Amber

Xomicron wrote:
    > Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >
    > Yet CNN and Al-Jazeera isn't?
These days, it seems the idea of unbiased news has gone the way of the
dodo bird. All morning, CNN has been reporting on Sandy Berger taking
highly classified documents. All morning, CNN has been reporting that
Berger was observed putting documents in his socks. MSNBC and other
networks say he put documents in his clothing. Now, I don't know if the
guy did or didn't do this. Berger is a Kerry advisor now, it's perfect
timing for Republicans, having it all come out now.

Yet, it's a strange situation. Officials at the archive report seeing
him stow the docs on his person. Yet, not one network is asking why an
archive official would see Berger take such highly classified documents
and do nothing to stop him from taking them? Now, why would that be,
one wonders. More importantly, why is it that networks are carrying the
allegation Berger stuffed documents in his clothing and walked away but
they see no need to ask why an archive employee would see him do it and
do nothing to stop him.
No bias there at all, is there?
A

Amber

Xomicron wrote:

    > Canada's increasingly strange government, which continues to censor Fox
    > News Channel, has covertly approved the unleashing of the terrorists'
    > favorite propaganda machine.
Exactly what planet are you on? Fox is not censored here. The US
military DID expell Geraldo Rivera from Iraq though. His little map in
the sand got him kicked out, didn't it?
The only time I've seen news censored, it's usually when a crime has
been committed and someone is going to face a trial. Canada frowns upon
having people accused of a crime being tried by the media before they're
tried in court. We're funny that way. America took something like 37
weeks to try OJ, with a sequestered jury for the duration. The jury
decided he was innocent.
Canada's high profile criminal trial in the same year was the Bernardo
one. He went on trial mid-May and after 9 hours of deliberation, unlike
Simpson, he was found guilty on Sept.1st the same year. Jury selection
took a few days and during the trial, they were not sequestered.
The big gaffe in the Bernardo case was the plea bargain Homolka got.
Justice would go to hell in a handbasket if we got rid of plea bargains.
The courts would be so clogged it'd take ages to get to trial.
Bernardo's trial was another one that the American media felt free to
discuss before trial. The American media wasn't legally bound to
respect gag orders and they didn't. You'd hope for a little decency and
respect for the way we conduct murder trials here. We didn't get it and
the trial of Pickton will be no different.
You'd hope Bernardo's case made the point. Look how long it took and
how long the Simpson trial took. Yet the Bernardo trial is the one that
managed to get a guilty verdict. Just a minor detail, I suppose,
getting a conviction.
A
    >
    > Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, apparently
    > caught up in Ottawa's P.C. craze for "diversity," also OK'd eight "other
    > so-called ethnic distribution requests": five in Spanish, one German, one
    > Romanian and another Arabic-language station.
    >
    > But Canada's FNC fans who want a popular network that would actually draw
    > an audience are out of luck. Like America's pseudo-intelligentsia, the
    > Canadian elites have no tolerance for diversity of ideas that might be
    > moderate, conservative, libertarian or patriotic.

Joe

"America the beautiful"
<The_French_suck_Muslim_cock@the_Eiffel_tower.free dom_Fries> wrote in
message news:[email protected] et...
    > Joe wrote:
    > >>So who gets to decide what is biased? Why would you censor any news
    > >
    > > source?
    > >
    > >>Sounds like the kook Canadian government is afraid of the truth.
    > >
    > >
    > > Fox News has never been banned in Canada. There's some truth.
    > But you do sensor it. That doesn't sound like much truth to me.

Actually we don't censor it as it is unavailable here. |Fox News may,
however, be approved for distribution by this fall.

    > --
    > Chris F
    > Long Island, USA.
    > Fisherman by nature, goofball by society.
    > "Reagan was a statesman who, despite all disagreements that existed
    > between our countries at the time, displayed foresight and determination
    > to meet our proposals halfway and change our relations for the better,
    > stop the nuclear race, start scrapping nuclear weapons, and arrange
    > normal relations between our countries," - Mikhail Gorbachev
    > "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." - Ronald Reagan

127 . 0 . 0 . 1

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:16:01 GMT, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"America the beautiful"
    ><The_French_suck_Muslim_cock@the_Eiffel_tower.fre edom_Fries> wrote in
    >message news:[email protected] et...
    >> Joe wrote:
    >> >>So who gets to decide what is biased? Why would you censor any news
    >> >
    >> > source?
    >> >
    >> >>Sounds like the kook Canadian government is afraid of the truth.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Fox News has never been banned in Canada. There's some truth.
    >> But you do sensor it. That doesn't sound like much truth to me.
    >Actually we don't censor it as it is unavailable here. |Fox News may,
    >however, be approved for distribution by this fall.
er, isn't that censorship?

