- Reaction score
- 3,559
- Points
- 1,160
Cherry is on CBC, if he said anything remotely close to supporting the war, he'd either be fired or on an even longer tape delay.
Cherry makes surprise Afghanistan visit
- Thread starter GAP
- Start date
Hockey fan group challenges Cherry's 'pro war' stance
article link
VANCOUVER — A newly formed Vancouver-based group is challenging Don Cherry to a debate on Coach’s Corner to offset criticism that the fiery commentator is using Hockey Night in Canada to promote militarism and the war in Afghanistan.
Hockey Fans for Peace plans to rally outside the HNIC broadcast of Saturday night’s Vancouver Canucks game against the Detroit Red Wings at Rogers Arena in Vancouver to make the point that hockey fans have the democratic right to speak out against the war in Afghanistan.
Spokesman Kimball Cariou said Wednesday the group is calling on the CBC “to either stop the promotion of militarism during hockey broadcasts, or else to allow one of its members to debate Cherry during an upcoming Coach’s Corner.”
Hockey fan and peace activist Derrick O’Keefe agrees.
“It’s something that’s bothered me for a lot of years that Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner has been used to really give a one-sided platform to talk about the war only in full support,” said O’Keefe, a member of the group’s Facebook page. “And when Don Cherry makes political comments during the hockey broadcast he’s never challenged.”
He said Cherry is “100 per cent pro-war from everything I’ve heard him say.”
O’Keefe, who is also co-chair of StopWar.ca, said people “can support the soldiers and hope that they come home safely and it doesn’t mean that we support the war.”
“I think he’s giving a very biased perspective and he’s invoking the soldiers as a way of promoting the war,” said O’Keefe.
CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said he doesn’t accept the premise that Cherry is promoting the war in Afghanistan and militarism every week on Coach’s Corner.
“I mean, Don does offer remembrances of soldiers who are killed as well as police officers and firefighters that are casualties,” said Keay. “We really don’t have a problem with that.”
“We hire him for his hockey commentary, but as a commentators he’s entitled to his opinion,” said Keay, who doesn’t foresee allowing someone to counter Cherry’s views on the war in Afghanistan.
“I wouldn’t say that’s a forum for that kind of debate, so I really don’t see that happening.”
Photo:
Hockey Night in Canada's Don Cherry poses in front of Leopard 2 tanks with members of 12E Regiment Blinde du Canada at Forward Operating Base Ma'sum Ghar in southern Afghanistan during this year's Team Canada Christmas Day visit to the troops.
Photograph by: Doug Schmidt, Postmedia News
(Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
article link
VANCOUVER — A newly formed Vancouver-based group is challenging Don Cherry to a debate on Coach’s Corner to offset criticism that the fiery commentator is using Hockey Night in Canada to promote militarism and the war in Afghanistan.
Hockey Fans for Peace plans to rally outside the HNIC broadcast of Saturday night’s Vancouver Canucks game against the Detroit Red Wings at Rogers Arena in Vancouver to make the point that hockey fans have the democratic right to speak out against the war in Afghanistan.
Spokesman Kimball Cariou said Wednesday the group is calling on the CBC “to either stop the promotion of militarism during hockey broadcasts, or else to allow one of its members to debate Cherry during an upcoming Coach’s Corner.”
Hockey fan and peace activist Derrick O’Keefe agrees.
“It’s something that’s bothered me for a lot of years that Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner has been used to really give a one-sided platform to talk about the war only in full support,” said O’Keefe, a member of the group’s Facebook page. “And when Don Cherry makes political comments during the hockey broadcast he’s never challenged.”
He said Cherry is “100 per cent pro-war from everything I’ve heard him say.”
O’Keefe, who is also co-chair of StopWar.ca, said people “can support the soldiers and hope that they come home safely and it doesn’t mean that we support the war.”
“I think he’s giving a very biased perspective and he’s invoking the soldiers as a way of promoting the war,” said O’Keefe.
CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said he doesn’t accept the premise that Cherry is promoting the war in Afghanistan and militarism every week on Coach’s Corner.
