Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Y108 finally comes to its senses

Y108 radio station, which reaches millions of listeners in the Golden Horseshoe area, has finally decided to allow the airing of pro-life ads paid for by the Niagara Region Right to Life group.

The move comes only days after listeners and pro-life groups complained vigorously to the station for censoring the ads (read about the original controversy here).

This once again proves that the main stream media can be responsive when challenged in the public sphere. They need to be held accountable.

Monday, January 08, 2007

Y108 in Niagara censors pro-life ads

The Y108 radio station, which broadcasts into Toronto, Burlington, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Brantford and all through Niagara, has decided to pull some pro-life ads purchased by the Niagara Region Right to Life group. The reason? The station received seven complaints! Seven! The decision was made by the station manager, Suzanne Carpenter.

Don't they realize that this action is a limitation of freedom of speech and positions Y108 as being hostile to any pro-life groups? I guess that makes Y108 offically pro-abortion, to the point of wanting to silence one side of the debate.

I have read the advertisements in question and they are anything but offensive. Here is the text of the four ads:

1) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....and I regret my abortion."

2) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....abortion harms more than just the baby."

3) "When they say that abortion will solve your problem...the truth is that it cost us everything. Our baby, our peace of mind and each other."

4) "When they say that abortion will solve your problems...the truth is that it can cause suicidal thoughts, depression, guilt and often infertility."

Trailer: This message comes to you from Niagara Region Right To Life.

Do you think those are offensive ads? They simply relate negative experiences of people that have had abortions. The only reason why some people complained is because they are staunchly pro-abortion and do not want to allow other views to be expressed, lest society finally wake up and realize that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby.

Moreover, I would think that in a region as populous as Y108's listening area, 7 complaints should be considered as a drop in the bucket. This is far from a massive outcry against the radio station. I can't believe they are letting 7 radical pro-abortion militants manage their radio station. Where is their backbone?

I hope that this decision will be reversed, otherwise Y108 will likely incur irreparable damage to its reputation as a tolerant and inclusive radio station.

New York Times finally issues a correction

The mighty New York Times has finally succumbed to weeks of pressure from various groups that were demanding that they admit that they made a huge (perhaps deliberate) error in reporting regarding abortion in El Salvador. Read more about their gaffe here.

On Sunday, January 7th, 2007, the paper issued a "correction" to acknowledge their monumental blunder. Read about the correction here. However, the correction is very weakly worded and convoluted, which could lead a reader to believe that the issue was only a small technicality, when in fact it was a major blunder by the reporter.

The evidence suggests the the NYT only apologized to avoid further embarrassement and loss of credibility, not because they were genuinely sorry for an incompetent and biased piece of reporting. In fact, NYT Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. gave a in May 2006 in which he demonstrated his extreme pro-abortion and pro-same sex 'marriage' leanings.

When you consider the evidence, this seems like another instance where the main stream media was trying to push an agenda and only backed down after it realized how much egg it had on its face and how much of its credibility had been lost in the process.

That's why the blogoshere needs to be active in holding the main stream media accountable.
Chalk up another victory for LifeSiteNews.com and the bloggers against the main stream media.

Be on your toes journalists, because we're watching you closely.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Christian University Movement Making a Difference

The National Post recently reported on an event called Rise Up hosted by Catholic Christian Outreach (CCO) in Quebec City a few days ago.

CCO is a university-based movement designed to spread the Gospel on university campuses. You can read the National Post story here.

If you're a university-aged young adult and would like to get involved with CCO, please check out www.cco.ca.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

New York Times proving it is not a real news source

The New York Times has been caught red-handed with distorting the facts by LifeSiteNews.com, a pro-life news agency.

The Public Editor (ombudsman) at the New York Times, in a 1,500 word article published on December 31, admits that LifeSiteNews.com was correct in exposing a grievous error in reporting by the New York Times Magazine.

In a nutshell, the Times was trying to portray an infanticide in El Salvador (where a live baby was deliberately strangled to death after birth) as an abortion that occurred at 18 weeks of pregnancy. The point was apparently to make El Salvador seem like an extremely right-wing country, where people get imprisoned for 30 years for an action that is legal in the US (i.e. abortion).

The author of the article, Jack Hitt, admits that he did not even read the final court ruling in the case, even though the ruling can be obtained very easily. That negligence and his total misrepresentation of the facts are sufficient to warrant a firing of Jack Hitt from the Times.

But it gets worse. Mr. Hitt's interview with the women convicted for the murder of her newborn was translated by an unpaid translator from the pro-abortion group IPAS. In addition to abortion advocacy, IPAS stands to profit financially from the legalization of abortion in El Salvador since it sells vacuum aspirators used for abortion and incomplete abortion. So Mr. Hitt wasn't smart enough to find an impartial translator. Again, gross negligence and awful reporting.

Read the full story here.

The latest disgusting twist in the story: The Times is considering abolishing the position of ombudsman that unmasked the Times' incompetence and pro-abortion bias!!! Read all about it here. To think that they would have the gall to abolish the position that is designed to ensure that reporting is accurate and fair.

Don't ever trust the New York Times again.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Folly: Ontario boy has 3 parents

Various news sources are reporting today about an absurd ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that grants a boy three parents: the lesbian couple that is raising him (including his biological mom) and his biological dad, who donated the sperm.

Once again, the issue has been dealt with in a very narrow-minded fashion: only the interests of the parents count. Read through the reasons provided by the Court for their ruling and you'll see that they ignore the child's interests and only consider the parents interests.

WHAT ABOUT THE KID???!?!?!!?!!!!!

Hello? Is anybody paying attention? We have a young boy here who's future development is at stake.

Ga-zillions of studies have shown that a child develops best when raised by a mother and a father in a stable family. This ruling flies in the face of scientific research and common sense. The lesbian couple should never have been allowed to have this child.

It also shows once again how un-elected judges are taking the liberty to re-write the law. In the ruling, the judges gave themselves permission to "update" Ontario's laws to reflect new realities like same-sex couples and artificial insemination.

Society is going to keep going down hill until people wake up and realize that the child's interests also have to be taken into account.

The further we get from the traditional family, the more social problems and disturbed children we will have. Government has already redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. Now the Ontario court has redefined the family to include more than two parents. Where will it end? In the case of divorced couples where both parties get re-married (perhaps more than once), we could potentially have 4 or 6 parents. None of this is good for the child.