I was unhappy at the “cancelling” of Russians at War, having the same thoughts as you. I’ve changed my mind.
I’ve watched as much of it as has been made available for public viewing, her personal interviews with documentary film critics, read the film-maker’s history, and reviews of the film by journalists whose opinions I respect. I’m now convinced the film is not a piece of ART that’s been canceled by malcontents, but in fact propaganda poorly disguised as art. I’m not ok with it being “featured” at tiff as a proud Canadian production, in fact it’s embarrassing.
Far right and far left are both overused and often pejorative. So are misinformation and disinformation. You could probably make a long list of such emotional trigger words.
The real ugly one is malinformation which is true information the govt doesn’t want us to see. This is the real thrust of all these laws, true censorship where they keep true but “unhelpful” (to their narrative) info from us.
I have read the Online Harms Act. That cartoon of the Christian killing the LGBTQ person would qualify for compensation. The OH Act is the worst piece of legislation ever. But the other side so routinely attacks conservatives and Christians with outlandish claims and insults they will come to regret this Act. The PM himself had called those who were against the vax as racist homophobic etc. okay…that would qualify for compensation.
Wikipedia says Rebel News is a far right publication and mentions a number of people associated with Rebel News that have far right connections. Now the term far right is often used as a pejorative and CP did not need to use it in the article, but if Rebel News isn't far right, it's pretty darn close.
My point isn’t that it is or that it isn’t. That is clear in the first sentence. My point is that if journalists are going to use that term, they are obliged to source it and explain why they are using it. Otherwise it is simply the writer’s opinion.
I get your point, but my impression is that it is an industry standard to label politicians and others far right, progressive or activist without explaining why. Whether the labels are fact or opinion is a gray area. If the Wikipedia entry on Rebel News is accurate does that make it a fact? If CP had called Rebel News right wing instead of far right would you have accepted that as a fact?
My view is that the labels are usually an unnecessary distraction from what is important in the story.
DB, you point to Wikipedia as describing Rebel News that way. My question is how should I consider Wikipedia? Personally, I find them, oh, somewhat leftish so a sloppy descriptor by one of their commentators who actually write the posts seems to me to be rather predictable. The follow on question for me is how one should describe the folks who actually edit.
You know, a variation on the old saw of, "Who guards the guardians?"
Whether Wikipedia is leftish or not doesn't matter to me. Politics should not be the deciding factor in deciding if information is accurate. Wikipedia does provides several references for calling Rebel News far right that anyone can check.
My own take on Rebel News is that it skirts the line between right wing and far right, but I really don't know if it crosses the line. I dont read Rebel News because I'm not a fan of Levant. i view him as a right wing version of Michael Moore.
Hmmmm ...... "right wing version of Michael Moore." Fascinating comparison.
I am not a Michael Moore fan but I do have to say that he does from time to time have something of value to say. I do wonder what Ezra would say about being compared to Mike. Or the reverse, for that matter.
I am on the free distribution channel for Rebel News. So often I find it amusing, sometimes boring, sometimes actually informative. What I do know is that they are certainly self promoting but pretty well everyone is that these days.
The idea that Rebel does not generate original news content I find surprising simply because they do come up with - be polite, Ken - unique news stories. No, I don't mean false, no "Elvis lives!" or similar nonsense but they certainly do find ways to - again, be polite, Ken - "interest" their base with stories that resonate with that base and that don't (as near as I can tell) get reported upon very much by mainstream media. Is that journalism? I really don't know but I do know that everyone's own taste is unique. So, another example of "Central Canadian establishment thinking" that denied them status as journalists? Who knows? But it is a valid thought.
Maybe it was "Calgary City Council thinking" that denied Rebel News status as a news organization.
The problem with the ruling is that we don't have any comparisons to news organizations that were approved, and we don't know what the cut-off point was. Without this information speculation that this was a political decision will linger.
I was unhappy at the “cancelling” of Russians at War, having the same thoughts as you. I’ve changed my mind.