“I mean, Don does offer remembrances of soldiers who are killed as well as police officers and firefighters that are casualties,” said Keay. “We really don’t have a problem with that.”
“We hire him for his hockey commentary, but as a commentators he’s entitled to his opinion,” said Keay, who doesn’t foresee allowing someone to counter Cherry’s views on the war in Afghanistan.
“I wouldn’t say that’s a forum for that kind of debate, so I really don’t see that happening.”
Photo:
Hockey Night in Canada's Don Cherry poses in front of Leopard 2 tanks with members of 12E Regiment Blinde du Canada at Forward Operating Base Ma'sum Ghar in southern Afghanistan during this year's Team Canada Christmas Day visit to the troops.
Photograph by: Doug Schmidt, Postmedia News
(Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
- Reaction score
- 2,638
- Points
- 1,260
Thought you'd enjoy seeing the Hockey Fans for Peace logo ;D
- Reaction score
- 2,638
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 4,413
- Points
- 1,160
The paper, as reported and about which I know nothing else, appears to make one good, valid and even important point: since most Canadians get most of their information from TV then what we see/hear matters. Don Cherry does have a big audience; Don Cherry does have his own, particular perspective, as he says himself; it is fair to wonder if Don Cherry's views help to shape the overall views of many 'ordinary' Canadians. This does not stem from or lead to a cause and effect issue - Don Cherry did not campaign for Rob Ford or Stephen Harper but, did he help set the table for them?
There is a broader question about CBC editorial policy. Many members, here, perceive a bias in CBC news - perhaps there is one. I wonder if there is not, also, a bias in CBC sports. How many Canadians listen to Don Cherry once or twice or even, during the playoffs, three times a week? My guess is that it is many, many, many more than see or listen to Neil Macdonald and Terry Milewski combined on CBC news in a month.
There is a broader question about CBC editorial policy. Many members, here, perceive a bias in CBC news - perhaps there is one. I wonder if there is not, also, a bias in CBC sports. How many Canadians listen to Don Cherry once or twice or even, during the playoffs, three times a week? My guess is that it is many, many, many more than see or listen to Neil Macdonald and Terry Milewski combined on CBC news in a month.
- Reaction score
- 1,304
- Points
- 1,040
I would offer that the subtle difference is that when Rex Murphy or Donald S. Cherry talk, people know it's their opinion, and not facts. When Terry Milewski talks, he's supposed to be delivering the events as they happened, with some analysis. The perception is that the news, as reported, is biased consistently to one slant or another, as opposed to Mr. Murphy or Mr. Cherry, who people know are slanted, but only opinion, and not necessarily fact.
(Edited to fix grammatical errors)
(Edited to fix grammatical errors)
I concur with what Technoviking says. I'd add that considering how colorful (to say the least) Cherry is, people wouldn't rely on him to inform them. He is a commentator, his job is to give his opinion. And I think that's how the audience considers his talk about all things military: opinion.
- Reaction score
- 5,018
- Points
- 1,060
Terry Milewski is a hack who just likes to hear himself talk. If he ever held an interview where the person he was talking to, ever had more to say than himself, it would be a miracle.
His questions cross the line from an inquiry, to a soapbox speech and on into perverse diatrabes of the single oringinal thought he had for the day.
Plain and simply another overpaid (by the taxpayer) civil servant with an overblown sense of misapplied self worth and an inferiority complex that he cannot even rival the cub reporter of the nations smallest news outlet.
In layman's terms he is the goofus maximus of the broadcast world.
If he had any credibility before the elections, his unprecedented attacks have left no doubt, after the election, that he is an overpaid, overexposed goof.
His questions cross the line from an inquiry, to a soapbox speech and on into perverse diatrabes of the single oringinal thought he had for the day.
Plain and simply another overpaid (by the taxpayer) civil servant with an overblown sense of misapplied self worth and an inferiority complex that he cannot even rival the cub reporter of the nations smallest news outlet.
In layman's terms he is the goofus maximus of the broadcast world.
If he had any credibility before the elections, his unprecedented attacks have left no doubt, after the election, that he is an overpaid, overexposed goof.
Similar threads
