Well, I just found out that the “Re-opening abortion” poll that CTV had featured on their home page has been yanked in favour of a breast-feeding poll (around Noon today or before).  You know, like breast-feeding is right up there in importance to abortion and around the March for Life too!  Nothing like being “media relevant” to what’s going on, I always say.

We have to ask ourselves “Why?”   There was absolutely no  GOOD reason to yank such an important poll this soon.

I’ll tell you a very possible reason it was yanked:  because the pro-aborts were winning, and then we found out about it and the numbers started to shift dramatically, and CTV didn’t want to let the people vote.

That’s what’s likely happened. Don’t be surprised that the results mentioned tonight on the broadcast are heavily skewed for the pro-abort side, or close to 50/50 as they say where the momentum was going.

E-mail them here and ask them why they yanked the poll so soon?

So, a couple of weeks ago Socon or Bust covered how the National Post reported how there was a “huge rally” of pro-aborts on Parliament Hill to protest the recent personhood motion that is being debated in Parliament.

What’s huge to Socon or Bust readers?  10,000?

How about 50?

Yes, 50 people means it’s a “huge” rally if and only if the politically correct cause of the day is being foisted on society.  Even the National Post was embarrassed by the report and yanked the absurd description of 50 people being “huge” - the number of people who can fit into my basement, rather comfortably I should add.  But, you see, folks, this is what passes as “news” today in Canada – a nation of the pathetically ideological and purveyors of subterfuge. Read the rest of this entry »

We’ll see if the CBC bungles it like they did last year.

Part of me is hoping that they do.  It gives us more ammo when budget times comes around again.

Another 10%, boys!

It seems that enough of you complained to the National Post, which forced them to correct their horrifically distorted reporting about a small pro-choice gathering yesterday. If you click on the link now, you’ll notice that the word “huge” is missing from the characterization of the crowd:

On Wednesday, the pending debate drew a [snip] crowd of pro-choice supporters to Parliament Hill where a handful of anti-abortionists regularly picket. (Source)

I saved the original for posterity, so that everyone can see how they initially botched the story:

On Wednesday, the pending debate drew a huge crowd of pro-choice supporters to Parliament Hill where a handful of anti-abortionists regularly picket. (Source)

Well done, team. This is certainly a victory. A small victory, but a victory nonetheless. I say “small” because I suspect that most hits on any given news article probably occur with the first 24 hours of its publication. So whoever was going to read that article already read it with the “huge” included. The National Post has covered its tracks by correcting the story, thus avoiding further criticism, but the damage is largely done.

We’ve seen this pattern before in many media outlets: they publish a biased story, make a big splash, then correct it 24 hours later so that the “official record” is accurate.

Nevertheless, chalk this one up as a victory for the Hobbits. Media moguls, we’re watching you.

This has to be the worst instance of media exaggeration in favour of abortion ever.

Yesterday, the media reported quite widely about a motion to be debated in Parliament regarding when human life begins. The pro-choice politicians and media were stirred into a trance-like frenzy, as usual. So far, nothing to get excited about.

But then I read the National Post’s coverage. Remember how the National Post used to have a small-c conservative bent? That’s obviously long gone. Towards the end of the article, they have this little nugget;

On Wednesday, the pending debate drew a huge crowd of pro-choice supporters to Parliament Hill where a handful of anti-abortionists regularly picket.

Toting banners with slogans like “reproductive justice now” and “if you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child,” the pro-choice group vowed to fight back against what they see as an attack on reproductive rights. (Source, backup link in case of whitewash is here)

Wow! Sounds like quite the demonstration, eh? It was HUGE! How many people do you figure turned up? Surely it must be in the thousands, right? Sounds awesomely impressive, don’t it? What a display of mobilization and power by the pro-choicers! The streets must’a been clogged with protesters, wouldn’t you say? The National Post didn’t give any specific numbers, but the Globe does:

Over 50 activists rallied on Parliament Hill Wednesday, one day before Mr. Woodworth’s private member’s motion will be debated in the House of Commons. (Source)

50 people?!?!? Goodness gracious me! Have you ever heard of such a thing? Pandemonium on steroids! 50 people! Where did they fit them all! HUGE!!!!!

This is so disgracious it makes me want to spit all over my laptop. The lineup for my lunch at the local fast-food joint was longer than 50. This is outright  manipulation of public opinion. You can’t even call them a news-paper anymore, because they don’t give you the news, just propaganda.

Just to put things into perspective, let’s use a concrete example us Canucks are familiar with. When an NHL playoff series ends and all the players and coaches come onto the ice to shake hands, that’s roughly 50 people. The thousands of fans in the stands around them are roughly similar to the turnout at the March for Life. Which one is huger?

For the umpteenth time, we learn the same lesson: You can’t trust the media on ANYTHING related to faith or morals. ANYTHING.

Why don’t you drop a line to the Editor of the National Post and tell them to stop insulting your intelligence? It’ll take 30 seconds of your time. God willing, they’ll edit their story so the lie disappears. And remind ‘em to come back to Parliament Hill on May 10th for the March for Life. We’ll show ‘em the meaning of “huge”.

By the way, the “handful” of people that regularly “picket” downtown, as they put it, are the prayer warriors that stand at the abortion mill every day. May God bless them.

…about D&P.

If any CBC reporter wants to talk to me about any potential puff piece on D&P, you can forget it.

