Pro-life rallies attracting hundreds or thousands of people don’t attract the interest of the esteemed CBC, who are uniquely qualified to know what real news is.  Real news is apparently those things that are advocating of rabidly left-wing things. 

So no, they don’t even bother to cover some things for you in their state-owned, state-funded “news” service.  But accumulate “about two dozen” idiots to bash Harper in a deranged, unhinged display of idiocy, and the CBC dutifully writes it up like it’s pure news gold.  News that all Canadians should know about.  For the unity, no doubt.  To bring Canadians together and advance our national discourse, perhaps.  To provide a real service to Canadians —a service which is otherwise lacking from 800 far better citizen-owned services against which they compete with your tax dollars…

The big news star is former state-owned CBC “artist” employee, Mary Walsh (see left in what could be a pose at one of those fancy arts galas).  She was hired by the state-owned media to make official state funny for us erstwhile poor, dark, sad, Canadians  —a people who of course wouldn’t—couldn’t—possibly have the same opportunity that the more fortunate Americans have —to laugh without the benevolent state’s help through the state media, what with its state-employed clowns. 

Walsh held a weird little party last night for her massive number of fans (apparently they number in the magnitude of “about two dozen”). 

The state-owned media dutifully reports it today as if it’s a “news” story —yes this is reported as a “news” story on the CBC web site.  It’s “election news!”. 

Take your sweater-vest and get lost, Warrior Princess tells Harper

St. John’s actor Mary Walsh revived a formerly retired character on a damp, foggy beach Monday night to make a fiery political point about Stephen Harper.

Walsh dressed as Princess Warrior Marg Delahunty at Middle Cove Beach, just north of St. John’s, to denounce the Conservative leader’s policies before the Oct. 14 federal election.

Participants at the event Walsh sponsored were invited to toss sweater-vests — like a blue one Harper wears in much-discussed TV ads aimed at softening his image — into a bonfire.

“I thought, ‘Well, there’s not very much I can do, I suppose, but I could go down and burn a few sweater-vests,’ ” Walsh told about two dozen participants.

About half a dozen knitted sweater-vests were dropped into the fire. Walsh, though, earned the biggest crowd response when she tossed a large picture of Harper into the fire, even though it took a while to burn.

Walsh created Delahunty as a blunt, straight-talking woman with a St. John’s accent and a medieval-fantasy costume, who barged into politicians’ events, invitations be damned.

However, she has not been seen in Warrior Princess garb since she left the CBC series This Hour Has 22 Minutes in 2004.

[...]

Calls Harper ‘iceberg of a prime minister’ 

Appearing in character, Walsh described Harper as “an iceberg of a prime minister” surrounded by underlings too terrified to speak.

“How stunned does the prime minister think we are?” Walsh yelled out, as a bonfire crackled. …

She quit the massively needed state-provided state-funded clown show This Hour has 22 Minutes in 2004, so she’s not currently employed by the state, but I bet she gets all manner of state funding for all manner of “performance art” from one government ministry or another, for “art” not very much unlike this travesty of far-left lunatic “comedy” “art”. 

State-owned and state-run media should be banned in this country, and that notion enshrined in our constitution. 

(And do go ahead with all those supposed “cuts” to “the arts”, pronto.)

(Hat tip to conservativegal)

.

.

UPDATE:  “MASSIVE” (!) DION and CBC “GAFFE” (!)  CAUGHT ON TAPE.
See below as CBC provides cover for Dion’s, um, “misrepresentation” of his own “facts”

Bare-Ass Bob Rae (seen at left on CBC after he took all his clothes off for the nation he hoped to lead, presumably with pants on) has held one of the most ridiculous, most picayune “news” conferences in election history, in which he pretends to “prove”—using side-by-side TV sets—that Stephen Harper “plagiarized” a speech five years ago—using the same words used by Prime Minister Howard of Australia during the start of the Iraq war.  You know, the way approximately 8,000 people who were all on the same page were doing. 

