The World Forum || Political Forums

CBC Attacks FOX News

By Drog (Canada), Section Blogs
Posted on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 08:34:05 AM PST

CBC's investigative journalism show The Fifth Estate re-aired their recent documentary Sticks and Stones last night, in which they discuss how the U.S. is a nation of warring factions, where you're either Republican or Democrat, a red-stater or blue-stater, a conservative or a liberal, where political conversation has denigrated into a shouting match, and where conservatives have taken over the airwaves once ruled by the liberals.

The documentary took on FOX News, focusing on Ann Coulter (who embarasses herself by claiming that Canada sent troops to Vietnam) and on Bill O'Reilly, host of the show The O'Reilly Factor.

Every now and again, I'll watch The O'Reilly Factor for a minute or so and shake my head in disbelief that anyone can actually be a fan of his brand of sh*t. Aside from his extreme right-wing bias that he claims not to have in his "no-spin zone" (uh huh), his highly confrontational interviewing style that he calls debate but almost always ends in his yelling overtop of his guest, telling them to "shut up" and sometimes even turning off their microphone... aside from all that, he lies repeatedly. It seems to be his strategy to get the edge on his surprised interviewees, believing that his fans will never call him on his lies because his fans aren't the independent fact-checking type of people. Maybe I'm being harsh on his fans, but I just don't understand how anyone with an ounce of critical thinking could believe all the lies he spouts let alone approve of the manner in which he verbally abuses his guests.

Luckily, there are sites out there that make it their mission to document all his lies, distortions, bigotted comments and outright insane opinions -- sites like Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly, FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) and Media Matters for America. Unfortunately, I doubt his fans frequent those sites.

Back to the CBC documentary. Sticks and Stones showed a clip of O'Reilly aggressively attacking one of his guests, Jeremy Glick, a doctoral student and antiwar activist who was against the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq despite his father having died in 9/11. It was brutal to watch. And the poor kid's phone was ringing off the hook afterwards due to O'Reilly's fans wanting to get a piece of him too. In another clip, O'Reilly interviewed Heather Mallick of the Globe and Mail after she wrote a column welcoming American deserters. In the interview, he threatened to personally call for a boycott by his fans that would destroy Canada's economy. When Mallick said that would destroy both our economies since we are each other's largest trading partners, he denied that that was true (everyone knows it is) and then simply made stuff up about how his Bill O'Reilly Boycott in France has cost France billions of dollars according to the Paris Business Review. In actuality, trade between the U.S. and France has actually gone up during the past two years, and there is no such thing as the Paris Business Review -- it was and still is a complete fabrication of Bill O'Reilly. In other words, he is an unabashedly bold-faced liar.

The entire documentary can be viewed on their website, as can the reactions by Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. FOX News called the CBC documentary a vile, deceitful attack, and a malicious and unfair report. O'Reilly ended with his usual final word: "By distorting facts and pounding a relentless anti-American drum, the CBC has convinced millions that the USA is the bad guy in the war on terror. That could lead to millions of deaths, sir, just as Nazi propaganda did".

In my own opinion, yes, CBC's decision to go after FOX News may have been influenced by the fact that the FOX News channel will soon be available in Canada. But I have always found CBC to be fairly objective -- they are certainly not right-wing, but they don't pull any punches in going after the ruling Liberal Party either. But regardless, although the documentary was definitely anti-FOX, anti-Coulter, and anti-O'Reilly, I didn't see it as being anti-American in any way. As for O'Reilly's comparison of the CBC's documentary to Nazi propaganda, that says as lot more about O'Reilly than CBC ever could.

What's your opinion?
Welcome to our discussion below!
(Free signup required to post comments.)

Coming soon!

The world could use more dialogue about its differences — a little understanding goes a long way. There are many online forums where people with different perspectives yell at each other and hurl abuse. There aren't so many where completely different points of view are expressed rationally and constructively. That's why The World Forum was created.

CBC Attacks FOX News | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)

Attack on FOX (none / 0) (#1)
by Unknown User () on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 09:23:45 AM PST

I really do wish that the news shows would show more respect to the people they have on that have differant opinions however I can say that I agree with Bill 99.5% fo the time. I love Jesus also and I think our troops do not get the support from the liberas in this country wheater we are are war on peace. Too many Americans are putting their needs above the county's needs, we all need to take a second look, oh yes there is nothing wrong with America being the best and the strongest that is why we are still here you know. Are you listening?

