Thursday, July 05, 2007

CBC - News Division's Editorial Miasma Leads to Samosa "Documentary"

Any of you who have read, seen, heard or otherwise know of the "documentary" report broadcast by the CBC should read the following. What passes for journalistic standards as exemplified by that broadcast is an embarrassment - for Canadians. By CBC's own standards, the report was unbalanced, where were the range of opinions needed to put political involvement by religious, ethnic and visible minorities (in this case Sikhs) into context?

The CBC itself says the following regarding a single program or episode,
Single programs dealing with a major controversial issue should give adequate recognition to the range of opinion on the subject. Fairness must be the guiding principle in presentation, so that the audience is enabled to make a judgment on the matter in question based on the facts.

In exceptional circumstances, a program may be based on the personal view of an individual. When that occurs, the audience must be made aware of the personal character of the program. The personal view must be that of an individual with demonstrable expertise in the subject matter of the program.

The CBC also states the following regarding 'investigative journalism',
Programs may lead the audience to conclusions on the subject being examined. These must be logical conclusions derived from the facts and not from expressions of editorial opinion or unfair methods of presentation. It is essential, therefore, that to conform with the principles of accuracy, integrity, fairness and comprehensiveness, the programs must be based on the most scrupulous and painstaking research. They should take into account all the relevant evidence available and should include recognition of the range of opinion on the matter in question.

In investigative programming, in the interest of fairness, opportunity should be given for all parties directly concerned to state their case. In circumstances where research reveals the necessity to conduct interviews in which individuals are to be held accountable for their actions or those of their organizations in a matter of public interest, while the purpose of the interview should be disclosed in broad terms in advance, information can be divulged and questions can be asked in ways that ensure candid and unrehearsed answers are obtained for the public.

Having watched the broadcast I found the following which for the most part are one of the following: unproven allegations, innuendo, half-truths, and misrepresentations.

1. Claim that Khalistan movement killed 100's of Canadians - Where has this EVER been proven? Sikhs love Canada as their own. Just as anyone in Canada can support the Free Tibet movement, or any other movement, if Sikhs support an independent state called Khalistan it is in that context of Freedom of conscience, speech and other human rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. God Bless Canada and the freedom we have in Canada to speak our mind without fear of Death, torture, rape, etc...
2. Glorification of violence - Sikhs don't glorify violence, but highlight their military history, similar to how Canada and numerous other nations do in military/ war museums
3. Air India linked to Khalistan movement - Sikhs condemn and have consistently condemned anyone associated with bringing down the Air India flight, whatever their motivation - irrespective of whether the perpetrators were Indian agents, Canadian, Sikh, Khalistani or otherwise. FLQ committed violent acts in the name of Quebec, but NO one can condemn all supporters of Quebec separatism as FLQ members or as murderers - the same holds true for Khalistan supporters.
4. Use of the term "so-called" 5 Beloved Ones - using a disparaging tone or condescension in making an argument only shows the level of the animosity or lack of merit in the argument of the one doing so
5. Attempt to discredit the WSO - this organization has consistently come out on the side of non-violence and non-violent protest, to imply otherwise is unjust, unfair, and definately motivated by some other agenda
6. Ujjal Dosang called a "Sikh" - When has Ujjal Dosangh ever called himself a Sikh? How can anyone call him a Sikh or represent him to be a Sikh when he doesn't make that distinction himself? From what I understand, Ujjal, his father and grandfather were members or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party and his native village Dosanjh Kalan is known as a commie haven.
From comments atPublic Eye in 2005,

Ujjal has moved steadily right from his early days in the Communist Party of Canada-Marxist Leninist before the NDP flirtation.

Surely the Liberal Party of Canada will only be a way station on the road to Stephen Harper's cabinet.

The only ism Ujjie believes in is opportun-ism!

7. Comparing legal political involvement to assassinations - does Terry Milewski have any evidence that anyone in Canada had anything to do with the murder of anyone in India? Does Terry Milewski think that Canadians shouldn't be involved in politics? What purpose and whose agenda does it serve to link the LEGAL political involvement of Sikhs with anything illegal?
8. In the report the point is put forward by Ujjal Dosangh and Terry Milewski that Sikhs did not want to support Bob Rae at the Liberal convention because of his comments about Air India - Does he have any independent proof that what Bob Rae said or did in his convention speech had anything to do with how Sikh delegates voted? Why not ask Gerrard Kennedy or Stephane Dion if Sikhs said anything regarding Air India to them as a condition of support? Probably because it's simply not true.
9. Attribution of Air India disaster to Khalistan movement allegedly by the families of the victims of the Air India tragedy - I didn't see any victim of Air India making that allegation. The fact is Sikhs as mentioned earlier, have condemned openly the bombing of Air India. The role of the Canadian government, Indian government and individual Canadians has not been resolved or proven in court. Neither you nor I know what happened and who was involved. If two Globe and Mail journalists can put out a book predicting the results of both the criminal trial and public inquiry years in advance, doesn't it make sense to explore the possibility and evidence pointing to a cover up?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

No comments: