Marcarc
Forum Elite
Posts: 1870
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:52 pm
Yes, this was a bad, bad study. Well, not so bad except that it first equates a garrison mentality with anti americanism, when a garrison mentality is strictly speaking anti ANYTHING which attempts to infiltrate it. The 'anti' stance does not come from within but from the impetus to alter it from without.<br />
<br />
Actually the study showed just why CBC could probably be said to be trusted internationally. Of the lousy study mechanisms and the intent to find anything derogatory they still found that 50% and up to 60% were neutral. Their complaint was that of the remaining percent the negative was usually double the positive. However, even there we have caveats. For example using the quotations by various people was counted as negative. The example is made that after the friendly fire bombing of canadian troops one woman remarked that the americans were 'war mongerers'. This was counted as 'rational' anti-americanism because it was a reaction to an incident-yet it still was counted as negative. Also counted was her further reply that 'we shouldn't even be selling our softwood to them'. Which, as we know from three NAFTA tribunals, we are quite justified in such cases.<br />
<br />
In other words, is it 'anti american' if 'they deserve it'. If somebody comes into my house and calls me a selfish prick and lazy and too nice to bums and get off my ass and make some money for weapons, which is essentially what their ambassador did, how else would I respond? In fact I highly doubt such 'rational' coverage is available anywhere on american or other canadian networks.
