Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FOX BULLY IS A CRYBABY ON CANADA (Here's the liberal reponse to Bill O'Reilly)
The Toronto Star ^ | February 01, 2005 | ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

Posted on 02/01/2005 12:42:41 PM PST by UpHereEh

Fox News star Bill O'Reilly is a big fat baby.

Friday night, he wah-wah-wahed on his top-rated cable news show about last week's edition of CBC's the fifth estate.

The U.S. is at war, the Iraqis were voting, social security reform is a huge issue and this guy devotes precious TV time to denouncing Canada, Canadians and CBC, repeating the same tired and untrue lines about how Fox had been "banned" here.

"The Canadian government gives these people $1 billion of Canadian tax money, and the Canadian government is at fault here for allowing this kind of stuff to go on," he railed.

Titled "Sticks and Stones," the hour-long fifth estate report focused on the highly polarized political discourse in the U.S., devoting about 10 minutes to the loudest mouth of them all, O'Reilly.

O'Reilly, who can dish it out but can't take it, complained to his viewers that it was "dishonest" and "a vicious attack."

This from the guy who invented vicious and dishonest attack TV? Mediamatters.org and other watchdog groups have meticulously documented his distortions and deceptions.

CBC had a Friday night follow-up on The National by Neil MacDonald, who laughed off O'Reilly's contention that the public broadcaster was running scared now that Fox News is available in Canada.

Cross-border TV catfight!

But why is O'Reilly so defensive?

It's no secret that many media organizations in the U.S. offer up partisan hackery for cheap fun and easy profit — and the fifth estate merely travelled the same groove laid down last year by filmmaker Robert Greenwald in his documentary Outfoxed.

Which is why CBC's magazine show ran tape of O'Reilly shouting "shut up" no less than eight times at program guests and at liberal broadcaster Al Franken.

But it can't be the first time that O'Reilly has heard Franken say that he "lies constantly," is a "big sanctimonious hypocritical jerk," and is "pathological."

Ever since Fox landed on the cable dial here late last year — Roger's free digital preview ends in mid-March — I have been mesmerized by how often O'Reilly accuses guests of not supporting the troops or being anti-American, making up factoids to suit his view of the world

For example, he once cited the "Paris Business Review," an economic journal that doesn't exist, to bolster his case that the right wing-led boycott of French goods over its anti-Iraq war stance had cost France billions — even though the value of American imports from there increased in 2002-2003.

So anybody with half a brain and a finger on the pulse of some real journalism knows that O'Reilly's nightly, and laughably named, "no spin zone" is a wash.

As the fifth estate's Bob McKeown put it, "often what Bill O'Reilly has in mind is not debate but diatribe."

(For the record, Fox and O'Reilly refused to participate in the fifth estate documentary because they claim they're not conservative, but "mainstream." Well, maybe. From the Ku Klux Klan's perspective.)

Among the untruths allowed to stand on Fox on Friday night:

*Fox is seen "in about seven million or eight million homes" in Canada, said O'Reilly.

Not true. Not even close.

There are 7.2 million homes total in Canada with basic cable. Rogers boasts about 675,000 digital households. Many cable and satellite services don't even carry Fox.

*CBC "has enjoyed something like a monopoly on news coverage and commentary up until now, and true diversity is now arriving in broadcasting."

This from Carl Hodge, billed as a professor of "political sciene" (sic) at B.C.'s Okanagan University College. Hasn't he noticed that CTV, Global and Chum have all been doing TV news for some time now?

But do you think O'Reilly cares? He's all about selling mail order pet meds and second mortgages, according to the ads that I've seen.

Fact is, although Fox has more viewers than CNN, advertisers prefer the latter because they reach a better class of customer. Seems the thinking people are not watching Fox, except for a laugh — or because they're paid to.

It's a dirty job, let me tell you. PRESS GANG: Look, I am as happy as the next person to see singing and dancing Iraqis getting to vote but when the cable news nets can devote hours of coverage to the elections and never once see a downside?

Come on. For an alternative view, check out Juan Cole's Informed Comment www.juancole.com.

POST SCRIPTS: All hell seems to have broken loose up in Don Mills where the National Post is published. Publisher Les Pyette, who took over in December, has been stomping on toes all over the newsroom.

He got off on the wrong foot by hiring sportswriter Scott Taylor to pen a freelance column. That after Taylor and the Winnipeg Free Press parted ways over allegations of plagiarism.