Lorne H. Greene

127.0.0.1 wrote:

    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:16:01 GMT, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"America the beautiful"
    >><The_French_suck_Muslim_cock@the_Eiffel_tower.fr eedom_Fries> wrote in
    >>message news:[email protected] et...
    >>>Joe wrote:
    >>>>>So who gets to decide what is biased? Why would you censor any news
    >>>>source?
    >>>>>Sounds like the kook Canadian government is afraid of the truth.
    >>>>Fox News has never been banned in Canada. There's some truth.
    >>>But you do sensor it. That doesn't sound like much truth to me.
    >>Actually we don't censor it as it is unavailable here. |Fox News may,
    >>however, be approved for distribution by this fall.
    >
    > er, isn't that censorship?


Everybody knows that a Liberal Cabal censors the media in The USA and in
Canada. If they had their way, they would ban Fox News too. We need
Fox news to correct the huge imbalance and Liberal bias found everywhere
in North America. The Cabal wants to stop progressive God Loving
Conservatism from rightfully being accepted by all people and is trying
to instill Godless Global Socialism on us all. We're being brainwashed
by the leftist elite!

Jerry Okamura

"Amber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > Exactly what planet are you on? Fox is not censored here. The US
    > military DID expell Geraldo Rivera from Iraq though. His little map in
    > the sand got him kicked out, didn't it?
    > The only time I've seen news censored, it's usually when a crime has
    > been committed and someone is going to face a trial. Canada frowns upon
    > having people accused of a crime being tried by the media before they're
    > tried in court. We're funny that way. America took something like 37
    > weeks to try OJ, with a sequestered jury for the duration. The jury
    > decided he was innocent.
    > Canada's high profile criminal trial in the same year was the Bernardo
    > one. He went on trial mid-May and after 9 hours of deliberation, unlike
    > Simpson, he was found guilty on Sept.1st the same year. Jury selection
    > took a few days and during the trial, they were not sequestered.
    > The big gaffe in the Bernardo case was the plea bargain Homolka got.
    > Justice would go to hell in a handbasket if we got rid of plea bargains.
    > The courts would be so clogged it'd take ages to get to trial.
    > Bernardo's trial was another one that the American media felt free to
    > discuss before trial. The American media wasn't legally bound to
    > respect gag orders and they didn't. You'd hope for a little decency and
    > respect for the way we conduct murder trials here. We didn't get it and
    > the trial of Pickton will be no different.
    > You'd hope Bernardo's case made the point. Look how long it took and
    > how long the Simpson trial took. Yet the Bernardo trial is the one that
    > managed to get a guilty verdict. Just a minor detail, I suppose,
    > getting a conviction.
    > A
    > >
    > > Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, apparently
    > > caught up in Ottawa's P.C. craze for "diversity," also OK'd eight "other
    > > so-called ethnic distribution requests": five in Spanish, one German,
one
    > > Romanian and another Arabic-language station.
    > >
    > > But Canada's FNC fans who want a popular network that would actually
draw
    > > an audience are out of luck. Like America's pseudo-intelligentsia, the
    > > Canadian elites have no tolerance for diversity of ideas that might be
    > > moderate, conservative, libertarian or patriotic.

What in the world has your reponse got to the with the subject matter? Are
you saying that Fox is allowed to broadcast anywhere in Canada, or are you
saying that some but not all people in Canada can receive the Fox Channel,
if it is available in their area?

And why the objection to another news channel. Why not give the people of
Canada a "choice"...remember those words? If the people of Canada after
having the choice, choose not the watch the channel, then you better believe
that Fox will no longer be in Canada...let the marketplace decide the fate
of Fox in Canada.

Dave Smith

"Lorne H. Greene" wrote:

    > Everybody knows that a Liberal Cabal censors the media in The USA and in
    > Canada.

Everyone knows that? COunt me among those who was unaware of that factoid.
Perhaps you confuse liberalism with knowledge and objective thinking.

    > If they had their way, they would ban Fox News too. We need
    > Fox news to correct the huge imbalance and Liberal bias found everywhere
    > in North America.

Perhaps we need FOX as a balance to accurate information.