John Howard: “Saddam Hussein is a threat…”
Stephen Harper: “Saddam Hussein is a threat…”

John Howard: “…failed to comply with U.N.”
Stephen Harper: “…failed to comply with U.N.”

Voila!  It’s like they agree! 

But undaunted by the hideousness of Bare-Ass Bob Rea and Team Liberal’s latest folly, the obedient CBC and their “news” reporter Julie Van Dusen are having emotional orgasms over it.  Reporting it seriously.  With no smirks.  Like it’s not the joke that it actually is.  It’s literally their main election story today.

They aren’t even embarrassed. 

Here’s your “proof”: Watching the CBC makes you stupider by the minute. 

As does voting for Liberals. 

• Dion was caught lifting exact words and platforms from his left brain, David Suzuki.  I won’t even cite the proof.

• Team Liberal stole the words “Green Shift” from a private citizen without asking, and had to be threatened with lawsuits and agree to settle.  I won’t even cite the evidence. 

Stephane Dion misrepresented his own insane accusation with regard to “plagiarism”. (Is this “fraud”?!  Who cares!) 

In a news

scrum just now, lasting about 3 hours and covered live by CBC, Dion accused Harper of “plagiarizing” not Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, as the original story line went this morning, but “evolved” it — “progressive-ed” it — to become a plagiarism of none other than George W. Bush.  Dion did this not just once.  He did this four times.  (No media called him on it, no, not once). 

He started out by saying that Harper was plagiarizing not Howard but George Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing”, then went ahead and just

invented a new story —one more to his liking because he loves invoking “Bush” into his talking points as much as possible. 

He said these exact words (at some points looking directly at the camera instead of the reporter/questioner—almost as if this was planned ahead of time):

Then the CBC anchor Nancy (“very interesting!”) Wilson, in providing the helpful Cliff Notes (rewrite?) afterward, misrepresented (corrected? Covered for Dion?) what Dion actually said.  She said: 

COMING UP, time permitting:

If I find time, I’ll count the number of times Dion said the name Bush.  It’s at least a dozen.  Each time sounding like it’s with an irrational and absolute contempt for the U.S. President.  No, I’d say hate, actually. 

Hey I wonder why the state-run CBC is covering this “news”! 

Just a few minutes ago, over the CBC Newsworld banner “SARAH’S MELTDOWN” (please advise as to what they meant by that, thanks!), the state-owned CBC “reported” on a sketch presented two days ago by the fair and balanced set at NBC’s Saturday Night Live. 

I think this is for Canadian national unity purposes. 

It was helpfully set up by the CBC Newsworld’s Nancy (“very interesting!”) Wilson:

Then afterward, CBC’s Wilson helpfully added this little factoid that she or her crack squad of intrepid research journalists dug up:

I’m so sure. 

And then it was on to other news, like playing the statement by Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi as she bashed the Bush Administration, and laid full blame on the Administration for causing the current financial crisis, in one of the most egregious lies I’ve heard since Bill Clinton—or perhaps ever in my life. 

And the geniuses at the CBC did not comment on that lie. 

Now THAT’s funny. 

EXTRA EXTRA!

Also see:
SNL Parodies Rezko and Other Obama Scandals [on Sept 27] —Ignored by Media [like CBC, on Sept 29]

.

Today the liberals’ media division finally (finally!) brought up the liberal-left’s favorite topic:  abortion.  It has been at least 47 minutes since the last time they brought that up. 

The media love abortion!  So they ask Prime Minister Harper Harper and every Conservative about abortion every time they think the timing’s JUST right. 

Last election, when the media smelled a possible Conservative victory, the CBC was all over the abortion.  I still have a cardboard box full of VCR tapes from the last election—at least ten tapes—which I specifically kept just because each one has several examples in which the state-owned CBC’s reporter Julie Van Dusen brought up abortion.  I had to switch to various digital disk recordings since the last election because abortion is brought up so many times, at the CBC especially, I no longer have room in my house to store all the taped evidence of what I as a sober media observer see as the media’s anti-conservative and pro-abortion agenda. 

