody in charge wanted to treat it like a private company. So they will cater to whomever pays revenue. One example: They had some great new music channels promoting new canadian artists, it got shut down after a long run because the new leader said we don’t know how many listeners we reach, and eveen with podcast downloads we don’t know how many will listen (to ads) we have no way to monetize it, etc They are no longer invested in being a public system that does good for the sake of Canada.
I miss Radio3 so much. Indie music in Canada in the 2000s-2010s was astonishingly good.
Yep I discovered so many great artists through R3, and those year end wrap-ups they would do
it makes me wonder if the operators of this public broadcaster are the ones that actively want it to be eroded and eliminated
IIRC, this is largely the case with the BBC and how it’s quality and relevance has diminished over the years: wolves were put in charge of the henhouse.
Eta: my point: it wouldn’t be the first time a formerly respected public broadcaster had it’s reputation undermined and (eventually) ruined. If we want to keep it, we have to get people out to vote: nothing we can do until the next election, but in the meantime, we can point to it and say “you enjoy the CBC? What about the radio version? D’you like knowing that such-and-such is a scam because of a CBC Marketplace piece?” (IIRC marketplace does those types of pieces)" and relate it to people on a personal level.
I know this is not your point, but it stood out to me with your choice of words: “I’m NDP” and “I support the CBC”
You’re just you and you support the NDP too!
I’m sure that’s what you meant anyway but it’s just interesting the way we use words of identity with political parties. Eventually those words take root and it actually becomes your identity and other people become truly others.
Perhaps “I’m NDP” is a succinct description of how a person leans in the Canadian political landscape that might be informed by decades of voting behaviour, or even personal involvement in the political sphere. Or, perhaps it is a rigid and irrational us/them orientation like how you personally have interpreted it
Regardless of how I interpreted it I’m just remarking that the use of the language stood out to me, next to “I support the CBC” after it.
Makes you think about words and how we use them and how that shapes us.
Anyway, ignore me.
Public media does not mean there isn’t someone powerful pulling the strings. Public works aren’t funded by us, they’re funded by the agencies that reserve the right to pull said funding regardless of public support. We fund those agencies.
Well, they’re wrong
They’re not. Murder has a specific definition, what’s happening in gaza is not it.
Brutal, maybe, but it’s a useless word and the editorial guidelines likely provide different words that are more applicable in a reporting context.
Murder does have a specific definition, you are correct in that.
What’s happening in Gaza meets that definition, so you are wrong in that.
No it doesn’t, the government of Israel is giving the orders, and therefore it’s not murder. Governments can’t murder, there are other words that describe when a government kills people.
governments can’t murder
Funniest shit I read today, thank you
You can’t read full sentences clearly.
Do you prefer the term “war crime”?
CBC has used other words, including war crime. That’s kinda the point.
They have specific journalistic ways of describing things in many different contexts. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/vision/governance/journalistic-standards-and-practices
I quoted the dictionary definition of murder above. Can you point to the part that says governments can’t murder?
If we’re being technical, then it’s the one you crossed out that says
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
Because CBC is using murder as a legal definition, not common parlance, and it doesn’t fit the legal definition of murder. But I get it, you don’t want technicalities.
You are correct, but technically, the killing of civilians during warfare is called “a war crime”.
Because CBC is using murder as a legal definition…
[citation needed]
But I get it, you don’t want technicalities.
I don’t want FUCKING LEGAL DEFINITIONS in a FUCKING NON-LEGAL CONTEXT you UTTER FUCKING IDIOT. For a pedant you FUCKING SUCK at words.
Stop digging. You don’t get out of a deep hole of idiocy that you’ve dug for yourself by digging harder. Just shut the fuck up you idiot.
I don’t even disagree with you, but you’re not helping your argument by throwing a tantrum. If you can’t communicate your point without resorting to name calling, you should probably just say nothing.
