You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Media Bias’ tag.
The CBC likes to think that they are an objective news source. They are not. Let’s take a look at this article that is so completely lopsided that if it ‘objective CBC reporting’ was a car, two wheels would be spinning freely in the air.
First of all, please go to the Let Kids Be website and read what they have to say about the dangerous practice of mutilating (transitioning) children.
“Members of London’s transgender community say a new ad appearing on London Transit Commission (LTC) buses this week carries a message with the potential to harm young people who seek, or are receiving, medical care related to their gender identity.”
Potential harm? You mean like having children and people think twice about undertaking procedures that will sterilize them for life and require life long medical attention. The horror.
“Elliot Duvall, a transgender man who lives in London, said the ad shouldn’t be allowed because it’s focused on denying care that is allowed in Canada and follows standards of care accepted by health practitioners.
Gender-affirming health care — an approach that affirms a trans person’s gender identity instead of trying to change it — is endorsed by medical associations in Canada and around the world, including the Canadian Psychological Association and the Canadian Pediatric Society.”
Both these associations are institutionally captured and are ignoring the evidence based medicine that contradicts their political views. This from the Cass Report:
-
The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
- Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
- For the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
- Innovation is important if medicine is to move forward, but there must be a proportionate level of monitoring, oversight and regulation that does not stifle progress, while preventing creep of unproven approaches into clinical practice. Innovation must draw from and contribute to the evidence base.
Yeah, so quoting only one side of the issue is nothing like “objective reporting”.
“”It’s absolutely appalling to be honest with you,” said Duvall about the bus ads. “It’s also hard because every person, whether they’re a minor or not, should have health-care rights.”
Let’s call bullshit on this statement because on of the cornerstones of *ANY* healthcare procedure is informed consent. Which isn’t happening in Canada.
“Robyn Hodgson, a registered nurse and formerly the co-ordinator in the transgender and non-binary program at the London InterCommunity Health Centre, said the ad’s message has the potential to harm young people.
“We have medical criteria for when young people should receive appropriate care,” said Hogdson. “So it’s unclear from this advertisement what it is that they seek to ban. There are medically approved criteria for doing different levels of care at different points of developmental progression.”
Defining evidence based medical practice as ‘potentially harmful’ is amazing Orwellian considering that so called gender affirming care is been shown to be based on politics and wishful thinking, as opposed to actual evidence of efficacy. Canada’s standards for GAC are based on the discredited WPATH guidelines.
-
Lack of Consideration for Long-Term Outcomes: The files reveal that WPATH members demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the potential debilitating and fatal side effects of treatments such as cross-sex hormones. There’s an acknowledgment within the discussions that patients, including those with severe mental health issues like schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder, and other vulnerabilities such as homelessness, are allowed to consent to hormonal and surgical interventions without adequate understanding of the implications.
-
Medical Ethics and Informed Consent Violations: There are indications that WPATH does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, with members improvising treatments as they go along. The files highlight concerns about the ethicality of these practices, showing that informed consent might not be as thorough or well-understood by patients as it should be, particularly in the context of minors and vulnerable adults. The discussions reveal a pattern where the potential for harm, including infertility and other severe health complications, is known but not adequately communicated or considered.
-
WPATH’s Influence and Policy Implications: WPATH, being a leading authority in transgender healthcare, significantly influences global medical practices, policies, and guidelines. The files expose that this influence might be based on practices that are not backed by robust scientific evidence or ethical medical standards, which could lead to widespread medical malpractice. This has implications for how transgender healthcare is regulated and practiced worldwide, potentially affecting patient care and policy-making in numerous countries.
These findings are drawn from analyses and reports by various entities and individuals who have reviewed the WPATH files, highlighting concerns over the ethical and evidence-based practices within transgender healthcare.
Yes, so let’s not use bullshit to guide our best medical practices. CBC fails to mention any of the tomfoolery associated with using the WPATH guidelines.
“Hodgson believes denying access to a full range of general affirming care could leave minors vulnerable to negative mental health outcomes, including an increased risk of suicide.”
CBC just straight up prints propaganda. GAC has not been shown to improve mental health outcomes.
Evidence Against the Claim:
A study from Sweden, often cited for its long-term follow-up, examined transgender individuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgery. The findings showed that post-surgery, the suicide rate among these individuals was 20 times higher than in comparable peers, even 10 to 15 years after surgery. This suggests that gender-affirming surgery does not necessarily reduce suicide risk over the long term.
A narrative review of 23 studies on suicide-related outcomes following gender-affirming treatment (surgery, hormones, puberty blockers) indicates that while some studies show a reduction in suicidality, the literature suffers from methodological weaknesses. This review highlights the need for better control for psychiatric comorbidities, suggesting that the relationship between GAC and reduced suicide might not be straightforwardly causal due to confounding factors like psychiatric treatment history.
