James Kautz has a transcript of an exchange between the CBC’s Carol Off
(As It Happens) and Pakistani General General Rashid Koreshi (spokesman for President Musharraf) that reveals more about the host than perhaps she intended;
whole thing.Carol Off: But surely the President reads the papers. Surely he watches the news. Every single day.
General Koreshi: Yes.
Carol Off: Every paper, every headline – except for some media, which is close to the government – every headline is about how he has to go; that it’s time for him to leave. Is her enured to that? Does it mean nothing to him that he sees every single day the newspapers are saying, reporting on yet another group that says, ‘President Musharraf, take a hint – there’s the door.’?
General Koreshi: I would like to ask you, if media starts a campaign, in your country, against your President or Prime Minister, will he just get up and leave? No. No!
Carol Off: Well, sometimes you take into consideration that maybe they’re telling…
General Koreshi: No, there are millions, there are 160 million people in Pakistan. There is a system in place. If for some reason the elected representatives do not want President Musharraf, there is a system in place, there is an impeachment, where two thirds of the elected assembly can impeach the President.
Carol Off: You see, really, do you want to wait until it comes to that? To be impeached, to be tossed out? Is that…
There is no requirement for the Constitutional process to play out, no purpose in consulting the citizenry proper – for she has determined the mob’s cause to be just. Musharref must “go”. The Mob has demanded it and the Mob has a printing press.
She’s representive of a growing number of individuals who, while impersonating journalists, hijack the public debate in an attempt to effect change in government and direct public policy. It happens in Pakistan, as it happens in Canada.
It’s the single most corrupting force in the modern political arena – this branch of the journalistic profession that seeks to govern without the messy inconvenience of running for office.
It helps to explain why the extreme left has such a disproportionate voice in the political media, why so much approving coverage is granted fringe politicians like Elizabeth May. With political views that are largely rejected by the electoral mainstream, they gravitate to journalism. There, they can have their voice “heard” through the proxies of political parties and advocacy groups. They provide the Green Parties and the Marijuana Parties and other marginal political movements an unearned legitimacy they cannot achieve through popular support.
You need look no further than the common reference to the unelected May as an “opposition” leader for evidence of that.
ahhhh the Canadian Broadcorping Castration
living up to its socialist ideals of being smarter than anyone else.
Government, governing — not by the difficult process of getting elected.
Easier to do it by being a Jounalist/Media type — as Kates post illustrates.
Or through the United Nations;
” [Maurice]Strong has always courted power – but not through any shabby election campaign. He was a Liberal candidate in the 1979 federal election, but pulled out a month before the vote.
How could a mere MP wield the kind of international control he had tasted in Stockholm? Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN.]
Or, through the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
With a corrupt media on your side, elections can be won with corny pink dinosaurs. Or by portraying one party as supporting Religious Schools even though it is the other one that does.
Perhaps we are in a new era;
‘Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil’ may no longer be the most dangerous.
How about, ‘The Media Is The Root Of All Evil’
Add to the list of illegitimate rulers: unelected judges making up laws, relieving the elected legislatures of the “legislative burden”. There seems to be no shortage of these self-appointed representatives of “the people”, usually leftists, who want to govern without going through the messy and tedious process of the democratic system.
With the left, laws mean everything, until they stumble into a situation where the law doesn’t support their views, at least quickly enough, then the law is quite forgettable.
CBC/MSM manual: The Psy Warrior’s Koran.
Off has digested/is using this tactic: “It must explain propaganda directives to important officials …”
…-
GOEBBELS’ PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA
1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.
2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.
b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.
http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html
I loved hearing Carol be put in her place during this interview last night on CBC. She actually became flustered when the Pakistani General questioned the Press’ Authority (and in turn, her authority) to dictate when the President should step down.
Reuters at it again too ?
[Yesterday, Reuters posted a story entitled “Sadr Expected to End Truce”, implying it was likely that Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr would end his Mahdi Army’s six-month ceasefire in Iraq. I can’t offer the URL of that story because once their cynical prediction was proved immediately wrong (today, Sadr announced that he’d be extending the ceasefire another six months) the link started bringing me to a new Reuters story entitled (surprise, surprise) “Iraqi Cleric Sadr Extends Militia Ceasefire.” Soon after that, the original headline disappeared from internet searches altogether.] Abe Greenwald
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/2638
Thanks Kate for the post. It shows just how idiotic journalists are when they get the bit in there teeth. Some you just can’t hold back. It’s a shame they our tax dollars are paying these people. Merle Underwood.
Ah yes, Carol Off. And to think that in the past I relied on her and the CBC for information.
I shudder to think where the Media would have taken us if the Internet had not interferred.
Kate:
Nicely written, well said and very true. That post deserves to be on your 10-best list.
Perfect example of the MSM doing what it does on a daily basis. (Just a little less subtle) They shape public opinion and take ZERO responsibility or respect for it.
That’s a remarkable perspective – that the mob is the authority in a nation.
So, if the press only gives the views of the mob, and ignores that of other people, according to Carol Off, that one perspective must rule everyone.
Due process? Rejected.
