The CBC has walked back the directive that didn't allow the word
"terrorist" be applied as a label to obviously terroristic acts. (Previously, the rule was that they could air a clip of someone calling something "terrorist" but couldn't say it otherwise.)
There was apparently a tremendous backlash over the old policy when it became known and better sense has prevailed, at least for the moment.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6058676-canada-cbc-9-11- terrorism-guidance-backlash/
The CBC was captured by the left long ago so I have no confidence that
this marks a major attitude adjustment on their part. That won't happen until there is a major house-cleaning at the CBC and I don't see that happening as long as the Liberals run this country.
On 2026-08-29 11:56 a.m., Rhino wrote:
The CBC has walked back the directive that didn't allow the word
"terrorist" be applied as a label to obviously terroristic acts.
(Previously, the rule was that they could air a clip of someone
calling something "terrorist" but couldn't say it otherwise.)
There was apparently a tremendous backlash over the old policy when it
became known and better sense has prevailed, at least for the moment.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6058676-canada-cbc-9-11-
terrorism-guidance-backlash/
The CBC was captured by the left long ago so I have no confidence that
this marks a major attitude adjustment on their part. That won't
happen until there is a major house-cleaning at the CBC and I don't
see that happening as long as the Liberals run this country.
In case you're interested, here's an article written by the executive
who set - and changed - the policy explaining why:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/cbc-9-11-language-guidance-9.7324662
He claims this is standard practice among other "major news
organizations". If so, this only tends to demonstrate that the rot is
far more widespread than just the CBC. But then we already knew that,
didn't we?
I'm looking forward to seeing a CBC article that describes Hamas,
Hesbollah, the Houthis, and the IRGC as terrorist organizations but I'm
not holding my breath.
On 8/29/2026 12:12 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-08-29 11:56 a.m., Rhino wrote:
The CBC has walked back the directive that didn't allow the word
"terrorist" be applied as a label to obviously terroristic acts.
(Previously, the rule was that they could air a clip of someone
calling something "terrorist" but couldn't say it otherwise.)
There was apparently a tremendous backlash over the old policy when it >>> became known and better sense has prevailed, at least for the moment.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6058676-canada-cbc-9-11-
terrorism-guidance-backlash/
The CBC was captured by the left long ago so I have no confidence that >>> this marks a major attitude adjustment on their part. That won't
happen until there is a major house-cleaning at the CBC and I don't
see that happening as long as the Liberals run this country.
In case you're interested, here's an article written by the executive
who set - and changed - the policy explaining why:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/cbc-9-11-language-guidance-9.7324662
He claims this is standard practice among other "major news
organizations". If so, this only tends to demonstrate that the rot is
far more widespread than just the CBC. But then we already knew that,
didn't we?
I'm looking forward to seeing a CBC article that describes Hamas,
Hesbollah, the Houthis, and the IRGC as terrorist organizations but I'm
not holding my breath.
Seems akin to rules about calling someone a criminal before they've been officially convicted ...even if their actions are on video.
On Aug 29, 2026 at 1:38:34 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/29/2026 12:12 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-08-29 11:56 a.m., Rhino wrote:
The CBC has walked back the directive that didn't allow the word
"terrorist" be applied as a label to obviously terroristic acts.
(Previously, the rule was that they could air a clip of someone
calling something "terrorist" but couldn't say it otherwise.)
There was apparently a tremendous backlash over the old policy when it >>>> became known and better sense has prevailed, at least for the moment. >>>>
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6058676-canada-cbc-9-11- >>>> terrorism-guidance-backlash/
The CBC was captured by the left long ago so I have no confidence that >>>> this marks a major attitude adjustment on their part. That won't
happen until there is a major house-cleaning at the CBC and I don't
see that happening as long as the Liberals run this country.
In case you're interested, here's an article written by the executive
who set - and changed - the policy explaining why:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/cbc-9-11-language-guidance-9.7324662 >>>
He claims this is standard practice among other "major news
organizations". If so, this only tends to demonstrate that the rot is
far more widespread than just the CBC. But then we already knew that,
didn't we?
I'm looking forward to seeing a CBC article that describes Hamas,
Hesbollah, the Houthis, and the IRGC as terrorist organizations but I'm >>> not holding my breath.
