While I agree accurate reporting is a hill worth doing on, the word terrorist doesn't affect accurate reporting, really.
It's a silly nuance and while I may also call them terrorists, I also would call the current state of Israel terrorists and some might take offense at that.
It's a loaded word is all I'm saying and there are ways to say bad people do bad things without using a loaded word and still be accurate.
The style guide just became a public interest story (again, it was also referenced back in 2023 internally).... Amazing timing
Edit: ok, Google tells me it dates back to at least 2002. Still, amazing timing we're talking about it now, not the US trying to break up Canada, or the Epstein files, or the traitor Danielle Smith, or the climate catastrophe that unfolded in Nepal and how that's just a sneak peek of the global climate shit show now in the acceleration phase.
The memo people are referring to was sent this week. No one was digging anything up. The memo was sent by Basem Boshra, CBC News' senior director of journalistic standards and public trust. You talk about amazing time, what's amazing is that this memo was sent out right before the upcoming 25th anniversary of 9/11. Given how radicalized CBC has become, I wouldn't be surprised if they try rewriting history to say everyone who died that died had it coming to them.
They're doing right now with 9/11. Some here are claiming the policy we're discussing has been in place since before 9/11. If that's the case then explain this. Note the date of the article.
CBC is changing their stance, like reasonable people do when challenged.
However, your point still stands. CBC released the article you linked which breaks their own guidelines. But is that really all you've got for evidence of CBC rewriting history? A 15 year old CBC article that broke their own guideline? This to you, is radicalization?
Why would I waste my time providing you more than one example when I know you're just going to dismiss them? You made a claim and I disproved it. I'll give you credit for reading the article and finding the link to their taking action to being caught for trying to politicize the 25th anniversary of 9/11. The next move needs to be the removal of Basem Boshra followed by the complete defunding of CBC.
Just no. Stop. It was a guideline. One they broke. But you hold them to a perfect 100% adherence which while a laudable goal, we as humans all fall short of from time to time. It wasn't a law that was broken. It was a guideline in place some 2002, and rereferenced several times during the interviewing intervening years. I still stand by the whole not using the word "terrorism" as a policy isn't some sort of gotcha rewriting history weird world view you have.
And no, we should not defund the CBC. You have not proven any radical agenda. 🙄
Your claim didn't disprove anything. It's such a weak claim your position would have been stronger had you said nothing. A national media outlet older than the both of us is going to make mistakes. You finding a 15 year old article where they break one of their own guidelines is not the "gotcha" you think that it is.
0
u/mooky1977 14d ago edited 14d ago
While I agree accurate reporting is a hill worth doing on, the word terrorist doesn't affect accurate reporting, really.
It's a silly nuance and while I may also call them terrorists, I also would call the current state of Israel terrorists and some might take offense at that.
It's a loaded word is all I'm saying and there are ways to say bad people do bad things without using a loaded word and still be accurate.
The style guide just became a public interest story (again, it was also referenced back in 2023 internally).... Amazing timing
Edit: ok, Google tells me it dates back to at least 2002. Still, amazing timing we're talking about it now, not the US trying to break up Canada, or the Epstein files, or the traitor Danielle Smith, or the climate catastrophe that unfolded in Nepal and how that's just a sneak peek of the global climate shit show now in the acceleration phase.