: My problem with FOX and O'Reilly (none / 0) (#2)
by Drog (Canada) on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 10:06:38 AM PST

I'm listening. I have no problem with O'Reilly being right-wing and expressing his views, even if I don't happen to agree with him on almost anything. I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. My problem with him is the manner in which he presents his views and the way in which he treats his guests and his opponents. Rather than defend his beliefs via reasoned, civilized, intelligent debate, he resorts to shouting, cursing (he's made an art form out of the phrase "shut up"), lying all the time (those lies are all well documented), even turning off his guest's microphone.
I'm sure part of my dislike for the man stems from my being Canadian -- Canadians, on average, don't care too much for sensationalism. I can't stand Crossfire either -- just a bunch of people yelling overtop of each other. My favourite U.S. political show is NOW, formerly hosted by Bill Moyers. It's intelligent discussion and civil.
My problem with FOX News in general is that they care far more about sensationalism than truth. As I mentioned in another recent story, they refused to run the story about Monsanto's bovine growth hormone being unsafe for the public and tried their best to force their reports to deliberately falsify it, finally firing them when they refused.

[ Parent ]
: Supporting the troops (none / 0) (#3)
by Drog (Canada) on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 10:32:16 AM PST

I was under the impression that both in the first Gulf War and the second war in Iraq, the public (having learned from their mistakes during the Vietnam War) went out of their way to make it clear that they supported the troops, just not the war itself. The idea that people are putting their needs above their country's needs seems to imply that the "my country right or wrong" concept is a good one. I disagree.
Ever since 9/11, and especially immediately after 9/11, there has been a feeling that if you criticized the government's decisions, you were being unpatriotic. That's how the Patriot Act got passed so quickly. I think the reverse is true -- if we love our country, then we are obligated to speak out when we believe it to be acting wrongly, to prevent it from going too far astray. It's not the people's duty to follow the government; it's the people's duty to lead the government. It's easy to believe what our government tells us and get gung-ho behind a war. We all like to feel that we are on the side of the good-guys. It's much harder to criticize your own government and stand up for what we believe in, especially when you are labelled unpatriotic or even a traitor for doing so.
No, there is nothing wrong with America being a superpower. But most of the anti-American sentiment growing in the rest of the world does not stem from jealousy -- it stems from opposition to U.S. foreign policy, mostly since 9/11 when it changed drastically, becoming much more unilateral, protectionist and aggressive. Essentially, the U.S. is being perceived as a bully. Most of that anti-American sentiment was aimed at the Bush administration, not at Americans themselves, but after Bush was voted into office again, that has changed a bit, unfortunately. I don't think it's beyond repair though.
Up in Canada, there is definitely a lot of anti-Bush sentiment, and it has started to turn into anti-American sentiment too. But I "think" people have started to realize that and have checked themselves. The media has certainly done so anyway.

[ Parent ]

Culture Wars (none / 0) (#4)
by you look like a nail (Canada) on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 10:46:06 AM PST

The US is an incredibly divided country these days and the conflict born of that division is playing itself out on almost every level of society. The media in the US is just the most visible of those levels.

The idea of a 'free press' is falling by the wayside in the US, driven by outlets like Fox. The role of news organizations as sources of entertainment, managing their content to maximize their revenues, is neither a new nor a uniquely American phenomenon; but this trend has been heavily exploited in the US by political parties, initially to distribute their message, but more recently to frame the debate.

This behaviour creates a feedback loop; media outlets play up to cultural divisions, tailoring their output for people who agree with them. Consumers then spend their time listening solely to outlets who portray events in terms that they are comfortable with, deepening the division. This creates more incentive for media outlets to tailor their output ... and on and on and on, until the left and the right are living in entirely separate worlds, talking and listening and thinking only in their own, entirely different, utterly self-referential domains.

-- Your Reality Check is in the mail.