But as we know, the last election and all the time between the last election and this one, Canada has been doing nothing but talking about the abortion.  And these days, what with the terrorism wars and financial turmoil, abortion is foremost on everybody’s mind.  The kids can’t stop talking about abortion.  It’s all the rage around the water cooler.  So your media is on top of it! 

And today the media did it in such as way as to fake you out.  It was a little live lie festival, and all the media play it—or allow it to be played by others (perhaps they agree beforehand who will advance the issue daily).  They pretended today that, by golly, after all these years, they still weren’t clear on Harper’s stand on abortion. 

They’re aren’t clear in much the same way that I’m not clear on the media’s agenda. 

Of course Harper’s been asked about it by them approximately 108,000 times now.  But they think by asking him on live TV again, Canadians (who they think all love the abortion) will freak out and vote for one of the other more “traditional” abortion parties like the Liberal Abortion party, or the “New” Democratic Abortion party, because abortion is the single most important issue at this time in our history. 

Then they asked about abortion again, two minutes later, because apparently the previous answer from Harper was so clear and unhelpful to their cause and they didn’t get the sound bite they wanted (oh please sound pro-life this time so we can nail your ass to the wall, you neo-con!). 

Then the CBC’s Julie Van Dusen brought it up again this morning in her “reporting” of what went on so far today in their reporting.  (They think their reporting is the real story here.  And actually, it is, but only ironically.  It’s not the real story in the same way they think it is). 

She didn’t have anything to report about it, except that it was brought up.  She brought it up to explain that it was brought up. 

This was all before 7:30 AM. 

But don’t worry, there is no media or left-wing pro-abortion party collusion here.  Trust them.  They’re the media.  They’re “progressive”. Vote liberal.  For the abortions. 

TRUTH:
As we all know, all the major parties including the Conservative Party are in favor of the current situation, in which there is no abortion law in Canada.  No, there are no limits whatsoever.  Not against totally limitless abortions at any time including even at nine months—it simply doesn’t matter in Canada under the liberal-left “progressive” philosophy.  Not even against abortions taking place mere moments before natural birth at nine months.  Any pregnancy, for any reason or no reason at all whatsoever, at any age, all abortion are A-OK, and paid for by taxpayers.  No party favors creating any law whatsoever concerning abortion. 

As we know, because we’re told by liberals and the left and the media, abortion is (and I quote) a “Canadian Value”.  And we are to celebrate it as a nation and honor those who love the abortion and operate abortion mills. 

Meanwhile, abortion is actually the most disgusting thing ever thought of by humans. 

Thanks to George and Bruce and other emailers for this CBC “Ombudsman” response to the numerous complaints lodged against the CBC and its hateful columnist Heather Mallick. 

As usual, the CBC and more than just a few folks on our side miss the point.  The point is that Mallick was writing for a state-owned media.  There shouldn’t be a state-owned media, much less one which competes against citizens in the forum of ideas—particularly politics.  And particularly when they are far-left in the extreme, and totally biased as such. 

Here’s an excerpt (as any government bureaucratic Soviet-style document, it goes on and on at tiresome length):

…For the Ombudsman, the main issue has to be whether the item met CBC’s standards and whether the service that carried it is meeting its obligations.

Policy calls for opinions to be based on fact. Ms. Mallick’s item generally stays in the opinion column but she does offer some flat statements that appear to offer “facts” without any backup. For instance, there is no factual basis for a broad scale conclusion about the sexual adequacy of Republican men. In fact, that type of comment, applied to any other group, would easily be seen as, at best, puerile. Similarly, the characterization of Palin supporters as white trash lacks a factual basis. I asked Ms. Mallick to explain the basis for these characterizations. In a note she explained her opinions of Ms. Palin, but did not provide a factual justification for the statements.

