CBC and The National: “it is not the CBC’s obligation to determine what is ‘truth’”
Fox News: Fair and Balanced?
I recently posted this article: “CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy to Spout Nonsense on Climate Change” in response to a diatribe by Rex Murphy on climate change. Murphy thinks a former mining stock promoter and an economist are more credible than Canada’s climate scientists. I think this is a travesty, and I wasn’t the only one. I wrote the Ombudsman and a friend of mine wrote The National’s Executive Producer. The reply he received was absolutely shocking. Don’t count on the CBC for “truth”; they don’t believe it exists.
Mr. Harrison, the Executive Producer, correctly points out that the CBC has covered climate change fairly extensively. However, read some of the quotes from Mr. Harrison’s email and see if you think the CBC is a trustworthy source of information – or worthy of your tax dollars. [Note: I have pasted the full email here.]
Here are the shocking quotes:
“…allowing the expression of the widest possible range of views is at the heart of the notion of fairness and balance in journalism.”
Now, what well-known “news” organization has the motto “Fair and Balanced.” Could it be…FOX NEWS?!
“…almost any opinion may contain a grain of truth that helps to illuminate the whole truth.”
Well, I suppose that’s true…but it sure opens the door to allowing anyone to speak their “truth.” Why not allow blatant racists and hate-mongers their time on Point of View? Surely there’s a grain of truth in what they say? Or the flat-earthers? Oh wait, that’s Rex.
“…it is not the CBC’s obligation to determine what is “truth”…”
This was the most disappointing thing Mr. Harrison said. First, that he put “truth” in quotation marks, implying there is no such thing as truth – that all truth is subjective. Perhaps to Mr. Harrison it is, but there are many of us who know that some things are true. Gravity, for example, may be only a theory, but I doubt Mr. Harrison will dispute the truth of it.
And secondly, that the CBC feels no obligation to determine truth, or presumably report it. What do reporters do? Make stuff up? Is that acceptable on The National? Is their reporting ‘re-truthed’ by the sales department to please advertisers? Do their editors only check spelling and grammar? Is nobody checking facts? Or perhaps I should say, “facts”?
This is very disappointing. I am now in the camp of cutting all taxpayer funding to the CBC. No reason I should be paying for Fox News North.
Related posts:
- Truth by Consensus: CBC’s The National Not Obligated to Determine the Truth In a previous post, I slagged the CBC and Rex...
- CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy to Spout Nonsense on Climate Change How can we expect Canadians to vote in an informed...
- Rex Murphy is a Denier because Global Warming Science Contradicts his Religion In a recent post, I pointed out that Rex Murphy...
- The So-Called Problem of Rex Murphy, Holocaust Deniers, and the CBC – Why We Need Free Speech! As of late anyone reading InformedVote will have noticed the...
Tags: cbc, fox news, rex murphy, the national
Loading ...
December 12th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Reddit by ibmetom: I’d say [re-post](http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/ac2i3/cbc_keeping_canadian_voters_confused_by_paying/) but you know that because you posted it 4 days ago….
December 12th, 2009 at 1:39 am
[...] CBC and The National: “it is not the CBC'… [...]
December 12th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I read the full text of Mr. Harrison’s response to your complaint Brian, and it seemed reasoned and balanced to me. Once again I would caution you about your penchant for vilifying anyone that doesn’t agree with your point of view. It will be interesting to see what the opinions are of those who take the time to read both your “rant” and the CBC response.
December 12th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“Vilifying everyone,” Gary? That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? My concern is with one person and one institution, the CBC. Do you think it is acceptable that The National has no obligation to speak the truth?
December 12th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I read the email from the CBC and your rant… and well Gary seems to have the right of it.
CBC should be lauded for being willing to show more than one viewpoint in a story. Just because they don’t show your viewpoint every time doesn’t mean they are evil. I often disagree with things on the CBC but I appreciate that they aren’t just pushing an agenda with only one side of a story.