EXTREME right-wing bias? (none / 0) (#5)
by dtungsten (USA) on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 01:24:30 AM PST

Speaking as a fan of "his brand of sh*t" as you call it, I can tell you don't actually watch the show. Besides the fact that you stated as such, what you describe happening on the show is not as common an occurrence as you make it out to be. If you only watch a minute or two occasionally, how can you know what "usually" happens on the show? By trusting those anti- Bill O'Reilly web sites, and not doing any fact-checking on them?

I have to take issue with your statement that he has an "extreme right-wing bias." That simply is not supported by the facts. His personal opinions do run to the right, to be sure. I recommend you examine the
Wikipedia entry for his political views. Certainly not those of of an extreme right-wing.

I don't think he's any more to the right than Bill Maher is to the left.

Since this is my first comment here, I'll keep it brief and just mention that I really like the site, and I'm eager to take part in more discussion. (I'm afraid I've rushed this post a bit.)

Fair enough (none / 0) (#6)
by Drog (Canada) on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 12:50:12 PM PST

If you only watch a minute or two occasionally, how can you know what "usually" happens on the show?

Fair enough, I would indeed have to become a regular viewer to know what 'usually' happens on the show. It is the really offensive clips that I see or hear more often, played by other shows, that raise my ire -- such as his lies (e.g. peabodies, Paris Business Review), bizarre statements (e.g. comparing CBC's coverage to Nazi propaganda), mistreating his guests (e.g. Jeremy Glick) and making derogatory remarks about anyone he doesn agree with (regularly calling people idiots, loons, nuts, etc). That, combined with his usual manner of sensationalism, makes him very unappealing to me.

Certainly not those of of an extreme right-wing.

Again, I concede. His views, when analyzed across the board, are mixed. On some issues, though, he is extremely right-wing, such as his support of torture in interrogating suspected terrorists and his opinion that all prisoners at Guantanamo should have been put to death already, as well as his belief that the ACLU is "anti-American".

I do applaud him, however, for his stance regarding the Catholic priest child molestation scandal. Good for him.

I'm eager to take part in more discussion.

I look forward to it. Welcome to the site!

[ Parent ]

O'Reilly?? Really? (none / 0) (#7)
by Rokkitsci (USA) on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:03:53 PM PST

I presume you are all talking about O'reilly. I have come to dislike his brand interview. He has become much too enamored of himself and his (self-delusionary) influence on the world stage.

His views can be tolerated and he does try to maintain an air of impartiality - even when it is obvious he doesn't mean it. He is trying too hard to manufacture an image.

I really don't like the man. And I detest Hannity. However, I love Fox News. I filter out all the personality flaws and try to concentrate on the actual news items. Fox is the only media outlet that pays any attention at all to the conservative voice - the majority voice in America. The other media only pipe out what the DNC wants them to release. They are not fair in any aspect of what they choose to cover, and more importantly in what they refuse to cover.

Fox News fills that void. Some of their stars are beginning to read their own press releases and have gotten the big-head.

Nothing is perfect.

[ Parent ]

: Fox News (none / 0) (#9)
by dtungsten (USA) on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 08:15:49 PM PST

He has become much too enamored of himself and his (self-delusionary) influence on the world stage.
Agreed. That was something I noticed about him right away. He dogmatically presets his ideas. (However, his show is an opinion piece so it is understood.) Somehow I got over it and started liking the guy.
And I detest Hannity. However, I love Fox News.
Agreed. Well, I don't really detest Hannity, as I think he honestly beleives what he's saying, but he can be as bad in "attack mode" as everything that disgusts me on the left. I actually like Colmes, as much as I disagree with his political viewpoint.
Fox is the only media outlet that pays any attention at all to the conservative voice - the majority voice in America.
True. Which is probably why the left has blasted it so strongly. Either through ignorance of their own biases, or simply an objection to different views (or possibly something else I have not thought of). I actually have a lot of thoughts about this, but it would be a whole other discussion.
It's also probably why I finally started liking the news, instead of loathing it. And probably explains my growing interest in politics (among other factors). It's not that I was looking for a conservative viewpoint either, I didn't even notice a bias in the news media. Apparently my views have drifted slightly to the left even.
They are not fair in any aspect of what they choose to cover, and more importantly in what they refuse to cover.
I never really realized that until I watched their coverage of the last Presidential election. Fox News had the best (national) coverage, simply based on their poll results ticker. When it was clear that Bush was going to win, they simply said so, they didn't celebrate or have a special gleam in their eyes. But over at CNN, they looked like they were attending a funeral. In fact, CNN REFUSED to call Ohio, even after their ticker said 100% results reported (and it was clear he was going to win before that). I can cut them a little slack on that, though, based on the 2000 fiasco.

