Truth by Consensus: CBC’s The National Not Obligated to Determine the Truth
Truth or Consequence
In a previous post, I slagged the CBC and Rex Murphy for spouting climate denier nonsense. The response from the CBC was interesting, including the claim that the CBC was not obligated “to determine what is ‘truth’.” Truth was in quotation marks because the writer, the Executive Producer of The National, is of the view that truth is subjective; there is no such thing as objective truth. Several of the commenters wholeheartedly supported this view, which I mocked the lot of them for. It is amazing democracy has survived this long.
Let’s try again. I hold the belief that some things are true, that there is truth. Facts are true. For example: The Earth revolves around the Sun. Or, Smoking greatly increases the risk of getting cancer. Certain principles are also true, such as “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” If you don’t believe that some things are true, how do you get through the day?
Do you know why the CBC doesn’t put Holocaust deniers on the air as part of their policy of being “fair and balanced?” Because the Holocaust happened. It is a fact of history. It is true that the Holocaust happened. You can argue over details, but you cannot legitimately say that the Holocaust did not happen. If you say the Holocaust didn’t happen, you are lying. Get it? Facts and truth. Of course, it doesn’t help that most Holocaust deniers seem to be white supremacists.
Climate deniers are a little different. Scratch one a bit and you will almost always get a member of the Church of Market Fundamentalism. They say the job of CBC News is not to determine truth, because there is no such thing, but to present various facts and opinions and let us determine what is true for us. Presumably, if enough people believe a certain thing, then this will widely be considered to be “true.”
These same dolts who want to determine “truth” by consensus reject the consensus of the climate scientists. This leads me to believe they are not sincere in their belief in the relativity of truth, but only as it pertains to something they do not wish to accept, like, say, climate change.
I can’t imagine the CBC allowing Rex to tell people not to wear their seatbelts, because there is scientific disagreement about whether they help prevent injury and save lives, or telling people to stop cancer treatments, because cancer is a hoax by the medical community to get money. Both are dangerous falsehoods. So is telling people climate change is nothing to worry about. The CBC is being irresponsible at best.
***************************
Full text of CBC email response to original complaint that Rex Murphy’s show be fact-checked like the rest of the National Newshour.
Related posts:
- CBC and The National: “it is not the CBC’s obligation to determine what is ‘truth’” I recently posted this article: “CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused...
- 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...
- The CBC, Rex Murphy, and Putting Facts in Context I returned to my favorite blog-site intending to write about...
- 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...
Tags: cbc, climate change, Media, rex murphy, the national
Loading ...
December 28th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Brian, the sad reality is that like most corporations, the prime mandate of the CBC is to make money; they simply haven’t always been so brazen about it.
Once, the CBC represented the best in journalistic integrity, but that was long ago when Tommy Hunter reigned supreme and Barbara Frum had no idea what a jackass her son would turn out to be.
Like the tobacco and oil industries, the news is now an overtly profit based enterprise that will fight tooth and nail to deny their complicity in destroying humankind with their inherently profane product.
This does nothing to lessen the mind numbing response by the CBC in defense of their ludicrous claim that they ‘are not obligated to determine what is “truth,”‘ a statement to vile and contemptuous, it would be more apt from a producer on FOX.
‘The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.’
Niels Bohr (1885 – 1962)
December 28th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Well said, Jim. I was absolutely shocked to my core to hear the CBC producer say the CBC is not obliged to determine the “truth,” which he thinks is entirely subjective anyway.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
In war, the first casualty is the truth. Then enemies are demonized. There are facts and factoids in our politically partisan Western Democracies. In the war over global warming, now conveniently described as climate change as the global warming ‘science’ is in doubt, what is the truth when the issue becomes one of religiosity. Who are the deniers? In the Middle Ages, the Church of Rome decreed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, even when the facts didn’t support their belief. To doubt the dogma was to put one’s life at risk. We live in a world where Barak Hussein Obama was selected for no other reason than celebrity to receive the Nobel Peace Prize although as President of the U.S. he escalated the war in Afghanistan and is keeping troops in Iraq! Undoubtedly, he will shortly put the screws to Iran. The Nobel Peace Prize was created by a Norwegian industrialist who commercialized gunpower for the use of artillery in the pursuit of war. How hypocritical is all of this? If FOX is vile and contemptuous, what is CNN? What is the Washington Post? Some demonize FOX as supporters of the U.S. Republican Party while others demonize CNN as the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Incidentally, both of these are facts. In Canada’s political climate, who among you would expect that the CBC would ever produce the truth? What is the truth? Perhaps the truth is subjective after all. It seems to depend on one’s point of view. My truth is more truthful than your truth. My facts are more accurate than your factoids.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:55 am
WTF is a factoid? Aside from spouting random trivia, Mr. Henderson, you seem completely devoid of a thesis. Avoid the psychotropics and make a point. Declarations that you are a post-modernist nihilist seem, aside from flaky and irrelevant, ironic considering that the only thing you appear capable of assuring yourself of is that you do not hold anything to be true.
