Canadian Neo-Cons Try to Silence the CBC

Since its inception by Conrad Black the National Post has been a bastion of Canadian neo-conservative thought. Avowedly pro-Bush and pro-Sharon the paper frequently reads like a press release from the offices of Donald Rumsfeld.

This week the Post published an editorial criticizing the CBC for broadcasting a report that did not make it clear there was no hard evidence for claims made by one Eugene Bird, president of CNI (the Council for the National Interest, click here for their website) in the U.S. Mr. Bird claimed Israeli intelligence was involved in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

The Post made a number of aspersions against CNI, specifically that it is anti-Israeli, and I assume by supposition anti-Semitic. I'd urge anyone to take a look at the CNI website (link above), to examine the Council's stances on issues and decide for themselves.

The Post also criticized the CBC and their reporter Mr. Neil MacDonald for having an anti-Israeli bias, a claim the Post makes frequently.

The CBC later made a form of retraction by announcing the following on CBC's The National:

Last Friday, reporter Brian Stewart, subbing for Mansbridge, read an on-air correction: "(T)here is no evidence that Israel was involved in what happened in the Iraqi prison. The comment from the diplomat should not have been included in the report, and we regret the error." (click here for the full article in the Toronto Star)

I personally have been critical of the CBC in the past, largely because they sometimes tend toward laziness in their reporting, and fail to point out facts blatantly relevant to a particular news item (click here for an example).

But I completely disagree that the CBC should not have broadcast Bird's comments. The mistake they made was not asking Bird to detail that evidence, and if none was forthcoming to then decide whether to keep his comments or simply point out that no evidence was provided.

I find it ironic that the National Post is such a stickler for evidence when their pro-Iraq War stance was later revealed to be founded on lies promulgated by the Bush Administration. I don't recall the Post printing a retraction for their failures in that case.

Unlike a publicly funded news organization, such as the CBC, the National Post is able to hide behind its privatized status. Despite the fact that the National Post has a very apparent political right-wing bias, the fact that it is owned somehow confers it a form of immunity.

It is the myth of money at work. Moneyed interests are able to keep a powerful national political tool afloat, and simply the fact that you can choose not to buy the newspaper affords it a protection that the CBC does not have.

Yes the CBC should have greater oversight. It is a public corporation, and it must strive to best represent the interests of the Canadian public. But it is also important to point out the National Post has an avowed bias that can influence public opinion, all because its owners have the money to spend to shape people's perceptions, and pretend to present it as objective news.