A study in Finland looking at all-cause and suicide mortality among adolescents who contacted specialized gender identity services found that when psychiatric treatment history is considered, gender dysphoria (GD) significant enough to seek gender reassignment does not appear to be predictive of higher suicide rates. Instead, the suicides were more associated with psychiatric morbidities rather than GD itself.
Several sources, including a review from the Heritage Foundation, argue that the research supporting the claim that GAC reduces suicide is flawed. They highlight that studies often lack rigorous methodology, fail to control for pre-existing mental health conditions, and do not establish causality. Some even suggest that easier access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones without parental consent might correlate with increased suicide rates among youth.
An initial study from the Karolinska Institute and Yale, which suggested mental health benefits from gender-affirming surgeries, was later corrected. The correction stated that there was “no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts,” indicating that the initial findings of mental health benefits were not supported by subsequent analysis.
Unbelievable. Contact the CBC ombudsmen at once.
I’m ashamed of my national broadcaster.
How many people are well-read enough to see what is happening? The assault on journalism and journalistic values in the name of bloody acquiescence to power grinds onward. A excerpt from Robert Fisk’s article “We Do Not Live in a “Post Truth” World, We Live in a World of Lies and We Always Have.”
“Today, you can not only deny history – the Armenian and Jewish Holocausts, Anne Frank’s diary, the gas chambers of Auschwitz – you can also tell fibs, big or small, about almost anything which annoys you. The Middle East, with our journalistic help, is deep in the same false world. Every dictator is now fighting “terrorism” – along with the US, Nato, the EU, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran, the entire Arab Gulf (minus Yemen, for rather embarrassing reasons), China, Japan, Australia and – who knows? – Greenland as well.
But justice is not on the menu. This is a word which few politicians, statesmen, even journalists, any longer use. Neither Trump nor Clinton, nor the Brexiteers, have talked about justice. I’m not talking about justice for victims of “terror”, or Brits who think they’ve been cheated by the EU, but real justice for entire nations, for peoples, for the Middle East, even – dare I mention them? – for Palestinians. They do not live in a “post-truth” world. They’ve been living among other people’s lies for decades.
The only effect of last year’s political earthquakes is that we shall feel less guilty in repeating all these lies. They have now – like war – become normal, a “diversity of perspectives”, part of a familiar, fraudulent world in which untruthfulness has acquired a “weird authenticity”.
Trump is Hitler. Trump is Jesus. National suicide is reincarnation. We may not yet have understood this. But there are many in the Middle East who will understand us. Maybe they’ll have the last laugh.”
Check your sources, use some of your time to evaluate the merit of an argument being made in the media, as a citizen it is your duty to inform yourself to the best of your ability as to how the world works and how to change it toward the better.
Shocking I say! SHOCKING!!!!
Those commie pinko bastards!
The idea that those in control would want media to promote their ideology seems obvious. Let’s examine two helpful charts.
Huh, a bias toward white males. What could it mean?
Bill Moyers on the shutdown and republican intransigence…
I find it amusing how often people refer to the media as having a “liberal bias”. It is such a counter-intuitive claim to make given the composition of the majority of mainstream media outlets (ad driven, reliant on the government for information). Media Lens never gives an inch when it comes to the ‘liberal press’ bowing to power.
Liberal journalism is balanced, neutral and objective, except when it’s not. A BBC news report on Hugo Chavez’s latest election triumph in Venezuela commented:
‘Mr Chavez said Venezuela would continue its march towards socialism but also vowed he would be a “better president”.’ (Our emphasis. The article was subsequently amended, although the ‘but’ remains)
The ‘but’ revealed the BBC’s perception of a conflict between Venezuela’s ‘march towards socialism’ and Chavez becoming a ‘better president’. Despite the appearance of neutral reporting, the ‘but’ snarled at both Chavez and socialism.
A second BBC article described Chavez as ‘one of the most visible, vocal and controversial leaders in Latin America’.
Another found him a ‘colourful and often controversial figure on the international stage’.
“Is Chavez more ‘controversial’ than war—fighting leaders like Bush, Blair, Brown, Obama and Cameron? How many tens or hundreds of thousands of people has Chavez killed? Imagine the BBC reporting: ‘David Cameron is an often controversial figure on the international stage.’ In fact the term is reserved for enemies of the West.
The same bias is found in editorials that often express, or reflect, the passionately partisan views of owners and editors. In 1997, the Independent proclaimed that Tony Blair’s election victory ‘bursts open the door to a British transformation’ to a ‘freer land’. (Neal Ascherson, ‘Through the door he can begin to create a freer land,’ The Independent, May 4, 1997)”
Damn Liberal Media indeed…
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…