Ms. Mallick is free to draw her own conclusions about Ms. Palin’s appearance, as irrelevant as that might be to her worth as a public official, but a similar sortie against one of her children is, at best, in poor taste. Had Ms. Mallick’s article been labeled “satire,” there might have been scope for such descriptions and conclusions—they have a certain cartoonish tinge—but even the best and most pointed editorial cartoonists have, at some point, run afoul of sensible editorial authority. There is a significant difference between censorship and appropriate editorial oversight. CBC journalists are required to exercise appropriate oversight over material that appears on CBC outlets. Ms. Mallick is entitled to her opinions, and those opinions should not be censored, but those opinions must also be expressed in a manner that meets our Journalistic Standards and Practices. Liberty is not the same as license.

Ms. Mallick has the liberty to hold whatever views she wishes. And the CBC has both the right, and the obligation, to exercise appropriate editorial supervision. Interestingly, had Ms. Mallick’s column been written in the spirit of her note to me, it would still have been pointed and provocative but, with a broader context, would probably not have failed to meet editorial standards.

But there is another significant aspect to our policy. As mentioned, it calls on CBC outlets to touch on the widest range of views possible. On CBCNews.ca, there does not appear to be a wide range of “pointy” views. For instance, many of those who complained claimed that there is no one of an opposite ideological viewpoint readily apparent on the service. Unfortunately, this appears to be true. As I observed in an earlier review concerning CBC Newsworld programming, the CBC should not necessarily avoid having people of strong views on the air, but we must ensure that people of differing views are given a fair opportunity.

It has been argued by some who have supported Ms. Mallick that the comments that have been carried in the Comments section provide balance on the subject. I disagree. The prominent space and highlighting of columnists implies a different status compared to users who comment on the various stories. Appropriate space should be given to a wider range of views.

It is a truism in legal circles that bad cases make bad law. It would be easy to surrender to an impulse to suppress opinions that cause upset, or to issue a blanket defense of freedom of opinion. However, our policies call for me to be clear and precise about policy matters.

CONCLUSION:

Portions of Ms. Mallick’s column do not meet the standards set out in policy for a point-of-view piece since some of her “facts” are unsupportable. She may, of course, resubmit her column taking account of our editorial standards. The editors are free to, in fact obliged to, exercise appropriate editing standards.

It is not my job to agree or disagree with Ms. Mallick’s opinions or the tone in which they are expressed. She is free to craft them as she chooses.

CBCNews.ca should address its editing standards to ensure that vigorous opinion thrives while ensuring that journalistic and quality standards are met.

Opinion and analysis should be clearly labeled and not lumped together. If an item is meant to be satiric, it should be labeled as such.

CBCNews.ca should have appropriate resources to ensure that a wide range of opinion and analysis is available.

Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman

State-owned and state-run media should be BANNED in this country, and that notion enshrined in our constitution.

.

Know The Enemy

• THICK SKULL CHECK: HEATHER MALLICK WRITES **POLITICAL OPINIONS** FOR THE STATE-OWNED MEDIA (CBC)

•  Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren about to hit on CBC-Heather Mallick story

• “Heather Mallick, CBC columnist, paid by you, exhibits her weekly hatred of conservatives”
—J-log

• “Why I’ll defend writers who represent everything I hate”
—David Warren column

Related “NEWS” reporting from CBC “NEWS”:
• “CBC’s “reporter” Neil Macdonald on Sarah Palin: Best at “talking about hunting moose”
—J-Log

• Also this, by National Post editor Jonathon Kay: “Another week, another disgrace at the CBC”; and his followup—a reader complaint to the CBC:  “Wouldn’t it be great if the CBC were as professionally run and politically impartial as NBC?”.  (And please forgive the slightly misguided Mr. Kay for thinking NBC is “impartial” rather than “in the tank” for liberals and particularly Obama—even after their recent firings of Olbermann and Matthews from their anchor desks—read comments here.)

• And this by a blogger at Michelle Malkin’s HotAir.com:  “Hatred in Canada alive and well”.