Laws of democratic decision-making? Rejected.
All that matters is the rhetoric of the particular group published in the MSM. Sounds rather familiar – that’s Liberal tactics.
You implore us to Read The Whole Thing!
Sorry not in this case … I’ve been studying the CBC’s rank and file tools for years and find them to be nothing but an embarrassment.
The arrogance and ignorance displayed by Off in this interview is the standard for CBC.
Write an e-mail to the ombudsman and the news director and you will get that standard line of BS from the mothercorp about fairness and balance.
These people are too far gone to realize how far gone they are.
Carol Off is just another activist masquerading as a CBC journalist. More proof that CBC is just a safe house for a never ending line of radicals.
John Cruickshank, new CBC chief news editor, is just waking up to the disaster of a personnel situation that he is inheriting from Tony Burman.
Advocacy journalism is the rule, rather than exception.
NO, do read it. It’s worth it for the smackdown she receives.
Good point as always.
Carole Off turns me off. Each interview is an attempt for a *Barbara Frum moment*. = TG
What do you expect from the Canadian Broadcasting Collective? … Reporting? News? Facts? Reality? HAH!
The good party members and comrades at the Collective have a job to do, and they will do it. Goebbels is proud of loyal comrades like Ms Off; she is a stalwart propagandist.
Don’t bother complaining to publishers or editors or ombudsman. That’s just punching a marshmallow.
Complain to the advertisers. Pickup trucks are the profit “engine” for the big 3.
Write to Ford, and write to GM, write to CTC, write to The Bay, etc, and tell them that their support of the biased media and their hacks through their advertising revenues is damaging their brand.
Money talks.
One can safely assume she, as a far left Canadian journalist, is (a) racist to the core of her being, and (b) profoundly ignorant of global reality.
She probably has no clue of the level of civilized sophistication, and the quality of the education, of millions of Pakistanis, in no small part thanks to the heritage of centuries of close relationship with British civilization.
Advocacy and journalism are very difficult to separate today and this is a good example of it.. I’m not sure there ever was a ‘golden age’ when it was better.
Professions have a fair amount of self-selection in the people they attract. I think journalism is attractive to young people who want to change the world. It is certainly attractive to people who see social justice as a cause. Also, regular activists know that the media is the most effective way to deliver a message and they battle for air time.
All media is biased. There is no way to avoid it. It’s biased because ( with a few notable exceptions ) it’s a business and it has a target market to sell to. It’s biased because sensationalism sells better — if it bleeds it leads is an old expression. It’s biased because people bring their own baggage to the job and see the world through their own lens.
Whether, in aggregate, media is unrepresentative of the general population is a different question. The right complains about left leaning MSM and the left complains about right leaning MSM and both sides have no shortage of examples which accurately demonstrate bias. I think it’s likely that aggregate media opinion is probably a reasonably proxy for aggregate public opinion and it’s probably self-correcting.
As you point out, sometimes the notion of journalistic balance means that alternative views on a topic are over-represented in the media. It’s likely that Elizabeth May shows up more often as an opposition leader than her unelected status warrants and the word “debate” shows up in climate science articles more than the science might warrant 😉
Marvellous to see his slap down. I applaud him.
Good time to watch Ayaan Hirsi Ali take down Avi Lewis again. Do they ever learn? I think not.
Can’t believe writing advertisers will do any good. CBC must be cleansed and losing their funding is the only way to destroy this nest of vipers.
They are fifth-column far left activists posing as journalists.
Didn’t this fine example of CBC journalism once (not that long ago) interview Pervez Musharaff himself? Didn’t the President/General also verbally slap her silly? Didn’t our own WLMR celebrate the occasion on SDA with a rant of magnificent and delicious excess? Is there someone here with better search skills than I who can provide a link to it?
What Off is ignoring is that there are millions and millions of Canadians who want the CBC to go away. Why won’t they comply and go away?
I do believe the majority (mob) wants them gone.
The CBC is a nest of snakes. They are mostly ignored except by the most brain-washed of Canadians.
I would be embarrassed to work for that totally biased Liberal organization. I suppose that being snakes, if they ever feel a bit dirty, they can simply molt and get on with it.
Carol bleeping Off can get the hell off my payroll.
She’s well off base in this interview but she was up against someone capable of handling her Leftist twaddle.
Either her blocked off ideology prevented her from seeing the real picture or she just didn’t do her homework and went with her own activist agenda.
These agenda driven Journos can be a danger and an embarrassment to our Country on the world’s stage.
Petey Mansbridge made it obvious he doesn’t much like the new Conservative ad picking on Steffi when he played part of it on “At Issue” panel segment of the News last evening.
He said he wouldn’t play it all and give them free advertising!!!! Who the hell does he think is paying for his free advertising and manipulations for the Liberals?
I say who needs to have his opinion made on National NEWS? We can form our own opinions.
Do the “journalists” (and I use the term lightly) from the CBC not realize that the alternative to the General may not be Pierre Trudeau but Osama Bin Laden?
A “Canadian-style” liberal (read: socialist) isn’t on the ticket. The choices are to deny the people real representation or get the head-hacking terrorist they would elect if they had the choice.
