Horribly Bigoted CBC "Op-Ed" Piece
May. 18th, 2004 10:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nfotxn![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jawnbc says: For shame CBC!And I wrote:
I cannot believe this crap was published as an op-ed on the CBC website:
The sorts of homophobic lies I’d expect from idiots. Not the CBC.
Please CALL or FAX or EMAIL CBC’s Ombudsman ASAP.
Tel.: 416/205-2978
Fax: 416/205-2825
ombudsman@cbc.ca
Mail:
Office of the Ombudsman
CBC
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6
Thank you
Regarding:I encourage anyone to write, call or fax the CBC with their views regardless of your nationality. Remember that it is important for a variety of viewpoints to be represented by a public corporation. However hate literature such as this is simply not acceptable.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_landolt/20040518.html
As a faithful, nay, addicted listener of Radio One and reader of much of the CBC’s web content I must say I was beyond angered but even a little personally hurt to see such a bigoted viewpoint represented even in op-ed. I am myself a gay man and very aware just from my relationships, experiences, friends, family and acquaintances as to just how patently false and hateful the above editorial is. I do understand that it is important for all viewpoints to be represented in public media but my question is: to what point? After much contemplation I can only regard Mrs. Landolt’s “editorial” as hateful. Riddled with conveniently contextualized statistics and out-and-out lies I cannot comprehend how this piece is fit for publication by the CBC under any heading or disclaimer.
Sincerely,
Brodie Noble Chree
______________________
Brodie@nfotxn.--.--
Home: (xxx) xxx-xxxx
Thanks to
caestus and jawnbc for getting the word out.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 08:07 pm (UTC)Too bad she doesn't seem to have a single independent thought of her own.
Every time I get alid, a religious bigot dies.
Date: 2004-05-18 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 10:02 pm (UTC)She bludgeons with the "impossibility of all same-sex couples to procreate", a) ignoring adoption, and b) ignoring all same-sex couples who simply can't. Using her logic, senior citizens and women who can't bare children should never marry.
Thank you for making me aware of such a bigoted post.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 10:17 pm (UTC)I posted a rather lengthy argument in my journal if anyone would like to read it.
Devil's Advocate...
Date: 2004-05-19 12:23 am (UTC)I don't know if that's the opinion of the CBC but it's the responsibility of CBC as a broadcaster to air or post all opinions no matter how controversial. I'm certain that there will be some strong opposing viewpoints and I hope it'll be published.
Re: Devil's Advocate...
Date: 2004-05-19 06:43 am (UTC)I still believe that it's better to know who my enemies are than to believe that they don't exist.
If it wasn't for television, radio, newspapers, the internet and various places to find opinions, how would I know who my enemies are?
Re: Devil's Advocate...
Date: 2004-05-19 11:15 am (UTC)That's why there are things like a "Letter to the Editor" section. If no one wrote a letter criticizing the op-ed piece to the CBC, that's when I would really worry about legitimizing a viewpoint. Which goes in both ways (so to speak).
Re: Devil's Advocate...
Date: 2004-05-19 01:43 pm (UTC)Free press is one thing. Responsible is another.
Re: Devil's Advocate...
Date: 2004-05-19 04:24 pm (UTC)To me, it's more like been there, done that.
Some very prominent and vocal members of the African-American community (specifically from the clergy) have made known their opposition on gay marriage. Some of their arguments are on the same path as the op/ed piece. I'm more than a little bit frustrated and angry at these so-called leaders' opinions but I'm not totally surprised.
They do have a right to say what they feel, even if it is totally illogical. I have my right to either respond to their argument or ignore it.
What viewpoints should be published in the press?
Only the ones we agree with?
I guess we can agree to disagree at least on the subject of viewpoints.
Re: Devil's Advocate...
Date: 2004-05-21 01:54 pm (UTC)That's like saying you believe in slavery because you're white.
Re: Devil's Advocate...
Date: 2004-05-21 03:37 pm (UTC)Just because one person's opinion is opposite of yours does not mean that it is any less valuable than yours because you happen to think that you're right.
Re: Devil's Advocate...
Date: 2004-05-21 06:19 pm (UTC)Including your opinion: pro-gay marriage?
