Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | anti-conservative bias

It’s actually* just a good news story, you conservative-attacking, CBC sort of* dullards.

Hi liberals and socialists and the other CBC news channel watcher!CBC - 'know more, know now?' Hahahaha Sorry, but in case you thought I stopped watching the state-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC “news” channel (number 502 on my dial), and that I now just get fully-informed watching the normal TV news at Fox News Channel, well you’re wrong. Since the state-owned left-wing crap-channel warned me years ago that they’ll be “monitoring” this web site, I thought I better keep watching them, writing stuff, and giving them something to “monitor!”

Here’s just an infinitesimal couple of fun things I noticed in the past five minutes of watching that dreadful socialism-reliant, anti-conservative propaganda division of the Canadian progressives: It’s a story about a fantastic new “green energy” and pollution-cleaning technology being developed by a couple of (private!) Canadian tech companies (but as this is Canada, they now join the rest of corporate and individual Canadians, and are being subsidized with a form of welfare  —  corporate in this case  —  from the federal government, which is obviously why the CBC even bothered to cover the story at all). The technology will be used in Alberta at their fabulous (my word  — duh!) oil sands projects.

It sounds great. Would reduce oil sands emissions by 30%. Yay. This is a good news story. For Canada, for business, for everyone.

CBC “news” channel anchor Reshmi Nair is on it with reporter Margo McDiarmid from the enormous CBC HQ edifice. McDiarmid sets about explaining the bio/business story.

But hmm. Damn! This couldn’t just be “good!” There’s gotta be an angle to this somewhere, Margo!  Therefore, the “news” anchor, Reshmi Nair, half-way through the story, asked reporter Margo McDiarmid more about the science of it.

“It sounds good, but how much of this project is just a PR stunt for the Conservatives?” asked Nair.

Golly she’s ever so inquisitive, businesses-minded, and all about the science; and she has that investigative journalist’s curiosity about facts! But seriously, at least that wasn’t at all a politically-motivated and tendentious question! No but seriously. Oh who am I kidding? This is the CBC.

Reshmi NairAnd to be fair, maybe Nair is more interested in political science and bashing Conservatives than actual science and business and, you know, news. Ya think that could be possible at the CBC?

Well thanks for asking, Reshmi! That gives me a convenient chance to remind viewers, using the second half of my report on this erstwhile good news tech and business story, that… as it turns out, McDiarmid ever so earnestly explains, “critics” have indeed “roundly criticized” the Conservatives for not spending (sorry  — investing!) enough taxpayer cash in green enviro projects exactly like this, so this is actually* (see below regarding “actually”) a sort of* (see below regarding”sort of”) a good idea. You see, even though the Conservatives are providing corporate welfare to these companies and “investing” taxpayer cash in enviro greenie projects, they should “actually” be spending (sorry again  — investing!) “two or three times more” than they are now, so it’s actually* only a good news story, sort of*!

Over to you, Reshmi!

Even when the Conservatives do move toward what it is the left and the CBC obliquely demand of them, they find a nefarious angle to it somewhere  —  or they just make one up. Thanks CBC! You’re worth it! And by golly, it’s a wonder we conservatives could possibly interpret the CBC as being left-wing and anti-conservative! Nothing the enviros do, the Liberals, the NDP, communists, the CBC’s David Suzuki  —  nothing anybody else ever does is “a PR stunt”. It’s only when it’s a Conservative or a conservative doing it that it becomes highly questionable and could possibly be a “stunt” (and then it’s also most definitely a “hidden agenda!”  —  and not “sort” of, either).

Margo McDiarmid

So please don’t forget, Canadians, this could very well be nothing but a bit of PR bullcrap, whereupon the conservatives are using your taxpayer cash to boost their own PR. And don’t call it “stimulus” cash in this case either!

Thanks Margo and Reshmi.

And then the CBC went on to the CBC’s “business” segment, which always makes me laugh, on account of the fact that the CBC is socialism-reliant and state-owned, and yet they presume to explain business to us.


* I noticed McDiarmid used the word “actually” over and over, a little like the way failed liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin used to say “in fact” a hundred times per hour, or the way failed liberal Obama says “um,” and “millionaires and billionaires,” and “pay their fair share,” (and shouts “SQUIRREL!” whenever Benghazi or the Kermit Gosnell trial is mentioned), a hundred times per day.

So naturally, I rewound the recording from my vast right-wing CBC-recording industrial complex, and counted: the word “actually” was used twelve times in that brief story. Actually, that includes the word “actual,” once.

She also said “sort of” five times. As in, this is “sort of” a good news story, Reshmi!

Actually, state-owned media should be sort of banned in this country. No actually, not just sort of.


Continue Reading

An anti-conservative channel bias? It’s partisan politics. I think.

I went through a purgation the other day when I tweeted my satellite TV provider with several of my gripes about their service.

Here’s a graphic (from today) of my TV screen representing what actually got me going that day. See how the description for Fox News Channel is “Nouvelles”? We have a word in English for that: WTF?

It’s been that way for years.

