I have been in a running battle with the CBC regarding media bias over Israel and their inability to call a terrorist a terrorist. My latest complaint to the CBC ombudsman has been answered. The link is below. And my complaint was dismissed. I am enclosing the Ombudsman's review in which she responds to my concerns and then my responses to her. The CBC in my opinion is so stuck in its left wing rut that even the ombudsman cannot see the forest for the trees. When you see something in the media that you know is wrong-write a letter, lodge a complaint, never quit. They are counting on you to walk away. DON'T.
MY RESPONSE
You wrote in response to my complaint:
"You believe that Ms. Polko’s views should not have been aired because they are damaging and demeaning to those who live with mental illness.Daily journalism is always about choices. The fact that this young woman had spoken out was a newsworthy event. While it is not best practice to have unqualified people make these statements, this is a different set of circumstances. To suppress what she had said as a significant player in a story with enormous interest and emotion would have been equally wrong. When you listen to Polko’s words, she was not creating a dichotomy between terrorism and mental illness – in fact she seems to be prompted by a desire to end speculation about Cpl. Cirillo. I understand her to be saying that people should not be arguing about Cirillo’s bravery but about the mental health system."
Your response speaks to my compliant. You contradict yourself.
Why is Ms. Polko a significant player? Ms. Polko has no standing other than being a girlfriend. A girlfriend of four months. Yet, the CBC decided that her feelings are important to explain what happened to her boyfriend. When did feelings become newsworthy? It seems the CBC places equal value to feelings as educated opinion. You did not explain why her feelings are more important than any one else-other than the fact that she was his girlfriend for four months. Her views on the mental health care system have no bearing. She has no previous experience. Yet you chose to promote her on the CBC. You did not speak to Cpl Cirillo's friends. Why not? Aren't their feelings as important? Or is that they believe he was assassinated by an Islamic terrorist?
You seem to have missed the point of the complaint-that you choose these people intentionally to promote an agenda. You did not want to talk about terrorism. You wanted this to be about mental illness so you chose to read the letter of an uniformed emotional 20 something-girlfriend, who in fact by calling this action an act of mental illness took away from the seriousness of this assassination.
That you see her as not referring to him as brave but rather pivoting to mental illness-is the complaint-that you just rejected.
As you wrote in response to my complaint:
"I understand her to be saying that people should not be arguing about Cirillo’s bravery but about the mental health system." And that she thinks his bravery is not the issue but the mental health system is at issue bears discussion on the CBC? Again I ask why? Is that not my complaint; that her views have no bearing except that they mirror the agenda of the CBC?
Your response, Ms. Enkin is tautological. Your response, in fact, Ms. Enkin confirms my complaint. You gave voice to someone with no standing (other than a very short relationship to the man who was murdered) who pivoted away from terrorism and pointed to mental illness.
How did you come to dismiss my complaint when in your own words you confirmed it?
Enkin responded. She stood by her review and I responded a second time:
You stand by this decision because you live in a culture that will not accept terrorism qua terrorism.
Today, on Matt Gurney's show, we all heard from John Crickshank whose response to the horror in Paris was something to the effect (because he rambled) that the Muslims feel humiliated by white colonialists. You chose him to speak on the morning show. A man who will not accept that there are those in the world who hate those of us who live in the West for our beliefs. In other words, they hate us for being us. In the same way that there are far too many in this world who hate Jews for being Jews and are easily invited to that hatred by biased reporting.
Standing by your response does not change the fact that you agreed with my complaint. You agreed that Ms.Polko was brought on the programme to deflect from terrorism to mental illness. That she was chosen not for her ability to contribute to the discussion with facts, but that she was brought into the programme because of her feelings-and those feelings supported mental illness as the cause of the death of her boyfriend of four months.
You did not explain why Cpl. Cirillo's soldier friends were not accorded the same privilege to speak to their emotions. Why did you not answer that question? I can only assume that you cherry picked the questions you wished to answer because they fit your narrative.
In other words, Ms. Enkin you have stated again that the CBC accepts feeling-based opinion on an equal basis with fact-based opinion. This is not the mandate given to the CBC.