Last year, the Post packed off three writers and one editor for copying from others and/or making things up.

Now word is that editor-in-chief Matthew Fraser has come to the end of his rope and will move to a strategic planning type job at the CanWest Global mother ship.

This would explain why the paper's newly reconfigured Toronto section plopped on doorsteps without fanfare last Saturday. It is said to have been Fraser's baby — and Pyette did not want to give it any promotion.

Watch for more changes this month.

Other editors are expected to go.

One last thing: Last week, I started asking questions about Post sportswriters having to do their reports off TV screens in Toronto but having their stories billed as originating from the cities where games were played. When Pyette heard I was nosing around, he ordered the writers to drop the phony "placelines'' he had instituted in the first place.

No wonder Posties are concerned about their credibility.


TOPICS: Canada; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: foxnewscanada
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

1 posted on 02/01/2005 12:42:42 PM PST by UpHereEh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

This catfight could get interesting. I can't wait to hear how BOR responds.


2 posted on 02/01/2005 12:44:32 PM PST by marvlus (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

The Toronto Red Star has spoken. All will obey.


3 posted on 02/01/2005 12:46:07 PM PST by Crazieman (Islam. Religion of peace, and they'll kill you to prove it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

Is this the National Enquirer of Canada? "I Had Bigfoot's Baby" is a better story.


4 posted on 02/01/2005 12:47:04 PM PST by GVnana (If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

Interesting to see how this plays out.


5 posted on 02/01/2005 12:48:07 PM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh
repeating the same tired and untrue lines about how Fox had been "banned" here.

Fox News was banned in Canada. It was ILLEGAL for cable or sattelite providers to allows Canadians to access Fox News Channel.

If that is not a "ban" then I do not know what is.

6 posted on 02/01/2005 12:48:27 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

The Toronto Star is the equivalent to the NYT in Canada (we have many). They're pissed because the National Post is semi right-leaning and has been all over them for slanted reporting.


7 posted on 02/01/2005 12:48:36 PM PST by UpHereEh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman

There are other cities in Canada besides Toronto and they have cable,Shaw cable...with Fox news and it is a pleasure to finally be able to watch it.


8 posted on 02/01/2005 12:49:01 PM PST by northernlightsII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh
even MEDIAMATTERS has said his show is full of lies, now is this the same mediamatters that George Soros has given tons of money to?
9 posted on 02/01/2005 12:49:12 PM PST by mammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

The amount of lies, and slants in that article is unbelievable. Bill never "denounced Canada, Canadians and the CBC" he only "denounced" CBC. I could go on and pick the entire article apart but then why stop there, the whole paper is spin.


10 posted on 02/01/2005 12:50:11 PM PST by UpHereEh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

I despise all things liberal, but I couldn't agree more with this article's take on BOR's blustering propensity to "exaggerate". He's blowhard and certainly not a conservative. I long for day he's removed and replaced. Ann Coulter anyone?


11 posted on 02/01/2005 12:50:17 PM PST by negril
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh
Which is why CBC's magazine show ran tape of O'Reilly shouting "shut up" no less than eight times at program guests and at liberal broadcaster Al Franken

They fail to say why. BOR was telling Franken to shut up because Franken had more than exceeded DOUBLE the alloted time for him to speak and it was BORs turn.

Come on. For an alternative view, check out Juan Cole's Informed Comment www.juancole.com.

Want some Juan Cole? Here ya go...

Here is his take on the Iraqi elections

He is none to happy about it.

12 posted on 02/01/2005 12:53:30 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: negril

Yeah but for them to distort the facts is propaganda. This is a story, not an editorial.


13 posted on 02/01/2005 12:53:37 PM PST by UpHereEh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

It reads like a gossip column. I can't take it seriously.


14 posted on 02/01/2005 12:54:56 PM PST by GVnana (If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh
"There are 7.2 million homes total in Canada with basic cable. Rogers boasts about 675,000 digital households. Many cable and satellite services don't even carry Fox.

They do not want to carry FNC!!!

They fear FNC will trounce their news channels (which are pure garbage.

15 posted on 02/01/2005 12:55:22 PM PST by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh
Bill O'Reilly can be annoying at times but I still think he helps Conservatives here and elsewhere more than he hurts them.