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:27 am
‘We live in a world where Barak Hussein Obama was selected for no other reason than celebrity to receive the Nobel Peace Prize although as President of the U.S. he escalated the war in Afghanistan and is keeping troops in Iraq!’
While it’s true that the Nobel Prize was surprising even for Obama himself, the idea that what he represents as a fundamentally new approach to U.S. foreign policy and the very real strength of his idealism that has resonated with people around the world, can certainly not be underestimated in the adjudication of his merit of the award.
I would further humbly suggest that he is removing the U.S. footprint in Iraq, despite calls from many quarters, including Iraqis themselves. for American forces to remain. He has escalated the war in Afghanistan, which I personally don’t support, although I recognize that the growing instabiliy in Pakistan has rendered few if any alternatives that are even remotely benign. After 8 years of ignoring the conflict by the Bush administration, there appears to be only varying degrees of losing that can be achieved.
‘Some demonize FOX as supporters of the U.S. Republican Party while others demonize CNN as the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Incidentally, both of these are facts.’
FOX is a Right wing propaganda machine, but suggesting CNN is its counterpart for the Left is highly dubious; I stopped watching their coverage of the 2008 Presidential election because of the obvious Right wing bias they projected, and have seen nothing that would suggest they have become any less overt in their current broadcasting agenda.
‘In Canada’s political climate, who among you would expect that the CBC would ever produce the truth? What is the truth? ‘
That’s precisely the point; this was not always the case.
‘What is the truth? Perhaps the truth is subjective after all. It seems to depend on one’s point of view. My truth is more truthful than your truth. My facts are more accurate than your factoids.’
I can only hope you’re being sarcastic.
‘Truth indeed rather alleviates than hurts, and will always bear up against falsehood, as oil does above water.’
Miguel de Cervantes (1547 – 1616)
October 4th, 2010 at 12:53 am
The problem is not that the CBC is not interested in determining the truth – the problem is that the CBC deliberately misrepresents issues to create a version of reality that suits the CBC agenda.
To give one small example: A friend of mine attended a live taping of a CBC “At Issue” panel wearing a T-shirt that read “9/11 Was an Inside Job”. CBC staff came to him quietly and said: “Sir, I’m going to have to ask you to cover that shirt”. Regardless of what you believe about 9/11 truth issues, the CBC (as a promoter of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory) does not want Canadians to know that some of us question the official version of events. My friend refused to cover his shirt and so the shirt was seen (briefly) on national television.
As for consensus on climate change: Here you are simply wrong. Hundreds of scientists in relevant fields have expressed deep concern with “science” behind the anthropomorphic global warming theory. There is no consensus at all. It is a controversy.
I say this by the way as a life-long conservationist, environmentalist, green-voter and someone who has been concerned about global warming for at least fifteen years.
When the media, including the CBC, tell us that scientists are united in their understanding of global warming, they are simply lying. This is just not true by any stretch of the imagination. The pressure behind the anti global warming movement is mostly economic and political – it is not grounded in science.
My personal opinion is that the recent BP oil spill illustrates a far more urgent concern than global warming. I believe that we should stop using fossil fuels now. Ironically, global warming might turn out to be the least of our concerns.
Incidentally, what this proves about “truth” is that our understanding of any given issue is ever evolving. We rarely have a full grasp on any situation. As we inform ourselves, a deeper truth always reveals itself.
I believed for a long time (ten + years) that we humans were the key drivers of global climate change. As I learn more, I look at things a little differently. This does not make me a “denier” or diminish my concern over our unsustainable and irresponsible practices which currently threaten every eco-system on earth.
Keep digging for the truth.
Love and Peace,
Michael Hey
December 29th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
. it is the responsibility of news to inform the people , it is not responsible for telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth , especially if they’re not sure yet would you just go ahead and tell someone something that to you is just hear say and speculation?? just because a scientist says it, makes it undoubtedly true? im not trying to start any sort of rhetoric argument here i just form my own opinions like any good citizen would do .