• More J-Log:  I’ve exposed her repeatedly for her anti-conservative hate-fests before, numerous times.   Yes here’s but just one more.

What induces revulsion in you?  Terrorism?  Liars?  People who are deceptive and anti-American or who think they are superior to others?  Abortion? 

Well then you may not work for the CBC. 

Golly Canadian viewers, we didn’t mean it that way—it’s just that you TOOK it the wrong way!  Sorry you took it the wrong way!

…Because there are just no other words to describe the notion that some Republicans in the U.S. Congress are rightly fighting back against the financial rescue plan.  “REPUBLICANS REBEL?”   No.  Crazy.   “BUSH WANTS CONSENSUS”.  Nah.  These things don’t promote the idea of revulsion against Republicans and the Republican President of the United States. 

Apparently CBC Newsworld can’t attract enough advertisers and the one for “GreyPower.com” insurance has to be repeated 8,000 times per day on Canada’s state-owned media.  And of course it’s one of the most excruciatingly shrill, annoying ads ever created, which only makes CBC Newsworld even more redundant. 

Maybe the CBC is officially going for the “already insane” demographic. 

 
“Come on already!!!!!!!!!!  Let’s go!!!!!!!!!!!!” 
“You don’t drive like her, and you shouldn’t pay the same insurance premiums as her!”

Why would companies advertise on a far-left socialism-reliant web site anyway?  Don’t they believe in capitalism?  I would think they if they believed in capitalism they wouldn’t support that outfit. 

They are literally helping an outfit that works against me and everything I stand for.  Why would I support them in any way, shape, or form? 

So they’re driving me crazy on at least two levels.  I will never buy anything from “Greypower.com”. 

They should really support capitalism-advocating media.  Maybe they’re yella.

“ING Direct” is getting close too.  “Save your money” is their repeated line, ironically, considering they’re advertising on the BILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR taxpayer-funded left-wing CBC.  I’d love to “save my money”.  If the government would let me keep my money, I promise I’d save it in my ING account. 

Golly I couldn’t find this information anywhere at the state-owned CBC —not even in all their hysterical coverage of what they’re tendentiously dubbing “Bush’s Bailout”, in their usual misinformation campaign and campaign against the, why it’s the Bush neo-con industrial complex if I understand correctly.

Name – Office – Party/State – Total
[“D” stands for Democrat]

1. Dodd, Christopher – S – D-CT – $133,900

2. Kerry, John – S - D-MA – $111,000

3. Obama, Barack – S – D-IL – $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary – S – D-NY – $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul H – D-PA – $65,500

6. Bennett, Robert – S – R-UT – $61,499

7. Johnson, Tim – S – D-SD – $61,000

8. Conrad, Kent – S – D-ND – $58,991

9. Davis, Tom – H – R-VA – $55,499

10. Bond, Christopher – S – R-MO – $55,400

11. Bachus, Spencer – H – R-AL – $55,300

12. Shelby, Richard – S – R-AL – $55,000

13. Emanuel, Rahm – H – D-IL – $51,750

14. Reed, Jack – S – D-RI – $50,750

15. Carper, Tom – S – D-DE – $44,389

16. Frank, Barney – H – D-MA – $40,100

17. Maloney, Carolyn – H – D-NY – $38,750

18. Bean, Melissa – H – D-IL – $37,249

19. Blunt, Roy – H – R-MO – $36,500

20. Pryce, Deborah – H – R-OH – $34,750

21. Miller, Gary – H – R-CA – $33,000

22. Pelosi, Nancy – H – D-CA – $32,750

23. Reynolds, Tom – H – R-NY – $32,700

24. Hoyer, Steny H – H – D-MD – $30,500

25. Hooley, Darlene – H – D-OR – $28,750

Includes contributions from PACs and individuals.
2008 cycle totals based on data downloaded from the Federal Election Commission on June 30, 2008.

Also note that former Fannie Mae CEO James Johnson was engaged by Barack Obama to vet his potential vice-presidential prospects. 

.