Ad Nauseam

The following article on June 24, 2013, repeats again the position that Israel always acts in response to provocation from Palestinians, with no attempt to state the fact that rockets are fired at Israel by Palestinians in response to Israel's brutality and injustice against them.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/24/wrd-israel-gaza-strip-airstrike.html



These are the first two lines of the article:


Israeli aircraft pounded targets in the Gaza Strip early Monday after rockets were fired at Israel from the territory, the military said, unsettling a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.



The military said its aircraft struck two weapons storage facilities and a rocket launch site. No injuries were reported.
Rocket fire from Gaza has declined since Israel carried out an eight-day military campaign last November in response to frequent attacks.



This grossly unbalanced, biased, and inaccurate reporting is repeated by CBC ad nauseam. Palestinians are subject to a brutal occupation, and their rights are trampled on disgracefully. The reality is that Israel is trying to bomb them into submission, and Israel uses the excuse of these silly rockets, which are virtually token acts of legitimate resistance to this occupation, to maintain its cruel suppression of Palestinian life and society.


When will CBC and the Associated Press get tired of falsifying reality so blatantly?


The same article had the following tucked away at the end:


Meanwhile, Israeli police said that vandals slashed the tires of 21 cars in an Arab neighbourhood of east Jerusalem. The vandals also scribbled slogans on nearby walls.
It was the latest in a wave of crimes linked to Jewish extremists that has targeted mosques, churches, monasteries, dovish Israeli groups and even Israeli military bases to protest what they perceive as the Israeli government's pro-Palestinian policies in the West Bank. Vandals call the attacks the "price tag" for the policies they oppose.


There are a number of problems with this.

1) First, why wasn't this a headline? It is as significant a provocation as the silly rockets.
2) Why are they calling the perpetrators "vandals". These were political acts perpetrated by Israeli nationalists, designed to terrorize Palestinians. The word "vandals" just suggests "naughty boys", but this is much more political and serious than that. The use of the word "vandals" is intentionally misleading.
3) Why don't they publish the wording of the slogans? It is likely that these would reveal the political, nationalist, and racist intent of the so-called "vandalism".
4) Why do they describe the few decent acts of the Israel Government as "pro-Palestinian"? The extremists were protesting "pro-justice" and "pro-decency" acts of the Israeli Government. Describing these actions as "pro-Palestinian" seems to suggest that Israel's acts were somehow biased and worthy of opposition.

Ad Nauseam

The following article on June 24, 2013, repeats again the position that Israel always acts in response to provocation from Palestinians, with no attempt to state the fact that rockets are fired at Israel by Palestinians in response to Israel's brutality and injustice against them.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/24/wrd-israel-gaza-strip-airstrike.html



These are the first two lines of the article:


Israeli aircraft pounded targets in the Gaza Strip early Monday after rockets were fired at Israel from the territory, the military said, unsettling a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.



The military said its aircraft struck two weapons storage facilities and a rocket launch site. No injuries were reported.
Rocket fire from Gaza has declined since Israel carried out an eight-day military campaign last November in response to frequent attacks.



This grossly unbalanced, biased, and inaccurate reporting is repeated by CBC ad nauseam. Palestinians are subject to a brutal occupation, and their rights are trampled on disgracefully. The reality is that Israel is trying to bomb them into submission, and Israel uses the excuse of these silly rockets, which are virtually token acts of legitimate resistance to this occupation, to maintain its cruel suppression of Palestinian life and society.


When will CBC and the Associated Press get tired of falsifying reality so blatantly?


The same article had the following tucked away at the end:


Meanwhile, Israeli police said that vandals slashed the tires of 21 cars in an Arab neighbourhood of east Jerusalem. The vandals also scribbled slogans on nearby walls.
It was the latest in a wave of crimes linked to Jewish extremists that has targeted mosques, churches, monasteries, dovish Israeli groups and even Israeli military bases to protest what they perceive as the Israeli government's pro-Palestinian policies in the West Bank. Vandals call the attacks the "price tag" for the policies they oppose.


There are a number of problems with this.

