CBC passes off left-wing partisans as normal; engages in gratuitous Bush-bash-fest, part 3,253

The CBC once again engaged in a overtly biased, unabashedly anti- George Bush segment disguised as a news analysis segment, once again passing off two characters who are ardent far-leftists as supposedly non-aligned, objective expert analysts who are best able to analyze George Bush for Canadians. 

And once again this wasn’t a proper “news analysis” by any stretch of even the most vivid liberal-left imagination.  This was a roundly partisan, public bashing – a public mocking and browbeating and haranguing—of President Bush, by two extremely partisan left-wing ideologues (although as I said, they were not—no, not even remotely—identified as such). 

And they once again introduced and labeled what they call their “regular commentators on U.S. politics” as a “political author”, and as a “political blogger”, without identifying either of them as the far-left-wing bloggers and spokesmen that they actually are.  One, Jeffrey Feldman, is, as I’ve recounted here dozens of times, a left-wing author, but he’s also a blogger for the far-left, conservative-smearing hate site, the Daily Kos; and the other is a left-wing blogger and editor for the far-left conservative-smearing site, the Huffington Post.  None of that is mentioned. 

image  image

This once again helps prove that the CBC is engaged in a deceptive political agenda, in my opinion.  But those of us in the sober set know how this little bit of theater was intended to go, even before it started, image because they teased the segment with a banner which seemed to me to insinuate that the Bush farewell speech was a but another cartoon show, with their banner reading “COMING UP—THAT’S ALL FOLKS”as per the end of the old Looney Tunes cartoon productions

Why would the CBC pretend to “analyze” the Bush speech using two left-wingers?  Why not employ some truly bi-partisan or objective folks?  Why not two right-wingers?  Why not one of each?  And why hide the true identity of the two far-left-wingers they chose?  Moreover, this seems to be against their own code of journalistic practices, which as I’ve repeatedly indicated, reads:

“The CBC’s concern is to ensure the presentation of a wide spectrum of opinion, particularly when the matter is sharply controversial and, where relevant, to reflect the different regions of the country. The CBC therefore seeks to select commentators whose backgrounds qualify them to give expert opinion based on accurate information.

“Any relevant aspects of a commentator’s credentials must be clearly summarized so that the audience may have a perspective from which to appraise the speaker’s view. For example, the position and affiliation of a journalist or the particular qualifications of an academic or any other type of speaker should be stated. The descriptions “freelance broadcaster” or “freelance writer” do not meet this requirement.”

Here is how some of the CBC’s theatrics went today, as per my own transcription:

Suhana Meharchand, CBC anchor:  Jeffrey Feldman is a political author and Rachel Sklar is a political blogger and they’re with us from New York.

And that was the full intro, which was blithely and purposefully uninformative—deceptive—as to the left-wing, biased political nature of what was to come, once again. 

Meharchand then began by asking if anyone was even talking about the President’s speech, given the exciting news about the plane crash in New York yesterday.

Jeffrey Feldman:  Not really—it was interesting watching the President’s address because after about two minutes of discussion they turned right to the coverage [of the plane crash in the Hudson yesterday].

Suhana Meharchand, CBC anchor:  Ha ha yeah no kidding!

Rachel Sklar:  A lot of people are making sort of connections between the two events… [the plane crashing into the Hudson River yesterday and President Bush’s speech], drawing comparisons…

Suhana Meharchand, CBC anchor: [Interrupting, laughing with her throaty guffaw] Ha ha ha ha ha… Was President Bush in the Hudson yesterday too?  Ha ha ha ha ha…

Rachel Sklar: Well I think you know just the juxtaposition of some like a very uh sort of ver… a dramatic plane-related event in New York City umm and uh like a quick efficient rescue operation, so there’s sort of like echoes of sort of what didn’t happen in Katrina????  In terms of a quick and efficient rescue????  And um…

And then Meharchand built on the hilarity and direct comparison of the speech to the crash of that airliner yesterday:

Suhana Meharchand, CBC anchor:  [Laughing again] Do you think um um Rachel, that President Bush needed rescuing during his uh final address last night ha ha ha ha haaa?

Rachel Sklar: Well I mean maybe that’s why it only lasted fer 13 minutes.  Um he, ya know what?  But uh, oo, uh, ba, ma, uh, ah, is it fair to say that uh the country needed rescuing and uh and the the the our knight in shining armor has risen up?  I dunno I think that’s definitely uh a little too much to say but I you know that’s how people see Obama right now!  So going forward he’s got uh an extra burden to carry because he’s got this burden of incredible expectation!

So I take it her answer was yes on Bush but really all of America; but also that Obama is her—sorry “our”—“knight in shining armor”, and that he’s carrying a big burden, of, um, “incredible expectation”. 

Later, Feldman ruminated, sneeringly, as I saw it:

Jeffrey Feldman: …In many ways this Bush speech was one last effort on his part to say that all of the failures in his administration were really successes!  And that the only problem was that they weren’t presented to the public in the right way and that the media, uh which is full of lots of mean people and are caught up in the culture of politics, managed to spin all his successes as failure, so it’s one more example I think of what this entire presidency has been about!

The irony of his own statement naturally went right over his hypocritical little head as he continued to blather (and spin) on and on, as a media talking head, on the media, about only the failures of George Bush, and negating and ignoring all of Bush’s many successes, and even insinuating that Bush is delusional to boot. 

Yet he continued, as if to prove he’s an idiot,

Jeffrey Feldman: …A President who seems to leave disaster behind him at every pass,  and yet is unflinching at his insistence that everything he has done is a success! …

And so it goes, on the state-owned media, in their effort to properly inform Canadians as to how they should think of George Bush. 


Powered by Private Enterprise