I don't agree with everything he says but I do agree with a lot of the things he says and I am glad he's in the position that he is.
16 posted on 02/01/2005 12:56:28 PM PST by ThermoNuclearWarrior (PRESSURE BUSH TO CLOSE THE BORDERS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

I consider it fascinating that these people see MediaMatters.org (a left-wing organization, run by left-wing advocate and formal mental patient David Brock, funded by left-wing moneyman George Soros) and Al Franken (who at least was listed as a liberal broadcaster, although not mainstream by any stretch) as credible sources. O'Reilly attacked Franken after he started gobbling up all of his press time, cutting into the alotted time of the other two. Franken made the ludicrous allegation that O'Reilly did not grow up where he said he did, when in fact O'Reilly later produced the actual deed.

I am not a BOR fan, but by the same token this hatchet-job is so error-ridden and obviously biased to anyone in the states that is is laughable. They're playing off the fact that many folks up North might not realize the nature of the people and groups referenced.

Another point: The KKK was never some sort of far-right movement. In fact, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) was a KKK member at one point. Then again, I am knid of new to the idea that Hitler was "right-wing" as well, having studied lots of older history books. Go figure.

O'Reilly's main fault is that he goes halfway in his responses. He either ought to follow Rush Limbaugh's lead by ignoring his detractors or go the whole way and rip harder. It would be better to ignore them, because like most little children, all the critics are looking for is a cheap plug on his program. Any attention is good attention.


17 posted on 02/01/2005 12:59:38 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy ("Be ever vigilant, for you know not when the master is coming")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh
So it would seem that regular viewers of FNC are a kin to KKK members. How liberal of the Toronto Star.
18 posted on 02/01/2005 1:01:51 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead (I believe in American Exceptionalism! Do you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh
So it would seem that regular viewers of FNC are a kin to KKK members. How liberal of the Toronto Star.
19 posted on 02/01/2005 1:01:51 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead (I believe in American Exceptionalism! Do you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

It wasn't "banned" per se, it just was never approved for broadcast by the federal regulator, due to our antiquated and parochial Canuck Content laws. "Banned" implies something more sinister, but of course many of our numerous leftists would liked it banned in the classic sense.

All this being said, it has recently been approved for inclusion in digital channel line ups. I picked up my digital cable box last weekend, and now I have Fox News. It is an unbelievable breath of fresh air, and other than sports in High Definition, nothing else has been on my TV since.


20 posted on 02/01/2005 1:02:10 PM PST by mitchbert (Facts Are Stubborn Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bubman
Many cable and satellite services don't even carry Fox.

Because until very recently it was ILLEGAL for them to carry Fox News.

21 posted on 02/01/2005 1:02:50 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AZ_Cowboy

It was well known, and now almost totally forgotten that that KKK was an activist wing of the democrat party.


22 posted on 02/01/2005 1:04:00 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mitchbert

It may be a very fine semantic point, but if it is illegal to carry a channel, it is safe to say that channel has been banned.


23 posted on 02/01/2005 1:04:52 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bubman

All lies from the Star. Shaw, StarChoice and Cogceco in addition to Rogers have picked up the FNC, with more companies adding it monthly. Also, exactly what Bill said regarding the amount of FNC viewers was "I guess were on in about 7 or 8 million homes" which is true. All those companies viewer added together is exactly that amount. Bill did his homework on that one.


24 posted on 02/01/2005 1:05:12 PM PST by UpHereEh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bubman

The cable and sattelite services in Canada do not own the news channels. If they don't carry it, it's probably because they don't see an audience for it. Personally, I couldn't care less if I ever get to watch FNC - I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, or NewsWorld (CBC's news channel) or CTVNews, anyway, not because I hate biased news coverage but because I get all my (important) news on the internet.


25 posted on 02/01/2005 1:06:19 PM PST by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: negril

He doesn't claim to be a conservative and is very entertaining.


26 posted on 02/01/2005 1:07:52 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mitchbert

I don't know about that. Fox News put in numerous applications to the CRTC that were all denied, I would call that banned.


27 posted on 02/01/2005 1:07:54 PM PST by UpHereEh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

You knew this was going to happen.
WHY O'Reilly gives a rat's behind about Canada is beyond my comprehension.

His best move at this point would be to totally ignore the place - - just like the rest of America does.


28 posted on 02/01/2005 1:08:35 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

Translation.....the liberal media monopoly in the socialist country of Canada is now also dead.