Seems akin to rules about calling someone a criminal before they've been
officially convicted ...even if their actions are on video.
No, a more accurate analogy would be refusing to call a body found with its head chopped off a murder, even when the killing was captured on video. Doesn't matter who did it or whether he'll even be found or convicted at trial. *Someone* murdered the victim and refusing to call it a murder is evidence of an agenda at play.
There's no question that 9-11 was a terrorist act, regardless of who did it or
their ultimate fate. There's no legal or ethical 'rule' that would prohibit a news organization from calling it what it was.
On Aug 29, 2026 at 1:38:34 PM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
. . .
Seems akin to rules about calling someone a criminal before they've been >>officially convicted ...even if their actions are on video.
No, a more accurate analogy would be refusing to call a body found with its >head chopped off a murder, even when the killing was captured on video. >Doesn't matter who did it or whether he'll even be found or convicted at >trial. *Someone* murdered the victim and refusing to call it a murder is >evidence of an agenda at play.
There's no question that 9-11 was a terrorist act, regardless of who did it or >their ultimate fate. There's no legal or ethical 'rule' that would prohibit a >news organization from calling it what it was.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 29, 2026 at 1:38:34 PM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
. . .
Seems akin to rules about calling someone a criminal before they've been >>> officially convicted ...even if their actions are on video.
No, a more accurate analogy would be refusing to call a body found with its >> head chopped off a murder, even when the killing was captured on video.
Doesn't matter who did it or whether he'll even be found or convicted at
trial. *Someone* murdered the victim and refusing to call it a murder is
evidence of an agenda at play.
A racist sheriff has been called to an incident scene in which the body
of a black man, shot multiple times, has been discovered reports, "Worst
case of suicide I've ever seen."
moviePig is being his usual asshole self. Stating the obvious. the jury
dies not make a finding classifying the crime itself as terrorism or the death a homicide. Those fiindings were made by others. The jury's
finding is whether the state made its case "beyond a reasonable doubt"
that the defendant committed the crime for which he was indicted. Even a coroner's jury, if conveyned, would not be asked to make a finding of
whether an incident was terrorism. Terrorism is a crime committed
against random strangers due to their race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality meant to terrorize other members of the same class. 9/11 was
a crime committed against Americans in America because of nationality.
This isn't controversial.
There's no question that 9-11 was a terrorist act, regardless of who did it or
their ultimate fate. There's no legal or ethical 'rule' that would prohibit a
news organization from calling it what it was.
Isn't there ethics against writing misleading or inaccurate statements
in a news story in order to confuse the public?
On 2026-08-30 7:02 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 29, 2026 at 1:38:34 PM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
. . .
Seems akin to rules about calling someone a criminal before they've
been
officially convicted ...even if their actions are on video.
No, a more accurate analogy would be refusing to call a body found
with its
head chopped off a murder, even when the killing was captured on video.
Doesn't matter who did it or whether he'll even be found or convicted at >>> trial. *Someone* murdered the victim and refusing to call it a murder is >>> evidence of an agenda at play.
A racist sheriff has been called to an incident scene in which the body
of a black man, shot multiple times, has been discovered reports, "Worst
case of suicide I've ever seen."
moviePig is being his usual asshole self. Stating the obvious. the jury
dies not make a finding classifying the crime itself as terrorism or the
death a homicide. Those fiindings were made by others. The jury's
finding is whether the state made its case "beyond a reasonable doubt"
that the defendant committed the crime for which he was indicted. Even a
coroner's jury, if conveyned, would not be asked to make a finding of
whether an incident was terrorism. Terrorism is a crime committed
against random strangers due to their race, religion, ethnicity, or
nationality meant to terrorize other members of the same class. 9/11 was
a crime committed against Americans in America because of nationality.
This isn't controversial.
There's no question that 9-11 was a terrorist act, regardless of who
did it or
their ultimate fate. There's no legal or ethical 'rule' that would
prohibit a
news organization from calling it what it was.
Isn't there ethics against writing misleading or inaccurate statements
in a news story in order to confuse the public?
If there is, the media have been violating THAT rule for a very long time!
| Sysop: | Scott Duensing |
|---|---|
| Location: | Freeburg, IL, USA, Earth |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 496871:37:01 |
| Calls: | 8 |
| Messages: | 23,585 |