The Hateful Epitaph Chronicles: Volume I

[nfotxn]

You may remember previously the Op-ed piece on the CBC with Andrea Landolt spurting her hateful views. I got a response from the online news producer.

Dear Mr. Chree,

Your e-mail of May 18 to David Bazay, CBC Ombudsman, has been forwarded to me for reply. First, I would like to say that we understand your concerns, and apologize for any offense that Ms Landolt’s May 18 column has caused you * it was certainly not our intention.

As you may be aware, CBC News Viewpoint is CBC’s web-based op-ed page, open to a wide range of opinions on the issues of the day. These opinions are not censored or mitigated in any way * and they remain entirely and unequivocally the opinions of the columnists, and not of the CBC.

We solicited Ms Landolt’s column on same-sex marriage in order to provoke discussion and foster debate on the subject among our online readership. The column has prompted dozens of letters and e-mails, both for and against her position, a number of which we published below her column to reflect the range of discourse around this topic. We have also published a rebutting column by Don Kearney addressing many of the points that Ms Landolt raised in her argument.

The Corporation maintains editorial responsibility for the content of all programs broadcast on its facilities, and that includes online. And all journalistic content must comply with Corporation policies governing journalistic principles. As is stated in CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices, “The CBC does not adopt as its own the opinions of those commentators whom it invites to articulate the various shades of current opinion on a given subject. The CBC’s concern is to ensure the presentation of a wide spectrum of opinion, particularly when the matter is sharply controversial.” Ms. Landolt’s opinions may be viewed by some to be controversial, but we feel that they fall within our journalistic policies with regard to the presentation of analysis and commentary on the issues of the day. They have generated a great deal of worthwhile discussion and have contributed to the ongoing nation-wide dialogue on this issue.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. As Canada’s national public broadcaster, CBC takes very seriously our journalistic responsibilities to our viewers, listeners and website visitors. I have copied Mr. Bazay on this reply to advise him of our correspondence.

Sincerely,



Mary Sheppard
Executive Producer, Online News
CBC.ca

I think a point of interest however is that the article has gone missing from the website. I'm not sure how to form my reply just yet because I'm still really angry.

Comments

[indeterminacy.livejournal.com]

kick her in the tits

[mathan.livejournal.com]

What this person's Op-Ed piece reminds me is that there are still people out there who have these kinds of views, and that we still have a long way to go. Be angry, and use that energy constructively.

[dizzi-d.livejournal.com]

Wasn't that what he was doing? :D

[mathan.livejournal.com]

Yup, and I know Brodie is one of those guys who communicates his thoughts very clearly. However, some people need that reminder - not saying Brodie does, but anyone reading these comments may.

I've seen too many people write responses, off the cuff and completely reactionary, which really does not serve any positive purpose.

[rockwater.livejournal.com]

I had a blow-out argument with a straight friend of mine about this article (I actually mass-emailed everyone about it, telling them to protest, and that was his beef.) As assanine as his argument, there was a grain of truth to it - whether we like it or not, she does have the right to express her opinion.

I did notice in reading the posts below said article that there were three types of response - one, that of complete outrage and disputing of her claim; a second, of support, that finally peoples' opinions were being heard; and a third, more balanced view, that while people did not agree with her opinion (some feeling personally offended at it even), they appreciated her right to say it, and the CBC's inkling to try and present both sides of the story.

Now, before you send me hate mail, listen. I think she is a small-minded, capital C conservative cow who needs to be deprogrammed. Let's get that straight. However, I do think we're winning the battle on this one. There were more pro-gay marriage responses than there were con, if we look at the "I disagree but she has the right to say it" contingency. The reality is, sadly, that there are many people out there who don't support our rights to get married, to have children, or in some cases, to be who are at all. I don't think an article like this will sway anyone to be on her side, I just think that for those who buy it, it reinforces something they believe anyway, and for those who are fence-sitting or who are on our side, they will recognise the extremity of her argument.

It is correct that we have a long way to go still, but by stifling discussion, all we will do is reinforce negative views about us. The best i think we can do is keep on keepin on, cause like it or not, we're not going away.

Amen.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I'm for discussion, and debate.

I hate censorship. Even if it's of opinions I disagree with.

Sorry--that goes with an free and open press.

[bcbud.livejournal.com]

bah... don't be hatin.
CBC's job is to report both sides.
If you've ever seen how many fags work @ radio3, zed and all their online efforts, it makes sense that they have to go to extremes to balance out their (otherwise positive) viewpoint.

[teljanin.livejournal.com]

malakhi received the same email and he posted it to his journal earlier today. He showed it to me and I was like... oh, Brodie's got the same email!

[jawnbc]

I've not got my copy of the email.

But when someone generalizes that homosexuals are more like to molest their children, that's libellous and hate speech. "I dislike homosexuals" and "homosexuals are pathological criminals" aren't the same thing.

And that's why the CBC was out of line publishing her piece--those sorts of claims. If she were writing about Aboriginal persons, they wouldn't have dreamed of it.

I'm thinking a Canadian Human Rights Commission complains is in order . . .

[jbear70.livejournal.com]

While I am an advocate for free speach, I feel that the limits of free speach are exceeded when it becomes hateful speach. Without the luxury of reading Ms. Landolt's piece first hand it's hard for me to condemn is out of hand. However I feel that if it were a piece based on empirical fact and an opinion what justifiable reasoning, the CBC should publish it in an effort to encourage debate. If the piece was merely a diatribe of unsubstantiated beliefs and opinions without a factual basis, then the CBC ought to be condemned for spreading such ill-informed information. They may hide behind the clause that they make no editting to the article and have no say in it but they do have a responsibility to their readers to provide them with fair and balanced reporting that is not misleading or downright untrue. Much damage has been done in the history of the world due to misleading and untrue "facts."

[http://users.livejournal.com/speedy_/]

I'll bet they've got a lot of hate mail, and decided to take the article out then. I know is their job to reflect both sides opinion. But acting is very important in order to be noticed and have our say.