4 ms·

I'm sure it did, but Rebel News? That site is a cancer, not a news source.

by bavent 6y ago

dmix 6y ago
Eh, It's the original source. I tried Googling around and couldn't find a better source. Probably why I haven't heard about it. Rebel News reporting is a no-go zone for the Canadian media. The Globe and Mail reporting on it was far more mild and less revealing, considering China has two Canadians locked up for years while they invited PLA to train with our troops. Nor did include the original source material: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-global-affairs-objected-to-canadian-military-decision-to-cancel/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-global-affa... Makes you wonder if we'd ever have found out about this otherwise.
- frenchy 6y ago
  The original source is actually kind of interesting. It's too bad this sort of thing isn't covered more regularly in the mainstream news. That said, it's rather mis-characterized by Rebel News, I was only able to read the title of the Globe and Mail piece, but it seemed like a more accurate representation of the source document.
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    One thing which hit me when reading it, was the cache of email addresses, all to receive this 'Canadian Eyes Only' and 'Secret'. For anyone, it creates a chain of people who are ... required? Important enough? Need to know? Said info... There's like a few security implications here, such as, whom to apply pressure to. Some GoC department employees, on even LinkedIn for example, are restricted from indicating who precisely they work for. For this very reason. Even non-compliance-with-pressure tactics are a concern, for it helps to know whom precisely to attempt hacks against. Some might say "Meh, they probably already know this and that", but things like this are precisely how they already know this and that.
pjkundert 6y ago
This kind of attitude seems to be more of a "religious" approach than I'd like. For me, personally, the more opposing opinions I can obtain and comprehend, the better my bounding limits on a topic can be. Even if you really despise someone's personal or political beliefs, how does it benefit you to not fully understand their claims? In Canada, we have an almost total blackout on interpretations of data that don't match the primary political party's desires and beliefs. They fund these "journalistic" organizations to the tune of billions of dollars, completely locking out any organizations with contrary opinions. Is it your belief that this an ideal situation for Canadians wishing to discover if there exist alternative viewpoints consistent with the available data?

I'm sure it did, but Rebel News? That site is a cancer, not a news source.

by bavent 6y ago

I'm sure it did, but Rebel News? That site is a cancer, not a news source.

dmix 6y ago

Eh, It's the original source. I tried Googling around and couldn't find a better source. Probably why I haven't heard about it. Rebel News reporting is a no-go zone for the Canadian media. The Globe and Mail reporting on it was far more mild and less revealing, considering China has two Canadians locked up for years while they invited PLA to train with our troops. Nor did include the original source material: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-global-affairs-objected-to-canadian-military-decision-to-cancel/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-global-affa... Makes you wonder if we'd ever have found out about this otherwise.

frenchy 6y ago
The original source is actually kind of interesting. It's too bad this sort of thing isn't covered more regularly in the mainstream news. That said, it's rather mis-characterized by Rebel News, I was only able to read the title of the Globe and Mail piece, but it seemed like a more accurate representation of the source document.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  One thing which hit me when reading it, was the cache of email addresses, all to receive this 'Canadian Eyes Only' and 'Secret'. For anyone, it creates a chain of people who are ... required? Important enough? Need to know? Said info... There's like a few security implications here, such as, whom to apply pressure to. Some GoC department employees, on even LinkedIn for example, are restricted from indicating who precisely they work for. For this very reason. Even non-compliance-with-pressure tactics are a concern, for it helps to know whom precisely to attempt hacks against. Some might say "Meh, they probably already know this and that", but things like this are precisely how they already know this and that.

pjkundert 6y ago

This kind of attitude seems to be more of a "religious" approach than I'd like. For me, personally, the more opposing opinions I can obtain and comprehend, the better my bounding limits on a topic can be. Even if you really despise someone's personal or political beliefs, how does it benefit you to not fully understand their claims? In Canada, we have an almost total blackout on interpretations of data that don't match the primary political party's desires and beliefs. They fund these "journalistic" organizations to the tune of billions of dollars, completely locking out any organizations with contrary opinions. Is it your belief that this an ideal situation for Canadians wishing to discover if there exist alternative viewpoints consistent with the available data?