My bias keeps showing... (Part 2)

So let's see how the CBC was "anti-American." Here's the first example:

As David Halton reported at the time, conservative American commentator Pat Buchanan said,

...One magazine this week talks about Canadian wimps spending too much on social programs and not enough on the military. The article castigates Canada’s absurd socialist politics and its neurotic anti-Americanism. (The National, 2002: November 22)

That one sector in the American media seemed to reciprocate Canadian anti-Americanism then became a source of Canadian news. The image of “Canadian wimps” squandering money on social programs instead of defending themselves was clearly designed to provoke Canadians to adopt a hostile attitude towards the United States.

My question is, if Pat Buchanan's remarks about us being wimps is the story, how is that anti-American. Wouldn't that make us more anti-Pat Buchanan than anything? I mean, how do we report what he said without reporting what he said? Here's their interpretation of Jean Chretien's remarks right after 9/11:

You know, you cannot exercise your powers to the point that, of humiliation for the others. And that is what the western world, not only the Americans, the western world has to realize, that the western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily, you know, we’re looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy, and with no limits. And the eleventh of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more. (The National, 2002: September 11)

Clearly these two instances are more an “emotional” anti-Americanism than a reasonable disagreement with US policy based upon the defence of intelligible Canadian national interests.

How does chastising all western developed nations become an anti-American statement? I'm confused. But as you read more and more, it's more or less the same thing. The CBC interviewed, for example, pollster Allan Gregg for a comment and whether you interpret that as anti-American or not is one issue, but the main one is even a quote from the CBC is considered a 'negative' take just becuase the interviewee gave their view (whatever it may be).

A lot of times, they accuse the CBC of not providing context, but they too do a poor job of doing the same. For example,

For Arsenault it was evidently more important to have access to health care...than it was to have timely but expensive care. There was no effort to undertake any meaningful cost-benefit or risk analysis. It was simply a given that Canadian health care delivery was preferable, even at the cost of Canadian lives.

The quote they gave of Arsenault made one mention of Canada, "US researchers say for every thousand heart attacks, five more lives are saved here than in Canada." That's it. I don't know how they interpreted Arsenault's intention as they did.

But they're strange logic finally comes out in this quote:

One person interviewed on CBC connected all the dots: “These war-mongering Americans are taking everything that they can and they’re just slapping us in the face with this 29% duty. We should not even sell our softwood lumber to those people” (The National, 2002: March 25).

These examples were coded as instances of “rational” anti-Americanism because they were direct responses to actual disagreements and conflicts in interests rather than expressions of emotional or symbolic positions. Even so, the last quotation connecting tariff disputes with “war-mongering” could safely be placed in the “emotional” category.

So I was right. Any criticism, regardless of its validity, is anti-American. So, even 'rational' arguments are invalid and negative in their eyes. Interesting. And they call the CBC biased?

A few more and then we're done. First,

Ben Chin reported, To Afghanistan now, and what may be the deadliest attack on civilians since the war began. At least 40 people were killed and 120 were wounded when US war planes bombed a village in central Afghanistan. Some reports put the toll much higher. Afghan officials say villagers were celebrating a wedding when the bombs began to fly and that the attack lasted for two hours. (The National, 2002: July 1)

With this story, there was no attempt to indicate any context: the number of sorties flown by American warplanes, for example, nor what, if anything, caused the mistake.

Did I miss something? What context could be given to give a positive spin on that? Accidentally or not, US planes killed civilians. And even if they did report it as a sortie gone awry, would they have noted that in the 'neutral' column or would the mere reporting of the story be seen as anti-American?

Their beef against Rex Murphy is hilarious. Rex has this big editorial about the "Enron, etc." scandals. He says,

“The war on terror, which is with others, occurs at time of the greatest scandal and mischief, a wave of corporate greed and fraud of such excess and scope that it rocks America’s
self-confidence...No enemy has delivered a blow to American capitalism equal to the blow just delivered by some American capitalists...The New York skyline is one of the wonders of the world. It is awesome. The capacity and power for good or ill, that American commerce has built and maintains. These scandals, the Enrons and WorldComs and Inclones are an arrow to the heart of those who believe in that system for the heart of American self-confidence and, yes, American idealism.

Their response:

Instead of praising American capitalism for exposing fraud and thus strengthening market economics, Murphy saw only corruption and the ambivalent power of a “capacity and power for good or ill.” In context, only “ill” seemed to matter.

Wait...how do you praise American capitalism for exposing it? It did no such thing. A couple of employees got the ball rolling with Enron and regulators had to play catch-up. The system didn't work. THAT WAS THE POINT. Some people within these companies lied and cheated through the capitalist system (and hence, the people within it) to hide away millions of dollars. The government and the public did all the work. And yes, only the 'ill' mattered because it ruined HOW MANY PEOPLE'S LIVES? Did they experience something entirely different from the rest of us about these corruption cases?

Sigh. the only justification for reading that poorly researched piece was to post this. And even now, I'm not sure if it was worth it. Anyways, I don't know how many of you made it this far, but I'd like to see some comments.