CBC Sarah Palin back-down
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Canada’s publicly funded national broadcaster ran a scurrilous story about US vp wannabe Sarah Paklin.
And then it didn’t.
In A Mighty Wind Blows Through the Republican Convention by freelancer Heather Mallick (right) wrote, “Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression”.
She went on »»»
Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi “I’m a fuckin’ redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?
I know that I have an attachment to children that verges on the irrational, but why don’t the Palins? I’m not the one preaching homespun values but I’d destroy that ratboy before I’d let him get within scenting range of my daughter again, and so would you. Palin’s e-mails about the brother-in-law she tried to get fired as a state trooper are fizzing with rage and revenge. Turn your guns on Levi, ma’am.
Palin has it all, along with being vicious and profoundly dishonest. Just hours after her first convention speech, the Associated Press did a good fast listing of her untruths and I won’t dwell on them.
The CBC, said the Canadian Press, initially refused to take the column down, but then, “issued an apology and retraction”.
There followed a very public climb-down by CBC News publisher John Cruickshank.
What prompted it? Some 300 complaints, a column in Canada’s National Post and a diatribe from Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, “the TV program renowned for its fairness and good taste,” as p2pnet described it in CBC kowtows to Fox after online Palin attack.
Silly Ratfaced Git is a frequent p2pnet comment poster and he contributed this »»»
“Just goes to show how biased Fox News is.”
That’s why myself and many others call them Faux News. A more accurate name would be Rupert Murdoch’s Propaganda Network.
“No other news agency or even the McCain/Palin campaign spoke against this journalist.”
Karl Rove knows about the Streisand Effect. [An online phenomenon whereby an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized.]
I am very unhappy that CBC backed down. I normally count on them to provide unbiased reporting. As a US citizen, I can assure you that there is no unbiased reporting in the US anymore. I rely on Canadian, British, Australian, and Kiwi reporting combined with US reporting to get clues to where the truth lies. (it’s getting closer and closer to lying dead in a ditch.)
Faux News censored an AP story on Sunday that was actually a well done bit of journalism (must have been an accident).
The story’s headline was “Conservatives Begin Questioning Palin’s Heft”.
Here is the lead:
A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven – and sometimes downright awkward – performances in her limited media appearances.
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.”
Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.”
This story was on the Faux News website just long enough for the Google News and Yahoo News robots to find it, but If you didn’t read it immediately when it appeared you didn’t get to read it on Faux since it was disappeared rather quickly. The thinking is that AP stories appear automagically at Faux. Once they discovered that something in conflict with Rupert’s world view had appeared, they made it disappear. The US Media is now a lot like Scientology. Enturbulating facts just don’t exist since we hide them all.
I am fond of thought experiments, so let’s try this one:
“Democrats Begin Questioning Biden’s Heft”.
Here is the lead:
A growing number of Democrats are expressing concern about Joseph Biden’s uneven – and sometimes downright awkward – performances in his limited media appearances.
A liberal columnist who is a former Biden supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. John Doe, writing for the liberal DailyKos, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.”
A Democratic strategist, says Biden’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.”
Do you think this story would disappear from Faux? I think it would be on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post. I also think that Bill O’Reilly would be shouting about it nonstop for at least a week. I don’t know if the Palin story ran in any US newspaper since I haven’t checked. If it did, it wasn’t front page or else I would have heard about it from other sources.
Think of this thought experiment next time you hear a reich wing nutjob bitching and moaning about the ‘liberal media’.
More information on the ‘Strange case of the disappearing news stories’ can be found at Brad Blog
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6438The truth is out there. Sometimes it’s hard to find.
SRG
Stay tuned. It isn’t over yet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
A lot of the canadian news industry is starting to be owned by giant investors and foreign companies, which is also pretty alarming… I don’t know what to say about the CBC itself, since it is only funded by government. As Canadian citizens, can we really trust what’s coming from the horse’s mouth?
