.
Issues Pages:
Regions:
.
Fri, 2014-08-22 04:20
#1
.
Fri, 2014-08-22 04:58
#2
Maybe the problem is your terminology:
Midget (from midge, a sand fly[2]) is a term for a person of unusually short stature that is widely considered pejorative.[3][4][5] [6] While not a medical term, it has been applied to persons of unusually short stature, often with the medical condition dwarfism,[7] particularly proportionate dwarfism.[8][9]
It's like using the term "retard".
Fri, 2014-08-22 06:27
#3
alan smithee
'mental midget' would also get censored here at babble.
Fri, 2014-08-22 10:39
#4
'mental midget' would also get censored here at babble.
But calling someone an "air head" is OK? I get censoring the word "midget" when it is used in reference to little people, but why ban it when it is used in its original meaning, that is, to refer to something small (midget submarine, for example)?
Fri, 2014-08-22 11:27
#5
You know, PrairieDemocrat15, why don't you test-run your theory that the CBC comments censors are pro-Liberal? Just post something like, "Mulcair is a moral midget next to that fine upstanding Justin" - do it under an alias if you like. Get back to us with the results.
Fri, 2014-08-22 18:13
#6
I think the comments are hit and miss. I suspect that there may be some bias with some of the moderators and some mistakes. I have had posts rejected that I think really should not have been. I have seen others accepted that are offensive. On both sides they were not partisan.
I don't think calling any individual a mental midget is a post I'd want to defend.
Fri, 2014-08-22 18:38
#7
alan smithee
'mental midget' would also get censored here at babble.
But calling someone an "air head" is OK? I get censoring the word "midget" when it is used in reference to little people, but why ban it when it is used in its original meaning, that is, to refer to something small (midget submarine, for example)?
Well,,,I was raked over the coals at babble for calling Don Cherry a 'douche bag'
If that's offensive,mental midget definately is.
Fri, 2014-08-22 22:02
#8
'mental midget' would also get censored here at babble.
But calling someone an "air head" is OK? I get censoring the word "midget" when it is used in reference to little people, but why ban it when it is used in its original meaning, that is, to refer to something small (midget submarine, for example)?
Well,,,I was raked over the coals at babble for calling Don Cherry a 'douche bag'
If that's offensive,mental midget definately is.
In both cases you are using words associated with a type of person who is discriminated against pejoratively.
Calling someone a douche bag is insulting because it's a product associated with women therefore negative. You not only insult the target you insult women with the suggestion that a feminine hygiene product is an item to insult men with. Would you call a man a jock strap as an insult?
The word midget is inextricably linked to small people. We don't use the word midget to refer to small things in common conversation; we use "small" or "miniature". You wouldn't say you had a midget sandwich. Are you using the word to insinuate the person is small-minded or unintelligent? Either way the word is associated with small people so inappropriate no matter what the context if it is being used perjoratively. I would imagine the word is being caught by an auto-moderator that filters for specific words.
Tue, 2014-08-26 18:41
#9
The outsourced CBC Moderators suck. You do not even have to say anything offensive at all and yet it will still get a 'content disabled'...CBC Online is really starting to suck.
Fri, 2014-08-29 16:02
#10
And here I thought the only things the CBC censors let through was period dramas set in turn-of-the-century PEI and "It's Alan. He bought life insurance."
Fri, 2014-08-29 16:19
#11
montrealer58
The pay-to-comment model is coming next.
Tue, 2014-09-09 00:48
#12
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russian-military-plane-circles-hmcs-toronto...
Russia's military acted in an "unnecessarily provocative" manner when its aircraft circled a Canadian ship in the Black Sea on Sunday, says Canada's minister of national defence.
"The acts perpetrated by Russia were unnecessarily provocative and are likely to increase tensions further," said Rob Nicholson in a written statement, saying it did not matter if the aircraft circling HMCS Toronto had posed no threat.
Yeah because parking a warship and being beligerant and belicose some 3000 kms from home is less provocative than planes circling a couple hundred km from your shore.