[*CBC "has enjoyed something like a monopoly on news coverage and commentary up until now, and true diversity is now arriving in broadcasting." ]


29 posted on 02/01/2005 1:11:30 PM PST by JarheadFromFlorida (TIME MAGAZINE PRACTICING THEIR OWN BRAND OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThermoNuclearWarrior
I don't agree with everything he says but I do agree with a lot of the things he says and I am glad he's in the position that he is.

I agree with you. BOR is a traditionalist and independent. I look forward to watching him every weekday.

30 posted on 02/01/2005 1:14:08 PM PST by marvlus (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: negril
BOR called Ann Coulter a reactionary the other day on his radio show
31 posted on 02/01/2005 1:14:52 PM PST by RaginRak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AZ_Cowboy
DAVID BROCK WAS COMMITTED TO MENTAL WARD
32 posted on 02/01/2005 1:17:07 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

"(For the record, Fox and O'Reilly refused to participate in the fifth estate documentary because they claim they're not conservative, but "mainstream." Well, maybe. From the Ku Klux Klan's perspective.)"


That says enough about what way-out wackos the Toronto Star are, or are just so loose with facts that they wrekclessly throw around comparisons of conservatives to any ole racist group that last crossed the single cerebral synapse.

The KKK is and always has been a DEMOCRAT group, not Republican and certainly not neocon like Fox News.


33 posted on 02/01/2005 1:30:45 PM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: negril

I agree and O'Reilly is the prototypical blowhard. He
patronizingly and condescendingly refers to his audience
as "the folks" ,i.e., the poor dumb slobs that depend on
his courageous and relentless presentation to them of the
truth. Look at his phony e-mails: One says "You're a no
good right-wing extremist." And the next one he reads
says, "You're a no good left-wing extremist." Then Bill
smirks and assumes the contrived posture of the no-spin
moderate in the middle whose only interest is bringing
the truth to us stupid and helpless "folks." I've viewed
him less and less as time passes.


34 posted on 02/01/2005 1:32:22 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JFK_Lib

I'm going to go with both door #1 and door #2, they are both "way-out wackos" and "loose with facts".


35 posted on 02/01/2005 1:33:47 PM PST by UpHereEh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh
Fact is, although Fox has more viewers than CNN, advertisers prefer the latter because they reach a better class of customer.

It is bad enough that the author pulled this out of his ass and wrote it down. It just sick that he needed to preceed his BS with "Fact is,"

36 posted on 02/01/2005 1:39:45 PM PST by Jeff Gordon (Recall Barbara Boxer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marvlus

Candada sucks anyway who cares?
With all those dumb ass coins when I walk anywhere I sounds like the person standing in front of the grocery store ringing the bell for salvation army donations.


37 posted on 02/01/2005 1:45:14 PM PST by erik22lax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mitchbert

Not Approved = banned. QED.


38 posted on 02/01/2005 1:52:39 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: erik22lax

#1. Fox will now be available on Rogers Digital cable, finally, and it is or was running on free previews for the month of January. Which means one will have to pay for Fox News Channel extra or get a bundle of channels that includes Fox, which is fair because MSNBC and BBC World News is also available on the same terms, unless the bundles have changed.

Though of course the very reason it took so long to get Fox's licence cleared is no doubt fear of the competition, look what Fox is doing to CNN et al.

#2. Neil McDonald ought to worry - that guy is so biased in his reporting which I always knew but I couldn't believe it when I witnessed it without doubt and could prove it - remember when the Iraqi government banned al Jazeera in Baghdad, I think this was maybe the 2nd time they did it, maybe summer of 2003.

It was headline news and I was channel surfing - every single news outlet except CBC stated the fact that the reasons the Iraqi government was banning Al Jazeera (never mind the employees that were proven to be on Saddam's payroll during the war) was it was inciting violence against Iraqis AND Al Jazeera was showing up to film attacks and reporting on them almost before they happened - hint hint.

Old Neil baby never mentions the reason why the Iraqi government was banning Al Jazeera, just went into some diatribe about how ironic that the Americans came to bring freedom and freedom of speech was being denied, blah blah blah.

So I blasted them in an email which I am sure was ignored.


39 posted on 02/01/2005 1:59:17 PM PST by littlelilac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

Hmmm, why don't we let the free market decide who is right? We all believe in freedom, right? So what is the Canadian media establishment so scared of? (Answer: someone might have a different opinion than they).