1) First, why wasn't this a headline? It is as significant a provocation as the silly rockets.
2) Why are they calling the perpetrators "vandals". These were political acts perpetrated by Israeli nationalists, designed to terrorize Palestinians. The word "vandals" just suggests "naughty boys", but this is much more political and serious than that. The use of the word "vandals" is intentionally misleading.
3) Why don't they publish the wording of the slogans? It is likely that these would reveal the political, nationalist, and racist intent of the so-called "vandalism".
4) Why do they describe the few decent acts of the Israel Government as "pro-Palestinian"? The extremists were protesting "pro-justice" and "pro-decency" acts of the Israeli Government. Describing these actions as "pro-Palestinian" seems to suggest that Israel's acts were somehow biased and worthy of opposition.

War Journalism by Omission

Obama and Harper agree that there is evidence that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons against the rebels. CBC dutifully reports this. That's fine.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/14/syria-civil-war.html

Harper agrees Syrian regime used chemical weapons

Canadian PM's comments come day after White House announced it has conclusive proof

However it is obvious to even the most simple-minded observer that Obama is looking for an excuse to increase US military aggression against yet-another Muslim, Middle Eastern country, so the credibility of Obama's claim should immediately be suspect.

But even if CBC does not want to call Obama a liar, and Harper a sycophant, the article should have been balanced with a number of other facts that would have undermined the war-mongering potential of the Obama/Harper claims. Just echoing these claims, without providing the balancing information, constitutes war journalism. They are weaponized words. Peace journalism would require CBC to at least note the following balancing points:

- there is evidence, noted by the UN, that the rebels used poison gas against government forces
- there is evidence that the majority of rebels are not even Syrians, but are foreign extremists
- there is evidence that the rebels have committed terrible atrocities against Syrian civilians
- there is evidence that the rebels actually massacred women, and children in a Syrian Christian village, just because of their religion
- there is evidence that the Syrian Government has turned the tide of the fighting and has the rebels on the run (which is strong evidence that the government has significant support from both the Syrian military establishment and the general population).
- there is evidence that a rebel victory in Syria would at best create a divided, chaotic country, and at worst turn Syria into a Taliban-style extremist country.

Obama and Harper's hypocritical concerns about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government (which probably did not happen) are designed to justify the killing and maiming of thousands of Syrians due to military actions to be carried out and supported by the US, Canada and others. Sending more weapons to the rebels, or establishing a no-fly zone over Syria would be crimes against the Syrian people.

If CBC were not so keen to support Israel, a country that wants to see Syria crippled and divided, and has no reservations about seeing Syrian civilians dying in droves, maybe CBC would then not be so committed to war journalism, and tell the whole story. Canadians, who pay their bills, deserve a lot more balance and honesty from CBC than they are getting.

Two Articles on Iran - June 14th

CBC online published these two articles on Iran today:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/14/iran-election.html

Iran's Khamenei to U.S. election critics: 'the hell with you'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/13/f-vp-ayed-iran-presidential-election.html

Nahlah Ayed: Can Iran's democracy voices still be heard?

So what if Khamenei told America to go to Hell - considering the bullying and harm America is doing to Iran, this is actually extremely mild language. But regardless, it is a childish headline, unworthy of a real journalism. It's intention is fully in keeping with CBC's policy of making Iran look bad at every opportunity.

The second article by Nahlah Ayad is also fully in keeping with CBC's policy of demonising Iran as preparation for an illegal, criminal US/Israeli attack on that country. It is also in keeping with the spirit of 'war journalism". - using the media as a weapon in the arsenal of those who seek to conduct military operations.

Of course the election in Iran will not be fair, but it is not worse than the US election where the voters have a similar choice only between far right candidates (one of whom, Obama, just pretends to be less far right). Why is it so important for CBC to give so much coverage to this election? It is in order to make Iran look bad.

So what that Nahlah Ayad was denied a visa to go to Iran to observe the elections. CBC has published lies about Iran (see my earlier postings), and consistently seeks to demonise Iran. Why should a CBC crew be given visas, if it is so obvious that their intention is to look for dirt, and quite possibly create lies?

And Nahlah Ayad herself - why should Iran give her a visa? Her integrity is very much in question. She is a Palestinian-Canadian who works for an organization which is essentially an enemy of the Palestinian people. She writes regularly about all the weaknesses in Arab society. With this article she is playing CBC's game of demonising Iran as a prelude to war; yet she is a "Middle East correspondent" who never writes about the suffering of the Palestinian people or Israel's human rights abuses. She is a Middle East correspondent that never writes about the single most important issue in the Middle East. How much integrity does that show? Of course Iran does not trust her.