I’ve watched as much of it as has been made available for public viewing, her personal interviews with documentary film critics, read the film-maker’s history, and reviews of the film by journalists whose opinions I respect. I’m now convinced the film is not a piece of ART that’s been canceled by malcontents, but in fact propaganda poorly disguised as art. I’m not ok with it being “featured” at tiff as a proud Canadian production, in fact it’s embarrassing.
CP is implying that the Federal Court judge called Rebel News "far right."
Far right and far left are both overused and often pejorative. So are misinformation and disinformation. You could probably make a long list of such emotional trigger words.
The real ugly one is malinformation which is true information the govt doesn’t want us to see. This is the real thrust of all these laws, true censorship where they keep true but “unhelpful” (to their narrative) info from us.
I have read the Online Harms Act. That cartoon of the Christian killing the LGBTQ person would qualify for compensation. The OH Act is the worst piece of legislation ever. But the other side so routinely attacks conservatives and Christians with outlandish claims and insults they will come to regret this Act. The PM himself had called those who were against the vax as racist homophobic etc. okay…that would qualify for compensation.
Wikipedia says Rebel News is a far right publication and mentions a number of people associated with Rebel News that have far right connections. Now the term far right is often used as a pejorative and CP did not need to use it in the article, but if Rebel News isn't far right, it's pretty darn close.
My point isn’t that it is or that it isn’t. That is clear in the first sentence. My point is that if journalists are going to use that term, they are obliged to source it and explain why they are using it. Otherwise it is simply the writer’s opinion.
I get your point, but my impression is that it is an industry standard to label politicians and others far right, progressive or activist without explaining why. Whether the labels are fact or opinion is a gray area. If the Wikipedia entry on Rebel News is accurate does that make it a fact? If CP had called Rebel News right wing instead of far right would you have accepted that as a fact?
My view is that the labels are usually an unnecessary distraction from what is important in the story.
DB, you point to Wikipedia as describing Rebel News that way. My question is how should I consider Wikipedia? Personally, I find them, oh, somewhat leftish so a sloppy descriptor by one of their commentators who actually write the posts seems to me to be rather predictable. The follow on question for me is how one should describe the folks who actually edit.
You know, a variation on the old saw of, "Who guards the guardians?"
Wikipedia has to be taken with an entire mountain of salt
https://www.thefp.com/p/how-wikipedia-became-propaganda-site?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
Whether Wikipedia is leftish or not doesn't matter to me. Politics should not be the deciding factor in deciding if information is accurate. Wikipedia does provides several references for calling Rebel News far right that anyone can check.
My own take on Rebel News is that it skirts the line between right wing and far right, but I really don't know if it crosses the line. I dont read Rebel News because I'm not a fan of Levant. i view him as a right wing version of Michael Moore.
Hmmmm ...... "right wing version of Michael Moore." Fascinating comparison.
I am not a Michael Moore fan but I do have to say that he does from time to time have something of value to say. I do wonder what Ezra would say about being compared to Mike. Or the reverse, for that matter.
I am on the free distribution channel for Rebel News. So often I find it amusing, sometimes boring, sometimes actually informative. What I do know is that they are certainly self promoting but pretty well everyone is that these days.
The idea that Rebel does not generate original news content I find surprising simply because they do come up with - be polite, Ken - unique news stories. No, I don't mean false, no "Elvis lives!" or similar nonsense but they certainly do find ways to - again, be polite, Ken - "interest" their base with stories that resonate with that base and that don't (as near as I can tell) get reported upon very much by mainstream media. Is that journalism? I really don't know but I do know that everyone's own taste is unique. So, another example of "Central Canadian establishment thinking" that denied them status as journalists? Who knows? But it is a valid thought.
Maybe it was "Calgary City Council thinking" that denied Rebel News status as a news organization.
The problem with the ruling is that we don't have any comparisons to news organizations that were approved, and we don't know what the cut-off point was. Without this information speculation that this was a political decision will linger.
Here is a pretty good article describing just how corrupted Wikipedia has become.
https://www.thefp.com/p/how-wikipedia-became-propaganda-site?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true