    > The Cabal wants to stop progressive God Loving
    > Conservatism

Well, there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.


    > from rightfully being accepted by all people and is trying
    > to instill Godless Global Socialism on us all. We're being brainwashed
    > by the leftist elite!

And I always thought those people had already been brainwashed.

Terry Clark

Who will protect us from Fox?
Censoring Al-Jazeera a double standard
U.S. cable news station abusive, openly biased

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS (Toronto Star)

http://tinyurl.com/6okzs

Now that its critics have ensured that Al-Jazeera will never get on Canada's
digital dial uncensored, will they now fight to protect us from Fox News?

Recall that, last week, the federal broadcast regulator gave a half-assed
go-ahead to the Arabic-language news channel, requiring that distributors
who add it to their offerings keep it free of "abusive comment."

That decision, complete with onerous guilty-until-proven-innocent
restrictions, was reached after lobbying by both the Canadian Jewish
Congress and B'nai Brith Canada who, naturally, were concerned about
anti-Jewish hate speech.

Many people applauded how cable operators must tape and monitor Al Jazeera
24/7 to head off possible offensive material. So, now that the cable
industry has yet another application to import Fox News before the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), will anyone call
for Fox to be similarly muzzled to stop potentially "abusive comment" on the
U.S. channel?

To be clear: I am all for having both Fox News and Al-Jazeera on Canada's TV
screens - uncut and uncensored. They offer world views that are foreign in
all senses of the word. News viewers deserve unlimited options to see events
from as many perspectives as possible.

But, not only does Fox, the U.S.'s top-rated and, arguably, most influential
cable news channel, regularly abuse the truth, it also abuses politicians,
pundits, peacemakers and public figures with whom its political slant does
not concur.

For instance, check out how Fox's biggest mouth, Bill O'Reilly, chews out
Jeremy Glick, whose father, a Port Authority worker, died in the World Trade
Center on 9/11 - all because Glick signed an anti-war advertisement early
last year.

On his show, O'Reilly shouted down Glick, called his view of the world
"warped," repeatedly told him to "Shut up!" and finally cut his mike. Glick
later said that, off-camera, O'Reilly ordered him to "Get out of my studio
before I tear you to ************** pieces!" The sequence, and transcripts of it,
are all over the Internet. It also appears in Outfoxed, a hot, new political
documentary in a year exploding with hot political documentaries.

Sponsored by the liberal activist organization MoveOn.org and the liberal
think tank Center for American Progress, the film, available on DVD, is a
blistering, and yes, biased attack on Fox.

To catalogue all of Fox's assaults on the truth would fill this paper and
more. (You can find well-documented evidence of how it twists events on the
MoveOn and CAP Web sites, as well as on MediaMatters.org and Fair.org.

From its role in getting George W. Bush into the Oval Office, to sending
Americans to die in Iraq, to working against the election of the
Kerry-Edwards ticket, Fox is the White House's trained attack dog.

Yesterday, referring to its biases and distortions, MoveOn.org filed a
(conveniently well-timed) petition with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
complaining that Fox is guilty of false advertising.

"Fox News has violated section 5 by using the slogan and mark 'Fair and
Balanced' to advertise and promote the Fox News Channel (FNC) to consumers,
and to induce consumers to watch FNC, despite the fact that FNC's news and
commentary programming is not remotely 'fair' or 'balanced' but, rather, is
deliberately and consistently distorted and twisted to promote the
Republican Party of the U.S. and an extreme right-wing viewpoint," says the
complaint.

Meanwhile, the British government recently chastised Fox for violating
regulations preventing the media from making "false statements by
undermining facts." Anchor John Gibson was cited for deliberately lying
about the BBC, accusing it of anti-Americanism and, ironically, fudging news
about the war on Iraq.

So what will happen in Canada? This month, and not for the first time in
recent years, O'Reilly abused Canadians, calling our teens "flat out
ignorant" because, in a survey published in the National Post during the
federal election campaign, 40 per cent of our youth (64 per cent in Quebec)
said they think the U.S. is "evil."

Never mind - because O'Reilly sure didn't mention it - that probably twice
that many Canadian kids are in love with American culture and consumer
goods. Forget that our kids may well know more about the U.S. than American
kids know about Canada or perhaps the world. O'Reilly denigrated Canadians
on his show, subjecting our kids to "abusive comment."