Also, I saw a similar article on Palin. It was titled “Is Palin a liability for the Republicans?”. It was a front-page article (continued on page E9 or whatever), and had a nice picture attached. This is from a paper with a distribution of 100,000 copies, so.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The CBC unbiased ? They are the ultimate Liberal Party of Canada publicly financed (1 billion per year) propaganda machine. I would’nt believe yesterday’s weather report from them.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
this is why it’s good idea to dig into every story and find the other half, then post the hell out of it in every blog and social site on net, can’t shut ‘em all down, lolz
>> or same as youtube, repost it till they give up trying to kill it
we are winning , their stats are crashing
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
In reply to Mike:
“The CBC unbiased ?”
I probably was not clear in my statement. The US Media is now restricted to a range of centrist to right. The left is not represented at all in most of the MSM. Radio is the one exception as there are a few liberal talk radio shows. They are greatly outnumbered by right wing radio talk shows however. Since I view CBC as slightly left of center, they give me very useful balance to the overwhelmingly right of center US media. Since we are all in North America, the CBC is more immediately useful to me than the British, Aussie, and Kiwi media. I also care about what’s going on in Canada, believe it or not. Not all Americans are provincial twits. I certainly admit that too many are.
I have no idea how many Americans know who Harper is. If I went to the mall and asked people who the PM of Canada is, I don’t think I’d find one person that knew the answer. Change it from Canada to the UK and there might be a slight chance of getting someone to answer Gordon Brown. I expect that I’d get several Tony Blair answers. Our news media ignores the rest of the world most of the time. The last news story about Canada on US TV news was the bus murder. Major US newspapers do mention Canada regularly, particularly politics.
“They are the ultimate Liberal Party of Canada publicly financed (1 billion per year) propaganda machine.”
Since they are publicly financed, could it be that their position represents the majority of the Canadian public? Perhaps most Canadians are more liberal than you are. I have no problem with you being a conservative, please give liberals the same consideration. It takes people from both ends of the political spectrum to have a healthy government. This prevents excesses from either side.
At least you can avoid the CBC since you disagree with their political slant. I haven’t that option. There are no liberal media outlets in the US anymore, and the centrists keep moving to the right. The neocons are completely destroying the USA and the US media is complicit. Our two parties are really one big corporatist party. The US government is now a government of, for, and by the corporations. The bad news for Canada is that it looks like Harper is dragging Canada in the same direction. C-61 certainly looks like the laws we get down here written by corporate lobbyists. Welcome to fascism. We fought it in the 1940’s but it sneaked in while everyone was watching ‘Dancing with the Stars’.
Reply to anon:
I agree. The internet prevents the complete control of ‘news’ by the government and corporations. That’s why I get very nervous when I hear about throttling/censorship. Give the corporations enough time and they’ll figure out a way to control all the info on the intartubes. (New name in honor of hopefully soon to be ex US Senator Ted ‘like a series of tubes’ Stevens.)
I do believe that Anonymous has made it very difficult for the CoS to attract new members. Keep those down-stats coming. My understanding is that new membership enrollment has been steadily declining for the past 15 years. This is believed to be because of the critics that have used the internet to keep the truth out there and available.
I don’t have confirmation, but I have heard the new member enrollment is almost zero since Anonymous started their protests. Keep up the good work. They really hate down-stats.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Ratfaced:
Two points for you. Why would you not support having that ridiculous diatribe by Mallick taken down? It was nothing but junior high school level insults and nothing particularly useful in any sensible political discourse. Straight up personal attacks like hers certainly don’t belong in a national media forum and, frankly, I’m stumped why you’d defend something that utterly stupid and deep in the gutter. If someone had said that garbage about your mother and family would you stand by and let it go unanswered? I’ll assume not so why would you condone the same garbage being directed at someone else?
Second point: “The US Media is now restricted to a range of centrist to right” Um no. That may be your impression but it is absolutely dead wrong and the numbers back that up. Besides Rupert owning 1 cable news station of note (yes I know I know he owns many various other news outlets but none with more audience), I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion with any lucid thought. The NY Times and MSNBC have already admitted and apologized to being shills for Obama in their coverage.
Most importantly a simple check of the fec.gov website donor list by members of the MSM will show you that 99% of the talking heads, executives and major writers donate to the Democratic party just as one would expect. I sure hope that clears up some of those wrong ideas for you.