Don’t bother calling or e-mailing me. You’ll get no response from me because we all know what kind of journalistic balance and quality the CBC puts out.

The day the CBC is cut off from public funding will be  a day of great celebration in my house.

Catholics should be turning their guns against the New York Times in a more co-ordinated way. These buffoons have ramped up their cheap attacks on the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church over the past number of years. 

We have more followers than they do. So, let us harness the power of the internet and stay on them like a wet blanket.  But we need to do it in a more co-ordinated way. 

We need to exploit opportunities where they embellish their stories with an objective of completely destroying their credibility.  This is war.  We need to start treating it like it is. Stop giving quarter and go for the jugular. And don’t let up until their kind of journalism is on the trash heap of historical journalism.

- The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the country’s national broadcaster, will see its government funding slashed by $115 million — about 10 per cent. (Source)

And next year…another 10%.

Read all about it.

From Lilley…

It is a victory for common sense, a victory for the taxpayers.

CBC has gone soft on Hard.

You remember Hard, the pornographic show from France that CBC used your tax dollars to purchase the Canadian rights to. They then posted the program on the Internet because apparently they think there is not enough smut online.

We’ll they have changed course and pulled out of their relationship with French pornographers.

When we broke the story we showed you just a portion of the racy video because when we spoke to people about the fact that CBC was showing porn, many people did not believe us.

Even after we showed the first batch or video, all from one online program, many did not believe us.

Then we showed footage from another episode, this one an orgy. There was little doubt left that CBC, the state broadcaster had turned into filth peddlers. Read more…

Don’t matter. We’re gonna cut you off, anyway.  Sooner or later, the CBC is going to go impotent….forever.

An advocacy group in Ireland has announced that it conducted a survey in which 18% of respondents claimed that their doctors “behaved inappropriately” – including “sexual abuse” – during medical treatments.

The scale of sexual abuse by medical practitioners against patients could be far worse than scandals that rocked the Catholic Church, it was claimed yesterday.

So begins an article today (Wed., 3/7/12) on this matter in the Irish Examiner.

The Examiner reports that an organization named Dignity 4 Patients is calling for a government inquiry into the apparent widespread sexual abuse of patients by doctors.

Bernadette Sullivan, the group’s executive director, is quoted in the article:

“The scale of numbers a doctor can abuse, as compared to a priest, are huge,” said the former nurse-turned-whistleblower.

Ms. Sullivan also challenged why her group does not receive the same level of financial support as groups who support abuse victims in other areas of society.

“To fail to provide adequate funding to Dignity 4 Patients is to further discriminate, marginalise and neglect patient victims,” Sullivan told the Examiner. “This in itself is abuse.”

Well, it sure seems Sullivan was smart to raise her group’s profile by connecting her issue to abuse in the Catholic Church! That is how you get the media’s attention! (Source)

If it doesn’t involve the Catholic Church, the MSM is not interested in reporting about sexual abuse. 

It’s a private issue, you see, between a woman and her doctor.

Not that this is a big surprise, mind you.  But it does bears repeating for the dumb and dumber who are so inclined to still believe the mainstream media is “fair and balanced”.

The lowest, lowest place in hell is reserved for journalists of the MSM.

Far from tempering spending cuts to ease the sting of recent political setbacks, the Conservative government intends to double down on fiscal austerity in the March 29 budget, cutting departmental spending across the board by closer to 10% than 5% and slashing the total operating budget by close to $8-billion, including a cut of at least 10% to the CBC.

I wonder if the porn hustlers at the CBC are going to feel the pinch.

I sure hope so.   The CBC should be cut 10% a year for the next four years.

When you’re on the payola,  you’re on the payola.

More reasons not to subscribe to the Catholic lapdog press.

Channel of Hope?  ”Channel for Dupes”, more like it.

From a reader…

See below for a letter Ian Gentles sent last week to the Globe and Mail but which the Globe and Mail did not publish. As far as I know, there have been no letters published in the Globe and Mail in response to last week’s article about a report coming out of the Royal College of Psychiatrists claiming that abortion has no negative impact on women’s mental health. 

 Dear Sir/Madam,

The study purporting to show that women who have abortions do not suffer a higher risk of mental illness (Globe Life, Dec. 9, 2011) flies in the face of much recent research. Just in September the British Journal of Psychiatry published a large meta-study that systematically contradicts the Kendall study referred to in your article. It found that women who have abortions are 81 per cent more likely to experience subsequent mental health problems. The greatest increases were seen in relation to suicidal behaviors and substance abuse. Women with a history of abortion face higher rates of anxiety (34 per cent higher) and depression (37 per cent higher), alcohol use (110 per cent higher), and suicidal behavior (155 per cent higher). By contrast women who delivered rather than aborting an unplanned pregnancy were significantly less likely to have mental health problems. Women with a history of abortion were 55 per cent more likely to have mental health problems than women who did not abort an unplanned pregnancy. The study also estimated that up to 10 per cent of mental health problems among all women might be attributable to abortion. These findings are borne out by Canadian research. A study sponsored by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2001 discovered a five-times higher rate of hospitalization for psychiatric problems among women who had abortions within the previous three months than the control group. The de Veber Institute for Bioethics in Toronto will shortly be publishing a study based on interviews with 106 women who experienced one or more abortions. Every one of the women expressed regret over the abortion and stated that she would advise other women faced with an unplanned pregnancy not to have an abortion.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Gentles,

Research Director de Veber Institute for Bioethics