Soldiers sniping obviously innocent people (including women going to church, and hostages trying to escape in their underwear waving white flags) is definitely murder.
If a solider is operating on orders when killing civilians, it’s legally not murder. It’s still bad, but they will not charged by the government with murder because it was authorized by the government.
That’s what I’m saying here. There are legal definitions for these words that matter.
Ah, so it’s war crimes. I was worried there for a bit.
/sI mean, yes? Exactly? Words matter. The right words matter. Just because a group is doing something negative does not mean every negative word applies to them. That’s small brain thinking.
When you use the right words to describe a horrible action, it’s accusation and condemnation. When you use the wrong words, it just becomes name calling.
You know what else may be considered small brain thinking? Acting so pedantic over insignificant details like these, all while real people continue to die every day. The end result is the same: a mass slaughter of innocents.
But that’s just my opinion.
You know what else is small brain thinking? INCORRECTLY being pedantic about word choices. That’s the part that pisses me off the most with these apologists. They are literally incorrecting people using words properly.
So because something bad happened and we’re all emotional, we’re supposed to ignore critical thinking and just go along with whatever people say that makes them feel better about the situation, regardless of if it’s correct or not? There’s a sort of merit in that I suppose, but it’s not for me.
I cited the definitions of “murder” above. Explain to me, with reference to these definitions, how the term “murder” doesn’t apply. (Hint: this is not possible.)
“Legal” definitions are for “legal” actions and “legal” contexts. Like an international criminal court.
This is reportage for a general audience, not legal briefs. Fuck off with your legalistic shit.
Yes. Murder has very specific definitions. (Note the plural.) Let me help you out with this, Sparky:
murder
/ ˈmɜr dər /
noun
-
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, ormurder one ), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, or murder two ). -
Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
verb
-
Law. to kill by an act constituting murder. -
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
-
to commit murder.
The slang definition doesn’t apply, so
2. A newspaper is not a court of law, so the legal definitions are gone:1and3. That leaves 5 (which itself is just a reference to the legal definition, so5) and 4.I think 4 applies fully here. What’s happening in Gaza is definitely a slaughter, definitely inhuman, and definitely barbarous. This is also the correct register for informal reportage not related to legal actions.
So perhaps if you want to argue based on definitions you should fucking read the dictionary first, Sparky. Or get used to people pointing and laughing at you in your clown pants.
-
You’d think that it would be considered more brutal given that the people committing the killings aren’t even exposing themselves to a threat.
Cowards, in a word.
Ya, but it’s remote.
It sucks that Canada doesn’t have anything like AP News. Like, just give me the facts, don’t tell me how to feel about them.
Anything that tells you how to feel about things is no longer news in my view. It’s opinion pieces.
There’s a word for it: propaganda.
CBC’s issue is that it does not tell you how to feel. That’s the point here. Did you miss that?
And for AP news. We have … The AP.
Really?
In a letter responding to a complaint filed by a reader, the public broadcaster acknowledged that they’ve used terms like “murderous,” “vicious,” “brutal,” “massacre,” and “slaughter” to refer only to Hamas’s attack on Israelis on Oct. 7.
But when it comes to the Israeli army’s bombing of Palestinians, which has killed more than 22,600 people as of Friday, CBC says they prefer to use terms like “intensive,” “unrelenting,” and “punishing.”
Like the Canadian Press?
I don’t think the language should have to do with the comfort of the person delivering death
-Jeff Winch, a retired professor at Humber College
Short paraphrased from that guy -remote attacks are a confortable war so it’s fine
Yeah… fuck the cbc
The language that describes you is connected to the resources you have. A story as old as time.
If Hamas had an Israel-calibre military, I doubt they’d have planned the same attack as what actually occured in October.
deleted by creator
Where, precisely (and be detailed, with a map) do you think Hamas should be locating itself in Gaza that doesn’t have civilians all around them?
You go get a map of Gaza and point it out. I’ll wait.
deleted by creator