Tue, 2014-09-09 01:39
#13
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russian-military-plane-circles-hmcs-toronto...
Russia's military acted in an "unnecessarily provocative" manner when its aircraft circled a Canadian ship in the Black Sea on Sunday, says Canada's minister of national defence.
"The acts perpetrated by Russia were unnecessarily provocative and are likely to increase tensions further," said Rob Nicholson in a written statement, saying it did not matter if the aircraft circling HMCS Toronto had posed no threat.
Yeah because parking a warship and being beligerant and belicose some 3000 kms from home is less provocative than planes circling a couple hundred km from your shore.
My thoughts exactly -- here is my tweet from 4 hours ago:
Canada calls Russia provocative for buzzing Canadian warship off its coast hmmm #irony #Ukraine
Tue, 2014-09-09 11:33
#14
I think it is time to reinstitute the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force and take back Vladivostok.
Tue, 2014-09-09 11:59
#15
And what a farce that was.
Tue, 2014-09-09 12:07
#16
Dewar makes me sad
Sun, 2014-10-05 05:39
#17
If you needed any more proof of the CBC's bias towards the Liberals, you should have listened to the CBC radio news for Nova Scotia this morning.
While covering the Liberal nomination in Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, the CBC announcer stated that the NDP's Robert Chisholm had 'stolen' the riding from the Liberals...not 'won' the riding in an election, but 'stolen' the riding from the Liberals.
The CBC's bias towards the Liberal Party is disgusting!!
Sun, 2014-10-05 18:24
#18
Maybe part of the problem is not the lack of impartiality of the news but the pretense that these biases do not exist.
Maybe we should have news casts endorsed by the parties. This would be a modernized version of the freetime political broadcast.
Let the CBC air them -- 12-15 minutes a day each party with seats in the House in a news rather than advertising format. They can present their version of the news with whatever they think is important and let people watch and decide. Alternately have one party endorse a half our segment a day alternating days. Have the parties work with good producers and top journalists to present the world as they see it.
People thinking the standard news is biased can compare the party news to it and see which one is the closest.
Sun, 2014-10-05 18:35
#19
This is what I always say. News media doesn't need "objectivity" (a rather meaningless phrase unless you're omniscient) but diversity. We need a greater number and variety of outlets that wear their biases on their sleeve, and we can be left to work out the real story between all the differing viewpoints. The problem is that this requires a lot of effort, and people would rather have one media source that they can trust to give them "the truth". they want this so much they willfully ignore the fact that it obviously doesn't exist.
Sun, 2014-10-05 19:00
#20
An excellent idea, Sean. I think it would be a significant improvement over the so-called unbiased journalism we have now. Next question, how can this idea be promoted in the public consciousness?
Sun, 2014-10-05 19:04
#21
This ought to be part of the mandate of the CBC. I'll think about how this could be promoted.
And of course mothercrop does not decide which journos represent each party -- the party does that.
I think it would be a great way for people to go beyond advertising to see prespectives.
And it should not be politicians talking either -- people won't watch that -- but a news cast based on the world view of each party.
It would do more for democracy and might encourage more people to vote.
Sun, 2014-10-05 20:57
#22
Last I heard, only about 2% of Canadians were members of a political party, which means that as a component of Canadian civil society,- political parties rank well down the list, - far below the number of citizens claiming religious affiliation or ethnic association membership or even dual nationalities (c 10% of all Canadians).
So if one was to even imagine promoting state support for 'special interest' perspectives on the news, - what makes one think that political parties would be anywhere near the head of that queue?
Babblers aside, most Canadians simply do not define the way they look at the world (their political identity) through the narrow lens of party politics. And would not likely want or expect their national broadcaster to present the news through those same lenses.
Back to the drawing board, I am afraid.
Mon, 2014-10-06 00:07
#23
Political parties are organizations of our democratic system and participation in them should be encouraged.
Perhaps more people would feel like they could relate and want to participate by getting different political perspectives.
Also the political parties are divided on a lot more than partisan issues and the differences in the news presented would bring a lot more voices out.
