<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11857647\x26blogName\x3dM.K.+BRAATEN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://mkbraaten.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://mkbraaten.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-662957104341791521', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

CBC did NOT 'kill' audit story

I noticed that a post I wrote a couple days ago titled "CBC killed audit story'' received much attention as my traffic spiked considerably. However, I just wanted to make one thing clear, is that in my article, I never explicitly claimed that CBC killed the story. It was simply a bad and misleading headline for the story (hey it was late alright). In fact, it’s quite opposite, I just mentioned how they decided not to run with the story because they felt that it had already been reported and I thought otherwise.

What I did state is the reasons that I did not agree with them on the basis of what had been previously reported in the media and what was still available to report. Now my article did have a negative tone to it, mainly because of the headline, but in general I was just pointing out the fact that there were many angles that could have been reported that were not reported in the main stream news. This was simply my opinion, nothing more.

I felt I should write this post just to clear up any inferences the story created. Just to be absolutely clear, I have no proof, nor am I implying or stating that the CBC killed the story. I simply was stating that they figured the topic had already been extensively reported, and I figured otherwise.

It should be noted that this is a 'blog, not a news agency. So if any news sites link to my blog then they are responsible for what it contains.

« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

4/26/2005 01:16:00 PM

sounds like the CBC may have piled the lawyers on you...    



4/26/2005 03:31:00 PM

CBC couldn't kill a story that they never birthed or breathed life into.

That's a different story.    



4/26/2005 05:33:00 PM

The "other outlets have already covered it" is nonsense. The CBC marches in lockstep with the rest of the media in choosing it's stories - and they certainly reported on the original Liberal "audit" story. And this zone was hardly barely covered, much less saturated.

On a completely unrelated note, I wonder why their investigative crew has never looked into how Tommy Douglas won their Greatest Canadian In The Eyes Of Saskatchewan Civil Servants contest....



Kate    



» Post a Comment


Listed on BlogShares