Ah yes, Pervez himself slaps down the whining Off. September 27, 2006.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004701.html
Ah yes, the “Journalist”.
I miss the days of “reporters”, who just reported the facts and left out the commentary. Or else left in the commentary, but noted it as “this reporter’s opinion.”
Where are the Menckens? The Sam Fullers?
Gone to J-school, every one.
One unfortunate thing is that journalists frequently see themselves as spokesmen for truth — when most often their perceptions are limited by both personal biases, incomplete knowledge, and the need to sensationalize (mistakes, controversies, whatever. I remember sitting in on a hearing many years ago. An important so and so was to speak at some early point, and that person’s presentation became the focal point of the news stories, rather than the issue at hand. Pros and cons and important details about the issue came to light throughout the day, but once the poobah had spoken, the journalists were out of there. Noone reading their reports in the news the next day would have had a clear understanding of the issue. Unfortunately, I don’t think most journalists realize how off-the-mark they often are.
Kate: why don’t you write your next column for the National Post on this very issue?
A Mencken quote for mojo, from the golden age when reporters “left out the commentary”:
More here.
http://dontgiveuphope.ca/gallery2/v/dontgiveuphope/
Did Carole Off do her job? Did she inform you about results in Pakistan. I didn*t have the stomach to tolerate her.
Did you learn this? . . .
* * *Terrorism is a core issue,* Mr. Zardari said, adding that his countrymen had *their own opinions* about how to prevent “the Talibanisation of Pakistan . . . We have to go deep and dig to resolve the reasons for terrorism.*
Looking relaxed and triumphant before a crucial meeting Thursday with Nawaz Sharif, who leads his biggest potential coalition party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, Mr. Zardari said the two leaders, whose parties have been bitter enemies for years, were *going to find solutions to the problems of Pakistan.*
The PPP won 87 seats, while the PML-N won 67 seats Monday, so if they were to unite they would control a comfortable majority of the 342 seats in the next parliament. However, it was the PPP’s intention to also ask smaller parties to join the coalition, Mr. Zardari said.
Since the PML-Q, which Mr. Musharraf created, was reduced to 40 seats in Monday’s vote, he has had said little except that he intended to stay on as president.
nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=322286
========================================== NP
= TG
Superb post Kate. As to how the media give the hard left a pass, not to mention a boost:
“Conference of Defence Associations vs. the Rideau Institute”
Mark
Ottawa
**c* off plays to her audience, no one else. her message is difficult to listen to but one can hardly complain because there is an audience. bigger holier-than-thou types have actually been elected.
nonetheless, when it comes to the public purse, it would be interesting to see her salary, position and future based on popularity (like in private media). she does not have my vote (i.e. ears) – despite the fact that she enjoys a portion of my taxes. therein lies the problem. she can have whatever opinion/slant/agenda she wants – but is it absolutely necessary that it is done on my dime? why am i not writing to the powers that be? right, they’re the ones that hired her.
that should not stop me from writing – the first hole in the berlin wall was created blow-by-blow by individuals drunk on freedom.
Quit yer whinning. Carol played the devil’s advocate (whether or not this is truly how she feels), the CBC publicly aired this interview and she got spanked by Koreshi. I got a good chuckle out of it.
Gee Kate. How kind of you to stick up for a dictator and for the “constitutional processes” he’s been flouting for years.
What other tyrants/thugs should the Canadian press treat with kid gloves? Castro? Putin? Karimov? Ahmadinejad? Please do tell…
Yup. If it was Bill O’Reilly, Kate and the SDA gang would be drooling with admiration, calling him a hero, a patriot, a truth-seeker, a guy who’s taking the battle to the front lines, standing up to tyrants, takin’ no guff from terrorist-harbouring regimes, fighting evil, doing good, shining a light, etc.
CBC does it, and, well…here we are.
“Whether, in aggregate, media is unrepresentative of the general population is a different question. The right complains about left leaning MSM and the left complains about right leaning MSM and both sides have no shortage of examples which accurately demonstrate bias. I think it’s likely that aggregate media opinion is probably a reasonably proxy for aggregate public opinion and it’s probably self-correcting”.
The United States has a habit, voter registration, which lays any even-handedness theory to a well-deserved rest. Journalists skew over 85% Democrat (similar figures for university profs).
There has been lots of discussion, even entire books out on media left wing bias written by insiders after retirement like “Bias” by Bernard Goldberg. Only the hard core is still putting out that twaddle about “right wing bias” while reading their 1000th article on Bushitler.
A comparative study from UCLA, not exactly a bastion of conservatism actually found the supposedly right wing Fox to be the most balanced in its news coverage. People who scream about Fox being right wing either don’t watch it or like their news all left, all the time.
The attitude of the “reputable” liberal journalists who don’t have the chutpah to lie about right wing bias is “Yes the majority of journalists are liberals but we can be and are unbiased in presenting the news” LOL at their hubris and blindness. A smaller group are even more honest and say “Yes we are liberal and skew the news that way but so what? We’re on the side of the angels”.
Sorry, chutzpah.