More evidence that the Right can dish it but they just can't take it.
Found in today's National Post's Comment section:
"We interrupt this propaganda"
It is only a matter of time before the CBC interrupts its regularly scheduled programming to present Noam Chomsky's views on Canada's federal election campagin. Yesterday, the public network featured as two of its top five "news" items on its online morning digest dire warnings about a Stephen Harper government from two representatives of the loony left in the United States: Michael Moore and Ralph Nader. First this shock news: "U.S. filmmaker Michael Moore sounded off Wednesday on Canada's election, warning votes not to elect a Conservative government." And then it followed up with another breaking story: "Following on the heels of filmmaker Michael Moore, U.S. presidential hopeful Ralph Nader is asking Canadians not to support the Conservatives, saying a right-wing government would undermine the country's social safety net." It's the kind of paternalistic propaganda from the U.S. left that you might expect to see in organs like the Georgia Straight of Toronto's Now magazine, or any campus rag across the country. Instead, it is given serious news treatment by our publicly funded broadcaster. Imagine CBC's response had the U.S. intervention been from say, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Mother Corp would either have lined up a chorus of hand-wringing nationalists lamenting this assault on Canada's sovereignty, or studiously ignored the story. So where are you Maude Barlow, when we really need you?
I would give you a link but the Post doesn't like to give things away for free. You have to pay to read their propaganda, er, I mean news coverage. I shouldn't trash Canada's right-wing newspaper, there was a time when I wrote for them—in the sports section, but come on.
Izzy Asper, (former owner of CanWest which owns the Post) once went on CBC television about a year before his death. He told his interviewee, somewhat bitterly, that the CBC was pro-Palestinian and should not side with anyone on the Middle East issue because it is a publicly funded media agency. And yet he was known for his long zionist editorials and to this day, his newspaper is still criticized for jumping at every opportunity to call any Muslim a terrorist.
So my question for the National Post is: just because you're privately funded, does that mean your propganda is labelled news and all opposing views that may or may not be publicly funded, are called propganda?
Links:
National Post
CBC
Recent Comments