Tuesday, December 9, 2008

HRC Commends Radio-Canada Ombudsman

For Immediate Release

HRC commends Radio-Canada Ombudsman for concluding that a pro-Palestinian propaganda film "should not have been broadcast" on its airwaves

Toronto, December 9, 2008 — HonestReporting Canada (HRC) commends Radio-Canada Ombudsman, Ms. Julie Miville-DechĂȘne, for carrying out an independent review of our public broadcaster's airing of a pro-Palestinian propaganda film, which concluded in a report released today, that the "documentary should not have been broadcast" in the first place due to numerous failures of "editorial control."

"We are satisfied that our concerns have been addressed, both promptly and professionally, by the staff at Radio-Canada," said Mike Fegelman, Executive Director of HonestReporting Canada. "As the network has voluntarily disclosed many of its journalistic lapses, has agreed to air "very interesting Israeli documentaries" set to broadcast in early 2009, and has implemented stricter editorial policies to prevent an incident like this from occurring in the future, Radio-Canada has strengthened its credibility and has become a better news organization."

Ms. Miville-DechĂȘne acknowledged in her review that she "
received 156 complaints about this broadcast. Most of those filing complaints, who were in various countries, did so in response to an appeal by HonestReporting Canada, a pro-Israel media watchdog that encouraged visitors to its website to send complaints to my office."
 
According to the review: "The film claims, without proving it, that the government of Israel controls U.S. print and electronic mediaThere is no fairness, balance, or nuance here: this pro-Palestinian documentary presents one point-of-view, one side of the coin… The documentary, produced five years ago, contains anachronisms and inaccuracies, and militant pro-Palestinian groups were involved in researching the film. Given the circumstances and the acknowledged failures of editorial control, this documentary should not have been broadcast."
 
In conclusion, Ms. Miville- DechĂȘne points out that: "Journalistic Standards and Practices were not followed in the presentation (of the film). Radio-Canada should have indicated that the film was a point-of-view documentary and that the situation on the ground had changed in the last five years. The film's production date should have been indicated, especially since Israel had withdrawn form the Gaza Strip. Finally, it should have been clear that the documentary was a foreign-produced work."
 
Click the following links to read the formal 10-page review by Radio-Canada's Ombudsman in English or in French
 
View our original complaint here entitled: "Radio-Canada Wrong In Airing Pro-Palestinian Advocacy Film"
 
About HonestReporting Canada
 
HonestReporting Canada is an independent, non-profit, grass-roots organization monitoring Canadian media for fairness and accuracy in reporting. HonestReporting Canada's goal is to ensure that Canadian news organizations abide by professional standards of conduct when reporting on Israel and the Middle East. The organization is supported by donations from concerned Canadians. Online donations can be made at its website. To discuss major gifts, contact the organization at info@honestreporting.ca.
 
For more information, contact:
 
HonestReporting Canada
info@honestreporting.ca
www.honestreporting.ca
(416) 915-9157
 

# # #

 

You are currently subscribed to honestreportingcanada as: pressing4truth.canada@blogger.com
To unsubscribe click here
or send a blank email to leave-8649823-30846861.70055780e4c7785a46ecfd4be95feb9c@pr1.netatlantic.com

No comments:

VIDEO:Canada Human Rights

VIDEO of CTV PowerPlay Canada Human? Rights Commission?

Iranian S-Elections?

Evolution / Intelligent Design

Legitimate Questions Should Be Discussed

I am reminded of how established "science" has been wrong many times before such as in the case of Piltdown man. So could it be wrong now? Or has it been perfected? Should not reasonable arguments be considered?

We have become a nation of beggars

Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.

[Read the article below for the researchers who studied this phenomenon.]

POINTS

- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"

- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

The whole article by Terrance Corcoran follows:

Are you "shovel-ready," poised to hit the ground running, or merely desperate for cheap cash to get through the recession? If so, here's your last chance to apply to Ottawa for a piece of the massive government spending-bailout-infrastructure-stimulus operation now being prepared for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Jan. 27 budget extravaganza.

To get you going, the National Post has created an all-purpose Stimulus Canada application document. Simply make sure your company/institution fills out the form here to get in on the action.

We're just kidding, of course, or at least we were until our satirical Stimulus Canada General Application Form was mugged by reality, which is rapidly turning out to be funnier than the fanciful idea of a government department called Stimulus Canada. To all intents and purposes, Stimulus Canada already exists.

Government money to flow, the taps are opening, deficits are no problem. The spending, as Stephen Harper said after a meeting with the premiers on Friday, will be "very significant" and there will be "very significant deficits." That could mean new spending of $20-billion and deficits of $40-billion.

Industry groups, corporate opportunists, charities, municipal politicians, arts groups, provincial premiers, tech firms, mining companies, forestry operators, banks, money lenders -- in fact, just about everybody has come forward to get in on Canada's portion of what is turning out to be a mad global government stimulus pandemic.

Each claims to have a plan or an idea that they say would produce jobs, spending, investment and activity that would get Canada through the recession and stimulate the economy.

At some point, though, the clamour of claims and calls becomes absurd, and that point looks to have been crossed the other day in the United States when porn merchant Larry Flint said the U.S. sex industry was falling on hard times, business was down 25%, and it needed a $5-billion slice of the $1.2-billion U.S. stimulus program.

And why not?

Mr. Flint has a point. It is not totally illogical for anyone to think that way. If you spend a dollar somewhere -- whether building a bridge or operating a forest company or buying a car -- it generates activity. And, after all, it's a grand old economic theory, created by John Maynard Keynes, that spending, especially government spending, rolls through the economy on a giant multiplier, piling jobs on jobs, growth on growth.

Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.

Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.

But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.

Educational Purposes Only

All articles quoted here are for educational purposes only. Canada-For-Truth encourages you to read the original articles on their respective sites.
We do not necessarily agree with all links posted here but we include them to bring balance to an unbalanced media.