Yesterday in the Post, Ed Morgan, national president of the Canadian Jewish
Congress, published an op-ed praising the Canadian limitations on
Al-Jazeera. Referring to how it airs "vile" material, Morgan noted the
channel had, along with hosting American and Israeli leaders, interviewed Ku
Klux Klan chief David Duke in 2002.

The Post made a big deal of that, by highlighting the bit in boldface and
larger type. But Fox News had Duke on as well, also in 2002, discussing -
and this is from Duke's Web site where you can buy a video of the interview
for $25 (U.S.) - "the Israeli involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks."

So just what is the difference between Fox and Al-Jazeera?

Go see Control Room, Jehane Noujaim's revealing documentary about
Al-Jazeera, and you'll hear U.S. Marine Lt. Josh Rushing, former Central
Command spokesperson, say the Arabic channel is no less slanted than Fox,
which "plays to American patriotism" instead of Arab nationalism.

Which is why you have to wonder if the Canadian critics of Al-Jazeera plan
to write about how we should be protected from Fox's abusive and biased
content.

The deadline for comments to the CRTC on the Fox application is Aug. 23.
Find more information by clicking here.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/

Dave Smith

Jerry Okamura wrote:

    > What in the world has your reponse got to the with the subject matter? Are
    > you saying that Fox is allowed to broadcast anywhere in Canada, or are you
    > saying that some but not all people in Canada can receive the Fox Channel,
    > if it is available in their area?

FOX's application for a licence to broadcast on satellite and cable was
rejected.


    > And why the objection to another news channel. Why not give the people of
    > Canada a "choice"...remember those words? If the people of Canada after
    > having the choice, choose not the watch the channel, then you better believe
    > that Fox will no longer be in Canada...let the marketplace decide the fate
    > of Fox in Canada.

For one thing, it is American news, and we already have several American
broadcasters on our systems,. though in the case of FOX, it is hard to argue
that it is news. Broadcasting is a regulated business here, just as it is in the
US. Like it or not, that is the market place. And please don't lecture us about
giving people what they want. Just look at what your own regulators are doing in
the case of Howard Stern. They have used their political clout to try force his
show off the air because they don't like his content, especially since he
started criticizing the Bush administration. They have been levying huge fines
against him and the companies who broadcast his show, all done in an arbitrary
manner. I think perhaps you should clean up your mess at home before trying
pollute our airwaves with the likes of FOX "news".

Joe

    > >Actually we don't censor it as it is unavailable here. |Fox News may,
    > >however, be approved for distribution by this fall.
    > er, isn't that censorship?

No more than the US not allowing access to every satellite channel in the
world. We don't censor their content because there content is not
available. It may be available this fall.

Terry Clark

Dave Smith wrote:
    > Jerry Okamura wrote:
    >> What in the world has your reponse got to the with the subject
    >> matter? Are you saying that Fox is allowed to broadcast anywhere in
    >> Canada, or are you saying that some but not all people in Canada can
    >> receive the Fox Channel, if it is available in their area?
    > FOX's application for a licence to broadcast on satellite and cable
    > was rejected.


Not so. This is part of the current application and it clearly states that
it received permission.

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/thre...at=&Number=805

"In Fox News Canada, Decision CRTC 2000-565, 14 December 2000, the
Commission approved an application by Global Television Network (OBCI)
(Global) for a new Canadian Category 2 specialty programming service to be
known as Fox News Canada. In Deadline to commence operation of Category 2
specialty and pay television services, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-599,
16 December 2003, the Commission approved a request by Global for a one year
final extension until 24 November 2004 to the implementation date for Fox
News Canada."

Parallax

Amber <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
    > Xomicron wrote:
    >
    > > Canada's increasingly strange government, which continues to censor Fox
    > > News Channel, has covertly approved the unleashing of the terrorists'
    > > favorite propaganda machine.
    > Exactly what planet are you on? Fox is not censored here. The US
    > military DID expell Geraldo Rivera from Iraq though. His little map in
    > the sand got him kicked out, didn't it?
    > The only time I've seen news censored, it's usually when a crime has
    > been committed and someone is going to face a trial. Canada frowns upon
    > having people accused of a crime being tried by the media before they're
    > tried in court. We're funny that way. America took something like 37
    > weeks to try OJ, with a sequestered jury for the duration. The jury
    > decided he was innocent.
    > Canada's high profile criminal trial in the same year was the Bernardo
    > one. He went on trial mid-May and after 9 hours of deliberation, unlike
    > Simpson, he was found guilty on Sept.1st the same year. Jury selection
    > took a few days and during the trial, they were not sequestered.
    > The big gaffe in the Bernardo case was the plea bargain Homolka got.
    > Justice would go to hell in a handbasket if we got rid of plea bargains.
    > The courts would be so clogged it'd take ages to get to trial.
    > Bernardo's trial was another one that the American media felt free to
    > discuss before trial. The American media wasn't legally bound to
    > respect gag orders and they didn't. You'd hope for a little decency and
    > respect for the way we conduct murder trials here. We didn't get it and
    > the trial of Pickton will be no different.
    > You'd hope Bernardo's case made the point. Look how long it took and
    > how long the Simpson trial took. Yet the Bernardo trial is the one that
    > managed to get a guilty verdict. Just a minor detail, I suppose,
    > getting a conviction.
    > A
    > >
    > > Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, apparently
    > > caught up in Ottawa's P.C. craze for "diversity," also OK'd eight "other
    > > so-called ethnic distribution requests": five in Spanish, one German, one
    > > Romanian and another Arabic-language station.
    > >
    > > But Canada's FNC fans who want a popular network that would actually draw
    > > an audience are out of luck. Like America's pseudo-intelligentsia, the
    > > Canadian elites have no tolerance for diversity of ideas that might be
    > > moderate, conservative, libertarian or patriotic.


Most Americans think All Jizz is pretty funny. A pro islamic "news"
source,...........ooooooooooooooook, sounds like Christian
Broadcasting network as a news source.

George Prager

    > Then there is the issue of the validity of their claim to being a news
    > station. Of all the news stations that I have seen, Fox's coverage and
    > editorial is so blatantly biased that it is more of a slanted political
    > platform than a news station.
unlike the CBC which of course is perfectly neutral and runs a pristine,
bias free operation! Give me a break: CBC is biased to the left, FOX is
biased to the right - they provide the window, you choose your reality.
There is no reason for the CRTC to disallow FOX and yet permit CNN on basic
cable

Shel Scott

Dave Smith <[email protected]> fantasized:
<snip>
    >the case of Howard Stern. They have used their political clout to try force his
    >show off the air because they don't like his content, especially since he
    >started criticizing the Bush administration.
<sigh> The above is a falsehood. Regulators in the U. S. have been
after Stern for a long time. His political comments have NOTHING to
do with that. Besides, as I recall, Stern was taken off the air after
only a few days in Canada due to his anti-Quebec comments. Politics?
No: taste; morals; decency.

    >They have been levying huge fines
    >against him and the companies who broadcast his show, all done in an arbitrary
    >manner.
<snip>
The above is a falsehood. There is NOTHING "arbitrary" at all
involving the authorities targetting Stern. This goes back a long
time. Besides, they can't order a person off the air; authorities
have to prove long-term, blatant violation of standards, then hold
accountable the broadcaster carrying the program.

Criticizing of politicians, in and of itself, is NOT a violation of
ANY of those standards. A Quebec station (not a personality, but a
station) whose programming has been flouting the CRTC for years was
recently revoked of its licence.
Politics? No: taste; morals; decency.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)

Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu

In article <[email protected]>,
Xomicron <[email protected]> writes:
    > Canada's increasingly strange government, which continues to censor Fox
    > News Channel, has covertly approved the unleashing of the terrorists'
    > favorite propaganda machine.
    >
    > Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, apparently
    > caught up in Ottawa's P.C. craze for "diversity," also OK'd eight "other
    > so-called ethnic distribution requests": five in Spanish, one German, one
    > Romanian and another Arabic-language station.
    >
    > But Canada's FNC fans who want a popular network that would actually draw
    > an audience are out of luck. Like America's pseudo-intelligentsia, the
    > Canadian elites have no tolerance for diversity of ideas that might be
    > moderate, conservative, libertarian or patriotic.

I tend to agree that if we allow Al Jazeera, which is mouthpiece of the
Sultan of Oman (apparently an extremely competent thinker), then there
is no good reason to stop Rupert from blowin' his horn, too.

Personally I think that Al Jazeera needs to provide simultaneous translation
to English or French to broadcast here and screw the censorship, so long
as we get to see what's being said too.

Dhu


--

***********************************************

All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.

Save the Bagle!

I keep getting anonymous mail from my "Fans".

Don't be anonymous.

To send me a private message, goto:

https://www.neotext.ca/cgi-bin/pub.g..._ADDR=campbell


***********************************************