So by using the media to infect people is bad if the message happens to disagree with you - but if it's something you believe to be right, then it's ok?
The point I am making is that everyone has the right to express their opinion - the CBC is only doing what it should be doing, providing an opposing view point to a national debate, regardless if it's factual or not. If it's factually in error, which it is, then it is up to US to debate it and correct it so that any legitimacy it may have is non existant.
Dictating what a public broadcaster, or any broadcast media, can and cannot publish is wrong.
According to you, only those who agree with your opinions should be allowed to speak or have airtime. Is this fair?
Re: Devil's Advocate...
Date: 2004-05-21 01:52 pm (UTC)Whoa whoa whoa, hang on there Majambo! There's no law anywhere stating that you cannot express your opinion, regardless if it's a public broadcaster or a hyped-up 80's BBS like LiveJournal. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, right or wrong, and they're entitled to express it.
Whether a person's opinion is valid or invalid, it still has the right to be expressed, regardless of it's content. The national broadcaster cannot determine what is or is not information, they can, however, determine whether something is worthy of repeating.
Saying not all opinions are worthy of broadcast/expression is like saying some people are not worthy of marriage. Where have we heard this before?
"Based on your arguement, the CBC should be airing these opinions too."
The CBC should, and does, provide non-biased opinion and argument on both sides of an issue in nature to the national debate. Anything less is the slippery-slope of fascism. Opposing views are what compels reasonable debate, and if facts are diluted or simply incorrect, then through argument and debate, those facts will either be upheld or disproved. Simply dismissing someone's opinion as wrong and not worthy of expression through a publically funded medium is wrong.
In all honesty, your commentary is just about as galling as the op-ed piece that the CBC posted.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 12:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 05:12 am (UTC)But that's ok, it's hard to take someone who looks like a tranquilizer-zombie dragqueen seriously.
I mean.. c'mon!
There there darlin', take another yellow and chase it with a Long Island.. Daddy's gonna be back shortly, just make yourself comfortable in the clubhouse until he's back.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 01:56 pm (UTC)Sad women
Date: 2004-05-19 07:20 am (UTC)http://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/cglandolt.htm
Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt has many views that make no sense on her organizations website REALwomenca.com She has done some good things for the UN and Canada, however her views as everyone is saying is totally unrealistic. Probally has a horrible home life herself. Trying to pray on others to make herself feel better.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 07:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 11:08 am (UTC)Laugh at ignorance.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 01:41 pm (UTC)Point 2: I know *plenty* of hetero couples who have open relationships.
Point 3: I sadly have been seeing far more anti-gay than pro-gay coverage on CBC, most of it opionion.
Point 4: I know *plenty* of kids who ended up fucked up and they had hetero parents.
Point 5: Let's all go get married, show up on her front lawn and show off our marriage licenses.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 09:33 pm (UTC)What bothers me is the letters written defending the article. Those opposed to same-sex marriage (for arugment's sake, let's take the assumption that there's an argument to be made there that hasn't been made yet) keep praising her research or saying that the CBC is trying to be journalistically fair. This is just stated as a blanket fact without addressing any facit whatsoever about the inticreasies of the actual "research". They then follow it up with some good old fashioned rhetoric about the importance of free speach and how we're just a bunch of facists for trying to stiffle them. As if that addresses the validity of _THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE_ at all!
I mean, let's be equally contriversial. Let's publish an article about how important it is to burn crosses and beat black people with lead pipes. I mean, yes the vast vast majority of the public may disagree with that viewpoint - but publishing that kind of counterpoint is just the definition of good journalism! And you're a "dictator" if you say otherwise!
Frankly my guess is the CBC was just trying to inflame the argument with that publication. Or throw gasoline on it. Whoever decided to publish it probably knew it was total BS, and probably gets a kick out of people actually writting in to defend it.
-Aaron
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 01:34 pm (UTC)• Look who the article is written by - that chimp at the "REAL Women" of Canada. These are forward thinking ladies for sure, and would make June Cleaver look like a whore.
• No one ever writes the CBC complaining that an editorial actually agrees with their own personal viewpoint, then further suggests that they have an opposing view. Everyone wants a biased media in their favour.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 02:00 pm (UTC)http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_kearney/20040521.html