Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
-snip-And the CBC leaving Twitter simply affirms that they are not as impartial as claimed.
Why else would they throw a hissy fit on a title that is literally true and well known? There's no arguing, it's government funded media. Worse of all, they don't make any money. Without government funding, they simply do not exist. Taxpayers pay over a billion dollars a year that goes in a black hole, only to find that black hole subjectively provide biased reporting to increase the amount going into that black hole.
|
How does the CBC deciding to pause driving traffic to a private individual's website show they aren't impartial? That's a weird conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
If someone can show me where the CBC has sued the Liberal party in recent years (like don't try to find a 40 year old incident), or can show the CBC's head honcho spar with Trudeau, than I will gladly accept it and can find these incidents to be a wash.-snip-
|
Uhm, well if you read the article...
Quote:
|
In a legal application to the Federal Court of Canada, the CBC served notice it wants the Conservative Party of Canada and its executive director, Dustin Van Vugt, to acknowledge the party "engaged in the unauthorized use of copyright-protected material."
|
Quote:
|
CBC-Radio Canada named the journalists in the lawsuit, according to the statement, "because their images and journalism were misused for partisan purposes negatively impacting perceptions of their independence."
|
Isn't this what we want? Not to have their independence slandered? Maybe the CBC hasn't sued the Liberals becuase they haven't attempted to slander their journalists.
I don't understand this weird attachment some have to equivalences. Some things don't have equivalences because the actions taken by the players are not equivalent. The RCMP don't have to arrest every Canadian becuase they arrested one Canadian. That's not how this works.