Also you speak of truth as an absolute and that is pure fallacy. There is no such thing as truth for everyone. What you perceive to be true may be (and often is) seen as false to another person depending on their frame of reference. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it wrong or un-true.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
And who difines what the truth is Brian? The goal of responsible media, and it’s a goal that has been pointed out to you very clearly, is to present all sides of the argument, respect different opinions and then let the public decide what it deem to be true. Pretty basic stuff, me thinks.
December 12th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
i agree with mike and gary.
truths are not universal, facts are.
not only is it not the CBC’s obligation to determine what “truth” is, I would go as far as to say it is their obligation NOT to determine what truth is. rather, tell us the facts and the objective opinions of all viewpoints and let me come to my own truth.
when the CBC starts doing things like this –> http://bit.ly/8bjd6J <– i’ll give credence to your faux news comparison.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I agree with Brian. The fifth estate, news media, has a responsibility to report, as accurately as possible, the truth. And there are many absolute truths. Some not so absolute. Human induced climate change has been accepted, still, the doubters ( in this case the CBC and Rex Murphy ) try to leverage any remaining points of scientific uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through 262 affiliated societies.
If this many scientists agree one this issue, then I’m inclined to believe this is true and what Murphy puts out is false. And that is fraudulent reporting and should not happen, especially by a public funded organization and especially in prime time and with not rebuttal. Maybe the CBC has had it’s time and should move on. You expect crap like that from corporate media but not public.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:57 am
“A dose of scepticism is healthy” That’s the title of Lysiane Gagnon column in the Comment section of today’s Globe. In the article Lysiane clearly states that she does not say: global warming isn’t a danger. Further, she notes that, whatever the truth of the matter, (the climate change debate) “it would certainly be good for humanity and Mother Earth to find alternative ways to provide cleaner energy”. The thrust of her article is focused on the debate we are having on this site regarding Rex Murphy and the CBC’s role role in reporting “the truth”. If you’re plugged into this debate you will be interestd in waht she has to say – read the full article at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-dose-of-skepticism-is-healthy/article1397938/
December 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Thanks Rick – this is my point. Report accurately, or get off my taxpayer dime.
Gary, Mike, and Daniel – Your science teachers are very disappointed in you. Also your math and ethics teachers. Truth does exist; Daniel makes the nutty claim that facts are true but truth is subjective. But isn’t truth based on facts? I confess I have mocked you on my site: http://www.briangordon.ca/2009/12/the-morans-are-here-idiocracy-has-arrived/
Gary – Gagnon is either an idiot or a denier in sheep’s clothing. She sounds like the latter; one of those people who wraps an unreasonable and irrational argument in pseudo-reason. She makes this point: “I certainly wouldn’t trust even the best specialist in the world if he told me I had a terrible disease that required, say, amputation. I would ask for a second opinion before letting the surgeon touch me.” Makes sense, yes? Of course. What she conveniently then ignores is that there are many ’second opinions’ on climate change already, and they are all saying the same thing: Go green or die.
It’s not alarmism if it’s true. I’m sure there were people who rolled over and went back to sleep when Paul Revere spread ‘alarmism’ on his midnight ride. Gagnon would still be getting 18th and 47th ’second opinions’ – until she was dead.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Who knows Brian, there may be those that think America would be a better place if Paul Revere himself had stayed in bed. But then, as there can only be one “truth”, that would be heresy and we can’t sanction that, can we?
December 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Just to point out but Rex Murphy is not a newscaster, he is a pundit, and offers an opinion piece, no matter how misinformed. This is what pundits do and this is what distinguishes them from reporters. Just a thought.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Climate Change is as natural as the seasons.Don’t ruin our economy and give up our freedoms ,it’s a sucker job .
December 18th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Oh, it’s a sucker job, alright. But do you really think it’s more likely that the suckers are the people following the scientists or the people following the paid shills?