CBC - MAKING BAD JOURNALISM,WORSE

The same article discussed above was given a new headline later in the day.

The new headline is even worse and more inflammatory than the first headline.

Ignoring al-Qaeda, Iran links 'extraordinarily foolish'

We have keep in mind that the context of this article is the planned terrorist attack in Canada, so the implication of all this phony connection to Iran, is that the Government of Iran is planning to attack Canada.

The original headline was classical war journalism. One could hardly find a better example of weaponizing words than this headline. Every syllable in this headline is designed to pave the way to war. These words are as clearly designed to draw blood as the bombs, rockets, warplanes, etc that are being prepared for an Israeli/American illegal attack on Iran.

We have to ask CBC how much of this blood will be Canadian blood? Why is CBC weaponizing its words like this?

CLASSICAL CBC WAR JOURNALISM

This article appeared on April 30, 2013. CBC has outdone itself with this one. It is war-mongering, misleading, and dishonest to an extreme.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/29/f-al-qaeda-iran-shia.html

Al-Qaeda and Iran 'agree on the doctrine of jihad'

The lead line of this article was the following:

Given the ideological differences between the Sunni militant group al-Qaeda and the theocratic Shia government in Iran, recent allegations that the two groups had conspired in a foiled attack in Canada struck many observers as odd.


CBC implied with all its misleading reporting on the Canadian arrests that there was a connection to the Iranian Government, but no one with an ounce of credibility ever alleged any connection. How did CBC's duplicitous implications morph into "allegations"?

An attack on a passenger train in Canada would be a criminal, stupid, futile act, unworthy of any but the most depraved individuals. It is not even vaguely related to the behaviour of an established government like that of Iran. There is absolutely no reason in the world to think that the Government of Iran would see any merit or benefit in a stupid attack like that. It is stupid of CBC to imply it; it is stupid to allege it. Or perhaps, more likely it was knowingly false, and is just a part of CBC's Zionist-inspired war-mongering against Iran.

CBC draws some religious links between  al Qaeda and Iran, such as their support for the notion of an Islamic state, and desire to see their ideas propagated widely. However to imply or allege that because they both would like to see their religions prosper and expand, that it is then possible that they would conspire in an act as asinine and useless as putting a bomb on a Canadian train is patently absurd.

Many Christians are against abortion, but to imply or allege that the government of a majority-Christian country like Canada is possibly involved in supporting or encouraging the actions of a fanatic that murders an abortion doctor would be seen as anyone as absurd. No not just absurd, libelous, prejudiced, and we would immediately want to determine why anyone would make such a ridiculous connection. Why is CBC publishing this article that makes the same kind of ridiculous connection?

Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that mean we should consider all vegetarians possible mass murders?

The whole CBC article from beginning to end was riddled with misrepresentations and together with its disgusting headline strongly tries to implicate the Iranian Government in a crime in Canada to which it could not possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be connected.

Here CBC quotes a notorious Islamophobe, one who can be expected to make ridiculous claims to defame Muslims:

"I think it would be extraordinarily foolish to ignore the obvious manifestations and likelihood of further co-operation between the Iranian regime and Sunni Islamic extremists, including al-Qaeda," says David Harris, an Ottawa-based lawyer and director of Insignis Strategic Research.

Another outspoken critic of Islam, himself a Muslim, Tarek Fatah is quoted:

"Osama might never have collaborated with Iran, but the Iranians were co-operating with al-Qaeda," Fatah says.

In an effort to root out the planners of the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. declared war on Afghanistan in 2001. As a result, a number of senior al-Qaeda members who had been the guests of the Taliban in Afghanistan took refuge in neighbouring Iran, according to Seth Jones, author of the book Hunting in the Shadows: The Pursuit of al-Qaeda since 9/11.

As further proof of Iranian co-operation with al-Qaeda, Fatah cites an example involving Ahmed Said Khadr, the late father of Canadian-born extremist Omar Khadr and a known al-Qaeda operative. According to Michelle Shepherd's 2008 book, Guantanamo's Child: The Untold Story of Omar Khadr, Ahmed drove his daughter, Zaynab, to Tehran so she could marry another al-Qaeda member.