I admit I’m one of those people who swears whenever I’m trying to read the ingredients on a cereal box or trying to find the instructions on the side of one package or another, in Canada, and I always land on the annoying French side first, and have to flip it around to find the right side. Because, you know, I’m not French, and this isn’t France. But this “Nouvelles” thing is on the English side of the box, if you see what I mean.

Now, I know, you’re gonna say I’m being … well I was going to say niggardly but some douche (excuse my French), whom I guarantee will be on the left side of the political fence, will falsely and idiotically call me racist, so… niggling. Oh I see, OK, hang on…. a pettifogger.

Whatever. I’m none of those. I was just in a bad mood and sick and tired of the media running roughshod over …. yes, conservatives. And that notion is not to be trifled with, at least among us conservatives, as I pointed out in one of my recent articles.

As I tweeted out to them, it’s not just that “Nouvelles” things (which exists ONLY on the Fox News Channel description). There was more. Like this tweet:

(Follow some of the back-and-forth at this link.)

…A legitimate question even if at first glance you mistake it for being more pettifogging or niggling. Think of how a person, who is after just a scan of all the news, surfs through the news channels. As a responsible and sane human, I only watch the high-def channels where possible, since I invested approximately a zillion dollars in wide-screen HD TVs and those expensive Bell Satellite HD boxes I’m required to buy in order to actually watch HD TV. Plus it just looks a thousand times better. So I up-arrow my remote thought the channels, hitting CNN, HLN, MSNBC, CTV News Channel, the dreadfully stupid state-owned and taxpayer-funded CBC News Channel, among some other liberal and leftist news media. They’re all in glorious HD. They’re all conveniently grouped together in the HD channel section of the Bell Satellite lineup.

What’s missing from my picture? Only two channels  —  which in my case happen to be my favorite channels on account of the fact that I also like to see what a conservative might think about the news, too: Sun News Network, and Fox News Channel. Both broadcast in HD, but aren’t made available in HD by Bell Satellite service. Only those two, alone, are available to me only in low def.

And as we know, once you’ve gone high def, it’s hard to go back. Low def is just so inferior after you’ve gone high-def. Bell knows that.

And so those two news channels are in the lower channel number banks, where I’m not. And so I don’t get to just passively surf to them, I have to punch numbers in, and moreover, abort the high-def realm I’ve invested so heavily in, and much prefer to watch.

Don’t worry, I do that extra work, because I’m also invested in the idea of being fully informed, and not just propagandized by the Left and their left-wing media biases. So I do remain smart, but as you see, I have to work harder for it, and not enjoy the experience. I think (and judging from the polls and recent elections), most people don’t bother doing that extra work that I do.

So I kept asking Bell through their Bell support Twitter account, and they either pretended to be ignoramuses, or they actually are. At first they tried to pass off their stock answer designed by marketing asses to appease the idiot masses, to wit, the likes of: “We’re adding new channels all the time.” Which I take as an insult to my intelligence, on account of it being precisely that.

At one point, the Bell “support” tweeter seemed to exhibit that they do not even have a full grasp of the company’s offerings, claiming, somewhat triumphantly it seemed to me, that in fact, having “investigated” the matter on their own, Fox is in fact available to me  —  in high-def  —  on channel so-and-so. They’d confused (purposely or otherwise) Fox News Channel with a regular Fox TV network channel.

I didn’t accept their insulting answers, and so like little girls who can’t win an argument, they just went away, apparently to hide under their desks, refusing to even acknowledge any more of my tweets. Nice.

They had no answer.

I’m left to wonder if all of this isn’t on purpose.

Are they purposely trying to marginalize Sun News and Fox News Channel  —  the only two really conservative-tolerant news channels, by sidelining them and confining them to the low-def morass? I have to think so.  I have to think that someone  —  possibly a whole cabal of them  —  over there are anti-conservative, and are trying to make it difficult for Canadians to see or hear conservative ideas or points of view.

They will deny it, as they already have, by way of some kind of “we’re adding new channels all the time” -type explanation. But given what we know about liberal-biased media and big-government-reliant corporate cronies, I think I have all the credible reasons I need to back up my suspicions.


Continue Reading

State-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC to blow wad on “love story” about socialist leader

Actually, according to the propaganda, the 90-minute biopic is about Jack Layton and the romance he shared with his wife, whom he called his “life partner,” Olivia Chow. Who sounds very much like a communist to me.

And yeah that’s what I really need to know more about: Jack Layton and Olivia Chow and their romantic life together.

The state-owned, socialism-reliant media in Canada, the dreadful failure CBC, which burns through at least $1.2 BILLION in direct taxpayer welfare every year, has decided to invest your taxpayer cash in a film about their late socialist hero, the NDP’s Jack Layton.

Because they know better than you how to spend your cash. And they have your cash.

They previously did a movie about the socialist leader Tommy Douglas.

While we’re here, let’s review, using our handy CBC Waste-o-Meter, how much taxpayer cash the state-owned media has burned through, just this year alone. So far.

Well then. Apparently that’s not enough yet.