[ Parent ]
: Bill must love all this attention (none / 0) (#14)
by progovac87 (USA) on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:57:06 PM PST

First of all it is apparent that the article was written by someone who does not watch the Factor on a regular basis. I do, and believe me the words: "Shut up" are rarely heard on this show.
Comparing Ann Coulter to Bill O'Reilly just because both happen to be notorious conservatives is like comparing apples to oranges because they happen to be popular fruit. Ann Coulter says things for attention, while more or less Bill's says things because it is his opinion. I believe that Ann Coulter is no where near as conservative as her comments make her out to be. She simply realized the only way to become famous was to say things others would not.
Bill is conservative, and his show frequently produces conservative spin. This is ironic since he claims his show is the "no spin show." In fact having a show be completely no spin is like drawing a prefect circle. No matter what instruments you use, you always end up drawing an oval.
People watch Bill because he is entertaining. They always look forward to the showdowns where he yells "Shut up" or cuts someone's microphone. Probably the funniest moment was when Bill fantasized he was Clint Eastwood and would put a bullet in Al Franken. This makes good TV, not good news coverage. I am afraid some are not sophisticated to figure it out. It is OK to watch Bill, if you have access to more objective (note the word more) news sources.
Bill is hypocritical, a bully, and he lies. So what? Most in the news business are the same. What Bill and Fox provide is a new take on news if you will from the mainstream (and dare I say monolithic) networks and CNN and MSNBC.
Bill has some more liberal views, but that is to be expected from everybody. I challenge you to find me a unilateral conservative or liberal. Bill is loud, and loud for a reason. He wants viewers, but unlike Coulter I genuinely believe his opinions are his own, and so is his personality.

[ Parent ]

O'Reilly (none / 0) (#10)
by dtungsten (USA) on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 09:50:23 PM PST

such as his lies (e.g. peabodies, Paris Business Review),

I hadn't actually seen him say those things (I'm not denying that he did, of course). The Peabody awards issue doesn't bother me that much, mostly because it was about him personally, as opposed to the issues on which he reports. I read the statement, and it was said in defense to an ad hominem style attack on his former show. He simply got some of the facts wrong (and did admit that when he was called on it). The Paris Business Review thing was just stupid on his part. I didn't see him say that either, but I think his boycott France campaign is frivolous, and can't really have had the impact he apparently claims it had.

bizarre statements (e.g. comparing CBC's coverage to Nazi propaganda),

I'd actually tend to agree with him on that. I'd have to see the exact reference to comment on it specifically.

mistreating his guests (e.g. Jeremy Glick)

Unfortunately, I haven't seen that episode. I wish I had. I read some of the transcript, but that's not the same. I'd venture to guess that O'Reilly's temper really got the better of him that time. Jeremy Glick did say that the people in the WTC deserved to die, essentially agreeing with the terrorists. That's pretty sick and twisted if you ask any reasonable individual (but doesn't necessarily merit cutting off his mike). I did see O'Reilly get out of hand when talking to the guy from the New Hampshire newspaper about Jessica's law (something O'Reilly feels very strongly about). The paper had made some personal attacks on O'Reilly, but he still wanted them on the show. O'Reilly did apologize when called out on his behavior, and thanked him for coming on the show and invited him back.

and making derogatory remarks about anyone he doesn't agree with (regularly calling people idiots, loons, nuts, etc).

He does say that yes, but he has qualified (backpedaled?) it by saying that he means to attack the ideas as being loony, not the people (for the most part). I'm sure he does feel that they are loony, and it is an opinion show, so he is allowed to say that, but it's not very nice. I sometimes agree with him that those people are loony, but I'd like to think that he is trying to express his frustration, rather than denigrate.

But he certainly doesn't do that to everyone who disagrees with him.