This is brilliant analysis. The fact that Iran allowed refugees from Afghanistan to enter Iran is one proof of cooperation. And then "further proof" is the fact that some al Qaeda members were allowed to marry in Tehran. Yes, indeed, this is reason and proof enough to believe that it is possible that the Iranian Government would participate along with al Qaeda to bomb trains in Canada. In what Orwellian, Upside-down, Alice in Wonderland world would these "proofs" have an relevance or relationship to the Canadian bomb plot?

And the final quote in the article is from the moronic Islamophobe, David Harris, again:

He says if the Shia Islamists that head up the theocratic regime in Tehran "feel they're in a cosmic battle" against the West, then "it's not surprising that they might link up with the dreaded Sunni in order to fight the first round — and then maybe do in the Sunnis at an appropriate moment."

Yes, bombing a passenger train in Canada, in cooperation with al Qaeda wingnuts,  would make sense to the Government of Iran as "fighting the first round" in a battle against the West.

This entire article is an attempt to demonize Iran and somehow imply, or even allege, that Iran is attacking Canada. This is an absurd implication and allegation, and it could not have just been made out of ignorance. Also we must not forget that this article exists in the context of many other anti-Iranian articles and a strong propaganda push from Israel and some powerful people in the USA to start a pre-emptive war against Iran. This article is war-mongering, classical war journalism. It is also anti-Canadian, because it is seeking to deceive Canadians in the interest of foreign states, particularly Israel.

SEE NO EVIL

Robert Fisk, a journalist with the Independent of the UK, and a true Middle East expert, is currently traveling in Canada and was approached for his views on whether the Syrian Government was using chemical weapons. He wrote about this as follows in this article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-and-sarin-gas-us-claims-have-a-very-familiar-ring-8591214.html

"In two Canadian TV studios, I am approached by producers brandishing the same headline. I tell them that on air I shall trash the "evidence" – and suddenly the story is deleted from both programmes. Not because they don't want to use it – they will later – but because they don't want anyone suggesting it might be a load of old cobblers."

The headlines were reporting on claims from Israel and the USA that there is evidence that the Syrian Government is using chemical weapons against the rebels. This is highly unlikely but CBC and Canadian media are not saying that. Rather in good war journalism style, they are reporting these questionable, war-justifying claims, as reliable. Fisk who knows much better, and has no war agenda, would be a reliable informant - at least to provide balance to what is coming out of Israel and the US. Why do Canadian journalist avoid reporting his views on this important issue.

I often wonder if the unbalanced, and often inane, reporting by CBC on the Middle East is just the result of ignorance, or intentionally misleading and dishonest. The above suggests that there is a strong element of intentionality in their asinine reporting.

ONE IS NEWS; 1,000 ISN'T

 CBC regularly ignores the thousands of Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli aircraft, which have happened almost daily for years, but considers it big news when one drone flies into Israel.

In the article CBC did report that Israel made two jet sorties over Lebanon, but did not mention the more salient fact that Israel regularly has made thousands of sorties over Lebanon. How can that possibly not be considered important contextual, background information by any ethical journalist?

This omission is even more glaring when CBC thought it newsworthy to use a hypocritical quote from Israel PM Netanyahu in which he declares he will respond to threats to his citizens, but does not mention the fact that Israel is regularly provoking his neighbours with aerial violations showing no respect at all to Lebanon's sovereignty.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/25/israel-drone-hezbollah.html

Israeli military shoots down 'enemy' drone

Some officials blaming Hezbollah for flight into Israeli airspace

CBC'S ROCKY RELATIONSHIP WITH WARMONGERING

CBC's choice of words in this article is misleading. "Iran's history with al-Qaeda"; and in the sub-headline a "rocky relationship" are both phrases that suggest that there is or was a functioning relationship. Moreover a rocky relationship, like a complicated love affair, implies periods of love and cooperation alternating with periods of animosity and antagonism. One might say, in the same vein, that CBC has had a rocky relationship with TRUTH, or as above, with WARMONGERING.

The reality is that Iran has not ever wanted to have anything to do with al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda has never had anything but scorn for Iran. They are natural enemies. The article fails to make this point clearly enough, but does admit that the two have been thrown together by uncomfortable circumstances, particularly the fact that al-Qaeda took uninvited refuge in Iran when they were driven out of Afghanistan.