40 posted on 02/01/2005 2:02:48 PM PST by Owl558 (Please excuse my poor spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl558

Ironically enough, with all the press they're giving Fox more viewers are going to tune in to see what all the fuss is about. After all, there's no such thing as bad press.


41 posted on 02/01/2005 2:39:02 PM PST by UpHereEh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JarheadFromFlorida
Translation.....the liberal media monopoly in the socialist country of Canada is now also dead.

And here is their undertaker.

42 posted on 02/01/2005 2:46:12 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

<< Many cable and satellite services don't even carry Fox.>>

Liar, there is only one satellite that does not carry Fox News and it's Bell ExpressVu. Take your head out of your a**.


43 posted on 02/01/2005 3:02:34 PM PST by youngtory (Rights are rights are rights. Just like a proof is a proof is a proof.-Liberal dorks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

He's both a right-wing extremist and a left-wing extremist.


44 posted on 02/01/2005 3:08:17 PM PST by Nataku X (Food for Thought: http://web2.airmail.net/scsr/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

"After all, there's no such thing as bad press"

Too true, my friend, but is interesting to see the establishment press "up there" going through the same gyrations as "down here" when FOX premiered. They will try to descredit it, then ignore it, then hate will set in as FOX finds it's audience. I'm no fan of O'Rielly, but I believe that a marketplace of news and ideas is better than a single point of view as is the case without FOX around.

The Canadian media establishment assumes, like the American media establishment assumes, that their viewers are too stupid to choose for themselves - or that viewers are unable spot the BS (That, plus they want to hold onto their marketshare). The fact is, with FOX, I see conservative and liberal points of view competing side-by-side, unlike the other news channels who slant their opinion decidedly left.


45 posted on 02/01/2005 3:08:56 PM PST by Owl558 (Please excuse my poor spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh
O'Reilly fighting with Canada. Now why would anybody interfere?
46 posted on 02/01/2005 3:15:49 PM PST by muir_redwoods
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl558
So what is the Canadian media establishment so scared of?

What you're not being told is that at the end of the Fifth Estate broadcast they gave information on how to subscribe to FOX . Fear of FOX ???

Hmmm, why don't we let the free market decide who is right?

The FCC has explicit mandate for control of broadcasting in the USA and reports to Congress . CRTC does the same job in Canada and reports to Parliament . The air waves are not free and are regulated . The use of the word banned by some posters here is insulting to the intelligence of the readers of FR . An out right distortion , if not lie . FOX and CanWest Global had approval in 2000 , with Canadian restrictions and chose not to broadcast . That was their decision based on economics . This stuff costs money and return on investment happens to be of some importance . Contrary to what some think . Ultimately the market place will decide, but it isn't a free market .

47 posted on 02/01/2005 3:23:32 PM PST by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Snowyman

"CRTC does the same job in Canada and reports to Parliament."

I fully understand how things work both north and south of the border. I also understand, given the many Canadian government scandles of late, that a million Canadian here and a million Canadian there pretty much gets the result you want out of the Canadian (liberal)government.

Running a hit piece and then telling how to subscribe is not fair reporting. Please note that I never used the word "banned" in any of my posts, but understand completely how beaurucrats "ban" things they don't like via regulation, review, and the "process". I am also glad to see you admit that the Canadian market is not free. I look forward to the day when it is more free.

We do agree that ultimately, the market will decide.


48 posted on 02/01/2005 4:03:44 PM PST by Owl558 (Please excuse my poor spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Owl558

Agreed, the Canadian MSM is showing fear. It must be scary to share the spotlight with a network that isn't anti-American. Oh, the horror of it all ;)


49 posted on 02/01/2005 4:10:25 PM PST by UpHereEh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: UpHereEh

The CBC is garbage.
The only thing good on it is Don Cherry and Hockey.
And even that looks like it will be gone for awhile.
I am a Canadian.
I like the o'reilly factor.
I will be keeping my subscription.
The CBC caters to minorities and special interest groups.
It extolls in the garbage mindset of the Atypical Canadian.
I have had it up to my ears with all the garbage they
report.
Whenever I watch the CBC I just get incensed.
They should be taken off the air..but the gov't pays
for them so they are not going anywhere.
Someday this country will get it.
They had "it" in the sixties...and it has been long
gone since Trudeau and the seventies.
Keep er coming Billy.......


50 posted on 02/01/2005 4:20:19 PM PST by CelticLord (Methinks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson