Comments on: CBC and The National: “it is not the CBC’s obligation to determine what is ‘truth’”

By: Brian Gordon

Brian Gordon — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:24:32 +0000

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?

By: Mitchell

Mitchell — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:22:18 +0000

Climate Change is as natural as the seasons.Don’t ruin our economy and give up our freedoms ,it’s a sucker job .

By: Travis Martin

Travis Martin — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:35:03 +0000

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.

By: Gary Parker

Gary Parker — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:34:41 +0000

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?

By: Brian Gordon

Brian Gordon — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:09:54 +0000

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.

By: Gary Parker

Gary Parker — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:57:25 +0000

“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/

By: Rick Habgood

Rick Habgood — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:19:05 +0000

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.

By: Daniel Levine

Daniel Levine — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:32:29 +0000

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.

By: Gary Parker

Gary Parker — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:43:51 +0000

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.

By: Mike Vroom

Mike Vroom — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:38:19 +0000

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.