Another thing that CBC fails entirely to mention is that the one group in Iran that is often described as al-Qaeda are the Baluchi separatists (from southwestern Iran), who are Sunni and up in arms against the Iran Government. They have conducted terrorist attacks against Iranian targets, and there is strong reason to believe, that they receive weapons and financial support from the US Government. So the one group in Iran that probably warrants the name "al Qaeda in Iran" is actually a Western-supported, anti-Iranian group. This is very relevant information. Is CBC so incompetent that they were not aware of this, or did they leave it out intentionally because it would not serve their Iran-demonizing agendas?

In the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq, the media constantly juxtaposed the words "Iraq" and "al Qaeda", even though Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al Qaeda and 911. Even if the articles themselves revealed this non-relationship, the propaganda effect of this constant juxtaposition resulted in the majority of Americans thinking that Saddam had a hand in 911. CBC is doing the same thing today, by juxtaposing "Iran" and "al Qaeda" in headlines and sub-headlines and using misleading phrases like "history together" and "rocky relationship". This must be intentionally misleading, because the relevance of the Iran connection in the case of this Canadian threat is negligible and does not warrant this kind of high profile.

5 questions on Iran's complicated history with al-Qaeda

Relations have always been rocky between Tehran and extremist group

CBC could claim that they included in their articles that the Iranian Government was not likely to be aware of the Canadian plot, and that Iran has denied involvement. However, given the high profile CBC has given to the Iran connection in this case, these CBC sentences probably have the same effect as when Richard Nixon declared "I am not a crook"; which convinced everyone he was a crook.

For example:   Iran has denied that the two men accused of plotting to derail a Via passenger train received support from al-Qaeda elements inside the country.

Iran likely unaware of al-Qaeda's Canadian plot, security experts say.

BEWARE ATHEISTS IN VATICAN

On April 22, CBC online had the following headline and sub-headline:

Alleged terror plot targeting Via train thwarted

Police say 2 accused were getting 'direction and guidance' from al-Qaeda elements in Iran

Perhaps the police person quoted did make this claim, but it actually does not make sense. Al-Qaeda is extremely anti-Shia, and Iran is Shia. Al-Qaeda is essentially antagonistic to Iran. There is no evidence that al-Qaeda ever operates out of Iran. Some al-Qaeda people consider Shia Muslims as worse than atheists, and worthy of death. There is virtually no grounds for cooperation between them.

If someone had made the unlikely claim that some criminals were getting direction and guidance from atheists in the Vatican, it is unlikely CBC would take it as credible enough to put it unchallenged in a headline. But CBC, never wanting to miss an opportunity to demonize Iran, put this unlikely claim about al-Qaeda in Iran in a headline.

Several hours later this article appeared:

Iran likely unaware of al-Qaeda's Canadian plotting, security expert says

RCMP allege al-Qaeda in Iran supported plot to attack train

Again they are putting the RCMP's questionable allegation in a headline. It would be nice if the RCMP and CBC could cite even one piece of evidence for this allegation.

The article which is supposedly meant to provide context to this claim of al Qaeda activities in Iran fails once to mention the fundamental antagonism between Sunni extremists and Shia Iran, and the depth of animosity held by extremists Sunnis against Shia Muslims. This is the most salient fact, but it is absent and instead there are a lot of irrelevant details of superficial contacts between al Qaeda and Iran largely resulting from the former fleeing as refugees from Afghanistan.

POWER OF SUGGESTION

The following article was one of the most viewed on CBC online over the several days after the Boston Marathon bombing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/16/f-pressure-cooker-bomb.html

A history of pressure cooker bombs

Pressure cooker found at site of Boston Marathon explosions

Last Updated: Apr 16, 2013 10:25 PM ET

In keeping with CBC's penchant to promote Islamophobia and do Israel's dirty work, the article strongly suggests that it is LIKELY the bombing was the work of a Muslim terrorist.  It does not come out and say this, because there is no evidence, but it makes a valiant effort to SUGGEST it to be the case.