I’m quite sure, using the standard Canadian formula for any “arts” creation in Canada, not only will the state-owned, state-funded CBC The ubiquitous progressive government Canada logoblow a huge wad of cash on this, but the production company itself will receive who-knows-how-much in federal, provincial, municipal, and crown “corporation” grants and sponsorships and subsidies, or other such forms of government “investment” (–wink!)  à la the former Soviet Union or present day Greece.

Here’s a news story about this latest example of idiocy and waste from QMI Agency, which is Sun News Network’s news-gathering agency.

Taxpayers bolster Layton legend

QMI AGENCY, July 18, 2012

Coming to a small screen near you, Smilin’ Jack: The Jack Layton Story.

Even if you wouldn’t shell out for it at the box office, you’ll certainly be paying for it through your taxes.

CBC has now officially confirmed its plans to make a TV movie about the life of former opposition leader Jack Layton.

The project is described as a lead-up to the 2011 election, focusing on the romance between Layton and wife Olivia Chow.

Sure, one could pick worse subjects for a Canadian TV movie. In a QMI Agency/Leger poll conducted in the run up the last federal election, Layton was most likeable. He was the leader Canadians would have most liked to have a beer with.

But we can’t help but wonder if the state broadcaster is going to tell Layton’s full story, warts and all, or if this will just be gushing praise. After all, their news department never shied away from showing their love for him.

Will they bring up some of the less shining moments in Layton’s career?

Will they bring up his opposition, while on Toronto council, to the creation of the SkyDome? To bringing the 1996 Olympics to Toronto? To the creation of a new subway line that would have been completed by 2011?

Will they bring up his time spent living with Chow and her mother in an affordable housing unit?

Will they bring up his visit to a massage parlour at the time of a police raid?

We’re not being unduly skeptical. We know taxpayer-funded political films aren’t always the most balanced.

After all, the last biopic of a major Canadian politician wasn’t balanced.

The 2011 film Mulroney: The Opera — which received tax dollars from Telefilm Canada — certainly put its subject through the wringer.

“It is at once a comedy and a tragedy,” explains Telefilm’s website. What about a serious drama? Or a historical account? Nope. Maybe that has something to do with Mulroney not being a left-winger. Or maybe we’re just paranoid.

We all know the state broadcaster is politically biased. We all know they have no qualms with how they spend the billion dollars of your money they receive annually.

Jack and his supporters may smile after seeing this film, but we doubt taxpayers will.

But even the National Post, which I’ve taken to calling the CBC/National Post News and Advertising Cooperative on account of their being “life partners” with the CBC, said this about it:

“…really, in announcing the biopic this week, the broadcaster left itself open to a bit of ridicule with a description of Mr. Layton that would not have been at all out of place at last spring’s NDP convention. It said Mr. Layton became “one of this country’s most treasured federal politicians” and it referred to him and his wife as “a beloved political power couple.”

“Above all,” the press release concluded, “‘SMILIN’ JACK’ is the touching story of a man who reached the hearts of many Canadians, and fought for rights that would ultimately change the face of this country.”

Whoosh. Perhaps it’s not worth quibbling with subjective terms, but “treasured” and “beloved”? …”

The above quotes from the same tools who incessantly describe the war on terror as the “so-called war on terror” (or when G.W. Bush was still president, “George Bush’s so-called war on terror”), and call terrorists “insurgents” and “militants” so as not to appear as though they “take sides.”

I’ll say it again, as I’ve been saying it for 12 years: State-owned media should be banned in this country, and that notion should be enshrined in our constitution.


Continue Reading

Chinga tu Madre, state-mandated liberal-left censors.

When you’ve got the time, watch this video.

Actually, I mean hurry and watch it. I have no doubt that Canadian and American liberals and others in the progressive left are hobbled away somewhere, even as you read this, possibly in some corner of their nation (Cuba  —  or even right here in Canada or America where they live), trying to drum up a way of state-sponsored “regulating” the internet. Particularly its conservative web sites. As in the rest of our erstwhile free world, they must seek state-sponsored ways of engineering the ‘net such that conservatives like me who get in their way  —  who criticize liberals and progressive government and their growing laws, rules, regulations, and public policies; or which in some other way offend their progressive world view which requires their careful control and expert engineering, are summarily shut up. So watch it now. Quick.

For those viewing this on an iPad or iPhone (etc) and can’t view Flash video, here’s a link instead so you can check it out on your desktop or laptop:

It’s particularly galling that they  —  those unqualified, unelected, self-appointed liberals and progressive-leftists who always dominate these things (just like their brethren in those hideous Canadian government-mandated “human rights” commissions all across Canada)  —  dictate, in quasi-official “rulings,” decided after closed-door star chamber-like meetings, that a person and/or organization express “apology” and “regret” for something. They dictate an emotion. And they dictate that people feel the way they’re instructed, by them, to feel. And they order them to think a certain way. The way they think. In this case, about something that they find offensive. So Chinga tu Madre, progressives. Take it to Cuba where it belongs.

Also see this somewhat related article on fascism.




Continue Reading

It's a question.