More than just members of parties could be interested and can benefit. More than half of Canadians end up choosing between them. That number is falling and that fact is not considered a plus.
The views of political parties need to be heard if we are to be a democracy and it would be better if they were heard beyond 30 second attack ads.
While not everyone would be interested, that is not a reason not to air programming. Not everyone is interested in hockey night in Canada either but it was CBC's most popular program.
Most Canadians are not members of parties perhaps becuase they want to hear what each one offers. Large numbers will vote and change their vote before the next election. To have them be able to do that based on more balanced information would be helpful.
I would be interested in watching different ones just to understand how each sees the current news and what they think is important. I would not limit my viewing just to the world according to one party.
Mon, 2014-10-06 02:30
#24
Last I heard, only about 2% of Canadians were members of a political party, which means that as a component of Canadian civil society,- political parties rank well down the list, - far below the number of citizens claiming religious affiliation or ethnic association membership or even dual nationalities (c 10% of all Canadians).
So if one was to even imagine promoting state support for 'special interest' perspectives on the news, - what makes one think that political parties would be anywhere near the head of that queue?
Babblers aside, most Canadians simply do not define the way they look at the world (their political identity) through the narrow lens of party politics. And would not likely want or expect their national broadcaster to present the news through those same lenses.
Back to the drawing board, I am afraid.
Hallelujah.
People are watching television less and less preferring services such as netflix. The only people watching political news are political junkies, or close to it. The mainstream media's impact is rooted in its constant background drone of consumerism and sexism, not individual shows. I would even say that people are increasingly hostile to discussing politics at all.
While it wouldn't hurt to have some sort of news program like that it already exists in different publications. If parties approve the commentator might as well have the party simply assign a spokesperson because they will constantly have to agree or disagree with the journalist they "approved".
Progressives have unprecedented access to media and worldwide communications. Viral media far outshines traditional media for reach. There is a failure to communicate with the general public in a manner that would gain their support in sufficent numbers to force government to change course dramatically.
Infuriating though it may be, Canadians still approve of Harper's handling of the economy. That (to me) means a failure to communicate on the part of progressives because if Canadians understood we are being cheated and improvished for the benefit of oligarchs they would surely object and take to the streets in the hundreds of thousands. All political parties would be forced left.
Mon, 2014-10-06 10:36
#25
Maybe we should have news casts endorsed by the parties.
Excellent idea! And we already have that in embryo... right here on babble!
Canadian news as per the Liberal party, the NDP, occasionally even the Conservatives!
Ukraine... reports by the fans of NATO! Reports by the fans of Putin!
Who downed MH17? Why, it was the other guys! Read the competing reports!
News about ISIL/ISIS/Da'ash/whatever - the Liberal version, the NDP version, the NRA version, and all of them change according to polls and handlers and the Leader's momentary whims, so stay tuned for incredibly frequent updates!
Yup Sean, I think you've nailed it. Bias is inevitable. Let's celebrate it!
Mon, 2014-10-06 11:08
#26
Su. Media English papers sold to post media
They might as well have been sold to the Cbc
Tue, 2014-10-07 02:14
#27
I find a declared bias to be informative while a claim to no bias uninformative as I don't believe it.
And if you have no opinion on a subject that is usually becuae you don't know anything about it.
In the past good journalism came from avoiding showing bias but now that is all gone -- so now I'd rather they just declared the bias and let me have all possible major varieties of bias and draw conclusions.
Tue, 2014-10-07 06:33
#28
Bias is inevitable. Let's celebrate it!
Even bias against partisan bias?
Tue, 2014-10-07 12:24
#29
Certainly. I think with the widening number of options people may want to see what defined bias looks like from other than very right wing sources. But there will always be a market for the newscasts that pretend to have no bias -- and even put effort into that impression.
I am challenging, however, the notion that anyone can speak with authority on such matters without also have a bias, whether it is partisan or not or directly obvious or not. If you are a person with critical thinking it would be absurd to develop knowledge without developing an opinion at the same time.
Bias is a necessary product of experience and knowledge. Why pretend otherwise? Is being disinterested all that believable anymore?