The article is full of references like the following:

Instructions on how to make such a bomb were featured in the first issue of al-Qaeda's English-language magazine under the headline, "Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom."
Inside a pressure cooker bomb. (Duk Han Lee/CBC)In these instructions for making improvised explosive devices, or IEDs as they are known in the security world, al-Qaeda's "chef" claims "the pressurized cooker is the most effective method."
The bombs are made by placing an explosive material inside the pressure cooker. The al-Qaeda article recommends military-grade explosives like TNT, C4 or RDX.

Then there a list of pressure cooker bombs used by Muslims:

In 2010, Faizal Shahzad, a 31-year-old Pakistani-American, attempted to bomb Times Square in New York. He had three explosive devices inside his SUV, including a pressure cooker bomb, but they failed to detonate.
U.S. army private Naser Abdo, 21, was arrested in 2011 and charged with possession of an unregistered destructive device.
Among items police seized from his hotel room were two pressure cookers, six bottles of smokeless gunpowder and a copy of "Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom."
One of the bloodiest incidents involving these devices was on July 11, 2006 in Mumbai, India. Seven bombs went off on commuter trains, killing 209 people and injuring 714 during the evening rush hour.
More recently, in February, a pressure cooker bomb exploded inside a restaurant in northern Afghanistan, killing five people.
French police have twice managed to prevent the use of pressure cooker bombs. Ten Islamic militants were convicted for planning to blow up a market in Strasbourg on New Year's Eve 2000.
And during an investigation into a grenade attack on a kosher market in a Paris suburb on Sept. 19, 2012, police found bomb-making materials, including a pressure cooker, in an underground garage.
They blamed a network of Muslim extremists. Police took seven suspects, all born in France, into custody.

The CBC article was billed as a history of pressure cooker bombs, but it was a very skewed history. While it makes much of the al Qaeda article, it completely fails to mention the FACT that pressure cooker bombs figure prominently in websites and publications of right-wing extremists in the United States.

Moreover it fails to point out that, although the perpetrators are unknown, it is quite possible that the marathon bombing was done by American right-wing extremists, because it was done on US Tax Day, which is also US Patriots Day, and Muslim extremists are more likely to attack a target of political significance than a sporting event.

LETTING ISRAEL TEACH US ENGLISH

In keeping with his policy of seeking to harm Palestinians for the sake of Israel, Canada's half-witted Foreign Minister broke protocol and held a meeting on April 9th with an Israeli Minister in the Israeli-occupied territory of East Jerusalem.

East Jerusalem is classified as "occupied territory" by the United Nations, and almost every government in the world, including officially by Canada. Israel is the only government that has begun to call all the areas it occupies as "disputed territories". Israel's naming is fully in keeping with its unstated, but obvious, policy of ethnic cleansing as many Palestinians as possible out of these territories, and eventually incorporating it into Israel proper. This is a disgraceful, immoral policy and no other government on earth has officially endorsed it.

Nevertheless all the following Canadian media sources, in writing about Baird's action, used the phrase "disputed territories" to describe East Jerusalem:

Vancouver Sun
Ottawa Citizen
McLeans Magazine
Global Media
Toronto Star
National Post
Canadian Press

Even CBC initially used "disputed territories" in an online headline, but then having  been criticized for it, revised their headline to delete this phrase.

How is it that Israel can teach Canadian journalists how to speak English? How is it that Canadian journalists take guidance from Israel, and Israel alone, in what words to use to describe Middle East events? There is something seriously wrong with this.

CBC's IDEA OF RELEVANCE?

On April 7, 2013 this article was published:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/07/gaza-hamas-long-hair-crackdown.html

Gaza police crackdown targets long-haired youth, group says

How is this important enough to warrant this special coverage? Of course, it is unpleasant, but much, much worse things are happening in the area that CBC chooses to ignore.

For example, recently inside Israel there has been a spate of unprovoked, racist attacks on Palestinian citizens of Israel by Israelis. Arabs have been attacked at bus stops, or just while walking down the street. Israeli newspapers are publishing articles lamenting the growth of the ugliest kind of raciast behavioutr in Israeli society. Another example that CBC chooses to ignore are the ugly attacks on Jewish women and young girls by Orthodox  Jews in Jerusalem. Little girls are being spat on and called "whores" for wearing school uniform skirts. CBC has nothing to say about these vastly worse incidents that happen almost daily in Israel. Instead a few isolated cases of extremist behaviour by Hamas police gets big coverage.

