Paul Mcgrath’s high standards

Inside the CBC’s official blogger’s actual listing of press coverage of the CBC News “rebrand”:

Hollywood Reporter: CBC rebrands CBS Newsworld

Funny, Mr. McGrath, I thought the accepted satirical acronym was “CNN.”

13 comments:

  1. Fake Eeniw Coombs
    Posted October 24, 2009 at 5:10 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Hopefully the tone of these blogs will improve when Todd gets back from Mat leave!

  2. Paul Mcgrath
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 5:18 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    You are wrong. You maligned me. You don’t have the balls to admit it and retract it.

    Everything else is a red herring.

    • Fake Ouimetjoined April 10, 2009
      Posted October 24, 2009 at 12:18 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

      You are wrong[!!!] You maligned me[!!!111]

      Joining us late?

  3. Paul Mcgrath
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 1:13 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    And just as a final comment, had you really “checked the link before posting” you would have noticed a single comment on the Hollywood Reporter story:

    1. kispiox comments:
    October 21, 2009
    The current name is CBC Newsworld, not CBS Newsworld.

    • Fake Ouimetjoined April 10, 2009
      Posted October 23, 2009 at 2:06 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

      Dude.

      Setting aside basic skills, it’s become clear you don’t have the stomach for this medium. If you’re going to mock a media outlet for making a mistake, openly do that, assuming CBC’s ethics even permits it. Don’t make it look like you were the perpetrator of that mistake. The Reporter had already corrected the error; it was never clear you were lampooning it until you posted comments on another site explaining yourself.

      To paraphrase Nick Denton, if we commit journalism here it is largely accidental. Nonetheless, I check all my facts. You seem unclear on what that does and does not entail and when it does and does not apply.

      Now, go back and reread what was actually written here, kiddo. And take some control over what, it seems I have to tell you, really is your blog. CBC’s journalistic policies aren’t standing in your way. A lack of will, and a void where an authorial personality should be, are doing that.

  4. Paul Mcgrath
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 11:50 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    So I guess what you’re saying is that here at the Tea Makers we’re primarily about opinion not fact. That says a lot about what’s wrong with this blog. As for your errors I’ve already pointed out two of them in these comments for this post alone, neither of which were acknowledged, why would I bother fixing the rest of your ‘work’.

    As for Anonymous, if you look at my post you’ll notice that I didn’t publish the letter (unlike this blog that can’t stop talking about it) , I linked to it. What I highlighted was Bernstein’s comment about the ‘general malaise’ at CBC News, which is more worthy of discussion than an unverified email . Further Bernstein himself says “I never gave any credence to the letter. In fact I ridiculed it.”

    Finally, “doofus” who calls someone that?

    • Fake Ouimetjoined April 10, 2009
      Posted October 23, 2009 at 12:09 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

      So I guess what you’re saying is that here at the Tea Makers we’re primarily about opinion not fact.

      Yipper. But your insinuation that our facts are wrong when our aim is to publish facts is, in fact, wrong.

      I’m glad you’ve actually expressed an opinion, something you seem deathly afraid to do on what passes for your own blog.

      • Paul Mcgrath
        Posted October 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

        Ugh. It’s not ‘my’ blog and it’s not fear. It’s dedication to the tenets of journalism. I (unlike yourself) realize that most people care much more about information than half-baked foundationless opinions. Further I didn’t insinuate, I stated for the record that you were wrong – which you failed to admit and retract.

  5. Paul Mcgrath
    Posted October 22, 2009 at 9:04 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I only bother when you’re wrong, you’re bordering on libel, and you don’t bother contemplating that they would have corrected the link in question . Otherwise I could care less about this blog.

    I guess you can go back to publishing fake emails now.

    • Fake Ouimetjoined April 10, 2009
      Posted October 22, 2009 at 10:25 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

      Dude, we’re primarily a journal of opinion. Some people have them and aren’t afraid to express them.

      I have good cause to believe we haven’t published anything defamatory. I have good cause because I have done my research on what actually constitutes defamation.

      Please go right ahead and catalogue our factual errors, if you can find any. Beyond that, my invitation stands.

  6. Paul Mcgrath
    Posted October 22, 2009 at 7:36 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    actually that was the Hollywood Reporter’s mistake, not mine. I thought it was funny so I left it.

    No need to apologize though, I’ve come to expect you jumping to conclusions instead of checking facts.

    • Fake Ouimetjoined April 10, 2009
      Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:10 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

      I checked the link before posting, Mcgrath. Even Maffin would’ve.

      I thought you didn’t read this blog. You may resume such nonreading.

      • Paul Mcgrath
        Posted October 22, 2009 at 9:13 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

        and finally for the record I said I didn’t care about this blog, not that I didn’t read it. I guess you can’t expect you to get that right either.


Post a Comment

Your email is never shared.

Upload Files

You can include images or files in your comment by selecting them below. Once you select a file, it will be uploaded and a link to it added to your comment. You can upload as many images or files as you like and they will all be added to your comment.