On some issues, though, he is extremely right-wing,

Absolutely. I'd describe him as a traditionalist.

his support of torture in interrogating suspected terrorists

I didn't see him describe it as that. The way I heard him describe it was he supports interrogation, but not torture (so at that point it would depend on what you consider torture). I don't think a little comfort deprivation is too terrible, if it leads to useful information. Torture is actually bad, and he has said so, because people will say ANYTHING under torture. And I agree, torture is bad in and of itself.

his opinion that all prisoners at Guantanamo should have been put to death already,

Yeah, that surprised me when I read that (I hadn't seen him say that, again that doesn't make it not true). I hope that he said that out of anger after 9/11, and has come to realize the error of his ways.

his belief that the ACLU is "anti-American"

I have mixed feelings about that. I haven't really examined the ACLU very closely, mostly because I disagree with a lot of what they say. I suspect that they don't really hate America, and that they believe that what they are doing is good for it (I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary). But I do think one could make a case that some of the things that they do are not in America's best interest, and are actually harmful to the country; which is (the important part of) what O'Reilly is saying. O'Reilly may really believe that the ACLU harbors anti-American sentiment. I think he has a column up on his website about that right now (I haven't read it yet though).

His own viewpoints are to the right, no question, and his show is an opinion piece, so you will hear those opinions from the right, but I still think he tries to present "both" sides of the story fairly, even if he doesn't agree. If the show presumes to state that his opinion is centrist, and therefore correct, I'd have to agree to a bias. But the way he presents it, he tries to state his case, let the other people state theirs, and let the viewer decide. For the most part, he tries very hard to get the guests to actually answer his questions, and not try to dodge the issue (though I have seen him fail to do this). I suppose sometimes this can be seen as rude. He does cut people off (whether he agrees with them or not) due to time constraints. This is not intended to be an insult, and he usually invites the guest to come back, and thanks them for coming on the show (again, whether he agree with them or not).

Regarless, you still don't have to like him (as O'Reilly himself says), nor do you have to watch something you don't enjoy. I just don't like it when people accuse him of being extreme (he actually had a good bit on extremism recently), simply because they disgree with him, and after only having seen a few of his worst moments at that.

For example, you object to his calling people loony, when you turn around and call his brand 'sh*t'. You object to his inaccuracies, calling them 'lies' (ok that thing about France might really be one), when you inaccurately label him extreme (thanks for backing off on that one, though). That seems a bit (not completely) hypocritical.

I certainly don't agree with him all the time (one doesn't have to to like the program). I don't like when he objects to people saying things are fascist when he turns around and does the same thing. It doesn't matter if what he is describing is fascist, he should either object to the word being used all the time, or simply point out when (he thinks) it is being used incorrectly.

[ Parent ]

The CBC (none / 0) (#11)
by you look like a nail (Canada) on Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 12:44:03 PM PST

bizarre statements (e.g. comparing CBC's coverage to Nazi propaganda),

I'd actually tend to agree with him on that. I'd have to see the exact reference to comment on it specifically.

You'd tend to agree that the CBC can be validly compared to Nazi propaganda? Seriously?

I haven't seen the specific reference either, but that's such a patently absurd observation that I'd have a hard time imagining any reference which could come close to salvaging it.

-- Your Reality Check is in the mail.
[ Parent ]

The exact reference (none / 0) (#12)
by Drog (Canada) on Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 01:34:39 PM PST

O'Reilly said:

"By distorting facts and pounding a relentless anti-American drum, the CBC has convinced millions that the USA is the bad guy in the war on terror. That could lead to millions of deaths, sir, just as Nazi propaganda did."

That's just crazy...

First, the CBC documentary was anti-O'Reilly, not anti-American. As least that's how I saw it.

Second, I do not agree that any criticism against American citizens or the American government should be held back for fear of it "helping the terrorists" by hurting the U.S. Once you start down that line of thinking, of being fearful of criticizing your government, your society is in trouble.

Third, comparing the CBC to the Nazis? Get real. Exactly what is this relationship between the CBC's scathing documentary on O'Reilly and Nazi propaganda?

It's too bad that the CBC is currently on strike, because the website to this documentary, which you can view in its entirety, is currently down.