Why is this? Is it because CBC is keen to publish anything that makes Israel's enemies (victims) look bad, but avoids publishing anything that makes Israel look bad? Then why is this? Why does CBC protect Israel, and defame Palestinians? Is there something in the CBC mandate that mandates this?

If one looks at the comments following the above article, it is clear what kind of emotions CBC was trying to elicit with this article. Here are just a few samples of the most popular comments:

• 2013/04/07
  at 6:02 PM ET   Islamic governments will never run out of people to bully and kill. They are willing to make victims out of just about any group if they run low.     Rating51Agree　with comment (55 people agree)Disagree with comment (4 people disagree)
• clearfocus2013/04/07
  at 5:17 PM ET   Hard to imagine why Canada would provide aid to the Palestinians.   Rating49Agree　with comment (68 thumbs up)Disagree with comment (19 thumbs down)
• TruthUponYou2013/04/07
  at 7:04 PM ET    radical Islamic oppression    Rating29Agree　with comment (33 people agree)Disagree with comment (4 people disagree)
• jadeshop2013/04/07
  at 7:48 PM ET   barbarians    Rating16Agree　with comment (19 people agree)Disagree with comment (3 people disagree
• Charlie T2013/04/08
  at 5:47 AM ET   How can Israel reason with a government that refuses to progress with the rest of the modern world? If a two-state solution was to ever happen, every Palestinian youth and their mothers would be fleeing to the Israeli border the minute Gaza and the West Bank received official independence.Rating10Agree　with comment (12 people agree)Disagree with comment (2 people disagree)

CBC does not want to publish an article about Israeli racism or abuse of little girls. It might inspire people to think and comment along the same lines. People might write "How can Canada support Israelis when they behave like this?" or "Why don't the Israelis progress with the rest of the modern world?", Or even a one word description of Israelis as "barbarians".

Well CBC will not publish articles that put Israelis in a bad light, and if they did, and comments like the above appeared, they would all probably be deleted as "anti-Semitic".

CBC - AT IT AGAIN

Why does CBC always insist that Palestinians provoke and Israel retaliates?

The reality is that Israel is daily harming, including humiliating, restricting, imprisoning, dispossessing, and even killing Palestinians, but according to CBC none of this warrants or justifies any kind of retaliation from Palestinians. If the Palestinians take any aggressive action, CBC treats it as if it started in a vacuum. Over the past several months of the supposed ceasefire, Israel has killed a number of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza, but this is defined  as "quiet", while a few ineffective Palestinian rockets is treated as an unprovoked aggression. This is the article on April 3, 2013:

                         http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/03/israel-rockets.html

Israel hits Gaza in retaliatory attacks

Airstrikes 1st since strikes in November when Palestinian rockets hit southern Israel

Israeli sources are quoted in this short article 11 times. YES, count them. Eleven times! The Palestinian group that claims responsibility for these rockets (it was not Hamas), said that they were in response to the death of Palestinians in Israeli custody.

Why does CBC quote Israeli sources 11 times, but could not at least have included this one Palestinian statement that gives a Palestinian justification and balances out the silly, meaningless issue of "who started it" (according to CBC, it is always the Palestinians who started it anyway).

In this article there is another example of the grossly imbalanced quoting of Israeli sources:

During eight days of violence in November, the Israeli military said 1,500 rockets were fired at Israel, including the first from Gaza to strike the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem areas. The rocket attacks killed six Israelis and wounded dozens. Israeli airstrikes killed 169 Palestinians and caused considerable damage.

This quoting of an Israeli military source appears to be intended to provide some context to the recent rocket firing. It suggests that Palestinians are just addicted to firing rockets and they just cannot get it out of their system.

But if CBC were interested in providing meaningful context, it would not rely on Israeli military sources, and at least would include the tally of rocket strikes made by Israel on Gaza in November 2012, as well as some reference to the murder of unarmed Palestinians by Israel since the November ceasefire.

CBC's reporting on this issue is so imbalanced that it constitutes a crime against Canadians, and an act of war against Palestinians. What have Palestinians ever done to Canada to justify this hostility to them by CBC?