Two Articles on Iran - June 14th

CBC online published these two articles on Iran today:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/14/iran-election.html

Iran's Khamenei to U.S. election critics: 'the hell with you'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/13/f-vp-ayed-iran-presidential-election.html

Nahlah Ayed: Can Iran's democracy voices still be heard?

So what if Khamenei told America to go to Hell - considering the bullying and harm America is doing to Iran, this is actually extremely mild language. But regardless, it is a childish headline, unworthy of a real journalism. It's intention is fully in keeping with CBC's policy of making Iran look bad at every opportunity.

The second article by Nahlah Ayad is also fully in keeping with CBC's policy of demonising Iran as preparation for an illegal, criminal US/Israeli attack on that country. It is also in keeping with the spirit of 'war journalism". - using the media as a weapon in the arsenal of those who seek to conduct military operations.

Of course the election in Iran will not be fair, but it is not worse than the US election where the voters have a similar choice only between far right candidates (one of whom, Obama, just pretends to be less far right). Why is it so important for CBC to give so much coverage to this election? It is in order to make Iran look bad.

So what that Nahlah Ayad was denied a visa to go to Iran to observe the elections. CBC has published lies about Iran (see my earlier postings), and consistently seeks to demonise Iran. Why should a CBC crew be given visas, if it is so obvious that their intention is to look for dirt, and quite possibly create lies?

And Nahlah Ayad herself - why should Iran give her a visa? Her integrity is very much in question. She is a Palestinian-Canadian who works for an organization which is essentially an enemy of the Palestinian people. She writes regularly about all the weaknesses in Arab society. With this article is playing CBC's game of demonising Iran as a prelude to war; yet she is a "Middle East correspondent" who never writes about the suffering of the Palestinian people or Israel's human rights abuses and the glaring weaknesses in Israeli society. She is a Middle East correspondent that never writes about the single most important issue in the Middle East. How much integrity does that show? Of course Iran does not trust her.

Do CBC Editors Speak English?

The following brilliant abuse of English is found in this article from June, 2 2013:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/02/palestinian-president-pm.html

Quote: "Palestinians have faced political stagnation since the Islamic militant Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip five years ago."

Hamas won a legitimate election, covering both the West Bank and Gaza. Do the words "seized power" reflect this reality? Do CBC editors not speak English? Why do they use words like this that have no relation to reality?

Also it might be noted that the "political stagnation" referred to in the above sentence is the result of the fact that the democratic choice of the Palestinian people has not been respected. Abbas and his crew are illegitimate, and they do not hold elections because they know they will lose again. This salient fact is not mentioned anywhere in this article about Abbas's choice of a new president.

Are CBC's editors abysmally ignorant of both world affairs and the English language, or are they willful deceivers of their readers? If the latter, then who are they working for?

RE: Self-Defence For Syria - Not Allowed

---

From: terrygreenberg@hotmail.com
To: tgreenbe1.sendai@blogger.com
Subject: Self-Defence For Syria - Not Allowed
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 04:13:22 +0900

Russia is preparing to give Syria the ability to DEFEND itself from Israeli air attacks like the ones that happened earlier in May 2013. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/31/syria-fighting-mig-fighters-russia.html

US Secretary of State Kerry has made ridiculous remarks about Syria being able to defend itself as upsetting the region. It is highlighted in the sub-headline:

John Kerry says they could prolong civil war, hurts Israel's strategic interests

Yes, it is correct for CBC to report the inane remarks made by Canadian and American politicians, but journalism is not supposed to be just stenography - somewhere in the article CBC should have emphasized that the missile systems were defensive in nature and that every country has the right to defend itself, including Syria.

CBC never fails to quote the inane justification by Canadian and American politicians of every Israeli atrocity in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and elsewhere as "self-defence". In the interest of balance, why has CBC not highlighted the self-defence nature of the missile systems that the Russians are providing.

Instead CBC repeats Kerry's duplicitous words by emphasizing that these systems will "hurt Israel's strategic interests". Why does CBC not say what Kerry's words actually means? What Kerry is really saying is that it is in Israel's strategic interest to be able to ignore and offend against the sovereignty of all its neighbours at will. Anything that reduces Israel's ability to bully, interfere, and harm its neighbours is bad for Israel.

Real journalists do not just repeat and echo duplicitous, war-mongering words from people like Kerry. Real journalists analyze and explain what these words actually mean. CBC is not committed to real journalism - it is committed to promoting the interests and propaganda of war-mongers.