[ Parent ]

: CBC Nazi Reference (none / 0) (#13)
by dtungsten (USA) on Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 03:57:48 PM PST

O'Reilly said:
"By distorting facts and pounding a relentless anti-American drum, the CBC has convinced millions that the USA is the bad guy in the war on terror. That could lead to millions of deaths, sir, just as Nazi propaganda did."
That sounds like a response to an e-mail. Now that I think of it, I might have actually seen that. I didn't see the original piece it refers to, though.
I'm not saying they did, but if they did convince millions that the USA is the bad guy in the war on terror by distorting the facts (I do think they might be a bit misleading), that could lead to millions of deaths. Nazi propaganda did lead to millions of deaths. It's a very indirect relationship. Would I agree with it? Maybe. Do I think it's a good idea to "invoke" Nazism such as he did? No. The same way I object to the fascism claims from "both" sides unless it's really really warranted.
First, the CBC documentary was anti-O'Reilly, not anti-American. As least that's how I saw it.
I haven't seen it, but from the notes you linked to, I'd have to agree with you there. But O'Reilly wasn't just talking about the documentary. He was talking about CBC reporting in general (if I recall correctly).
Second, I do not agree that any criticism against American citizens or the American government should be held back for fear of it "helping the terrorists" by hurting the U.S. Once you start down that line of thinking, of being fearful of criticizing your government, your society is in trouble.
If you're fearful of criticizing the government for fear or reprisal from the government, yes. If saying something that would actually endanger American lives, especially during war conditions, restraint is warranted. That is not to say that any and all criticism should be held back.
Third, comparing the CBC to the Nazis? Get real. Exactly what is this relationship between the CBC's scathing documentary on O'Reilly and Nazi propaganda?
I don't know. That does seem unreasonable. The CBC certainly are not Nazis, but that isn't what he said. Attacking O'Reilly isn't the issue. Distorting facts in such a way that ends up hurting Americans (or others) is his concern. The information is as damaging and untruthful as Nazi propaganda. The CBC are not Nazis, and are not supporting Nazism. Does that justify the allegation? I think that one should try to refrain from such allegations, especially when complaining about people saying, "Bush is Hitler," even though that is a much more serious allegation.
It's too bad that the CBC is currently on strike, because the website to this documentary, which you can view in its entirety, is currently down
Agreed. I should have watched it when I had the chance.

[ Parent ]

Welcome (none / 0) (#8)
by Rokkitsci (USA) on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:11:43 PM PST

Hey - you are the first one who may have anything in common with me. To date, I feel like George Gobel's brown shoe in a world of tuxedos.

This site has some very well informed and well-spoken liberals. I have begun to read it regularly because of the civility and fairness that characterizes the site, quite unlike other sites I have visited. Of course they are all wrong, but they are nice about it. (Most are Canadians, so that may have something to do with it.) ;)

Together, we may be able to make a dent in their perspectives.

Welcome aboard

[ Parent ]

CBC Attacks FOX News | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)

Blogs

8GB 1.8 Inch LCD TFT Color Display MP4 Player
Music
by luisblog - September 2

12 Inch TFT/LCD Digital Photo Frames
Business & Finance
by luisblog - September 2

1.3 inch Touch Screen Bluetooth Mobile Phone Watch
Business & Finance
by luisblog - September 2

Russia is Selling Hezbollah surface-to-air and anti-tank...
Media & Journalism
by clhrf - August 28
1 comment

How to start up your business in China?
Diary
by eddielee - August 25

Fashionable MP5 Player from china!
Music
by luisblog - August 18

Traveling With Emetophobia - Cruise Ships
Diary
by Writersblock - July 21

Samir Kuntar is a Convicted Killer and Not a Hero
Diary
by clhrf - July 21

Lebanon Needs A Peace Treaty With Israel
Diary
by clhrf - July 14

Does Lebanon's House Speaker Head a Jihadist Militia?
Diary
by clhrf - June 30

More blogs...

Login

Signup to post comments, to vote on story submissions and to set preferences.

Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news.

Discuss and debate political, cultural, social and environmental issues.

CBC Attacks FOX News

Advertisement

Top Stories

Blogs

Related Links

Login

	Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news. Discuss and debate political, cultural, social and environmental issues.
	submit story \| sections \| topics \| your account \| help/FAQ \| contact \| links \| search \| RSS