Global Research

21 June, 2021

Dear Jack Nagler

CBC Ombudsman

Thank you for your speedy reply to my complaint where I elaborated a specific illustration to elucidate a larger allegation that CBC’s news and public affairs divisions are not doing honest, ethical, and evidence-based journalism. In my view CBC journalists are instead presenting Canadians with a fraudulent, censored and impoverished picture of what is going on with the COVID crisis.

I am aware of a growing body of citizens’ opinion, written interventions and even pending court cases advancing the argument that, since 2020, CBC journalists have become boosters and cheerleaders for an interpretation of public health which is not born out by the findings of evidence-based science. In fact CBC journalists seem inexplicably to have taken on the assignment to hide relevant facts and information from the Canadian public. Our lives are thereby being put in jeopardy and sometimes snuffed out because of the withholding of relevant information concerning the real nature of the predominant threats in this pandemic. Many voices have been raised to emphasize that media disinformation figures significantly among those threats.

The suppression of Prof Bridle‘s commentary at a Parliamentary press conference is an excellent example of the suppression of evidence by a whistleblower in a sound position to know how seriously the rushed emergency measures COVID jabs are threatening the very lives of Canadians. As Prof. Bridle sees it from his own independent research as a fully accredited and well published authority in the area of immuno-vaccinology at the University of Guelph, the COVID jabs are causing the proliferation of toxic spike proteins throughout the vascular systems of injection recipients.

Prof. Bridle was very clear in stating in the Canadian Parliament at the invitation of Independent MP Derek Sloan that, in his professional opinion, the mass dissemination COVID jabs is currently creating the conditions for untold numbers  of unnecessary blood clots, infertility cases, myocarditis, heart attacks and death. This list is far from complete.

Dr. Bridle also explained his dismay that the Ontario College of Physicians has coercively imposed improper pressure on the professional independence of doctors and, by implication, on Canadian university professors whose expertise lies in professional fields pertinent to public health. As Prof. Bridle and Dr. Patrick Philips asserted in the Parliamentary press conference, the College is instructing its members to refrain from stating any position that might be considered “anti-vaccine.”

click to access video. MP Derek Sloan

Prof. Bridle indicated he was receiving many SOS interventions from professionals, including from journalists, experiencing the pinch of executive silencing from above. It seems to me entirely possible that CBC is part of this pattern. You, Mr. Nagler, are in a position to look into this possible problem at the CBC. Could you please do so. I can’t imagine that the morale of some CBC employees is very good these days given the kinds of repression being reported by all kinds of professional personnel these days.

Is the CBC doing the same as the College of Physicians in applying coercion on the independent judgments of its own journalistic professionals in order to muzzle them when they arrive at evidence-based conclusions inconsistent with the political policies of the minority government in Ottawa. Only recently Prime Minister Justin Trudeau boasted publicly that he is skilled in controlling what does and does not appear in the media through his liberal application of financial bribes.

Over the years I have looked at various times for statements outlining CBC’s missions, mandates, duties, and responsibilities. For the most part these functions have been assigned to the CBC through Parliament by its primary funders, namely us, the Canadian people. I have been especially concerned with the public broadcaster’s responsibilities concerning its broadcasting of news and public affairs. Part of this concern stems from my suspicion that the CBC engages in blacklisting to prevent our national community from receiving a wide sampling of our own voices representing a wide array of arbitrarily excluded perspectives and opinions. Is Prof. Bridle being blacklisted because his professional findings and opinions are inconsistent with the biases and prejudices of the CBC’s chain of command?

When I have looked into what you call CBC’s “journalism policies,” I have been surprised by the number of changes and revisions in the missions, duties, responsibilities and mandates assigned to the CBC by Parliament and sometimes by the federal Executive branch. Could you please send me a text giving the precise wording in all significant documents describing the current version of the “journalism policy” meant to govern the production of news and public affairs at the CBC.

It seems to me very unlikely that CBC’s journalism policy includes provisions sanctioning inaccuracy in CBC journalism, including through the crime of omission. I can’t envisage that there would be provisions in CBC’s journalism policy allowing for the public broadcaster to withhold news whose effect in this instance is to deprive Canadians of information that would help us avoid unnecessary deaths, injuries and permanent disabilities. I can’t believe that the CBC’s journalism policy makes provision to encourage ignorance in Canadians by excluding vital coverage (even in Parliament) by accredited experts in the public health arena with significant strategic insights into the true nature of the COVID crisis.

Let’s scrutinize together the “journalism policy” that our public broadcaster is mandated to deliver to its owners and its audience. It would obviously help to include some history of how this policy came to be, how it has changed over time and why it has changed over time. Furthermore, it seems clear to me that CBC’s journalistic policy would have to be understood within a host of policies and statements of a more general nature about the character of the CBC’s mandate to serve Canadians as a public broadcaster rather than as a government broadcaster.

As I see it, the larger context of our exchange here, Mr. Nagler, arises because the CBC is supposed to be a public broadcaster accountable to the citizens it is meant to serve. Could we please help raise the quality of our exchange in order to give expression to the higher ideals of public broadcasting. Or has the CBC already become effectively a government broadcaster.

Until we clarify the nature of the criteria you were going by Mr. Nagler, I don’t think you are in a sound position to have immediately declared without any supporting evidence or discussion that the “information content the CBC has produced fully respects CBC’s journalism policy.” That statement seems to me like a prefabricated throwaway phrase manifesting a lack of due diligence on the part of its author. The effect of such a glib dismissal of a serious intervention might be to discourage and sideline the good-faith intervention of conscientious citizens including me. Of course my interest in criticizing the CBC is to find out if it is possible to improve the institution at this stage.

The CBC is playing with fire by suppressing a serious and credible warning from an important independent whistleblower, Dr. Bridle, who makes a credible case that a concerted campaign is underway to destroy the messenger in order to kill his message. Is Dr. Bridle that messenger being set up for professional assassination and obscurity in order to prevent his warning from being widely heard by a wide array of Canadians?

Dr. Bridle is far from alone in raising his voice to point out that the obscenity of politically-driven censorship and career wrecking is destroying the foundations of our supposedly free and democratic society.

The censored researcher makes it clear that the CBC has plenty of accomplices in preventing the public from becoming familiar with Dr. Bridle’s cutting edge work developed meticulously over a long period of time on an important platform of publicly-funded independent science in Canada. The long and short of it is that the lives of Canadians are being put at risk by the mass, unscreened delivery of COVID jabs while other remedies are being wrongfully repressed in a misguided effort to meet the legal requirements for an emergency measure utilization of an insufficiently tested medical product.

Why isn’t CBC diligently following the science including the science behind Dr. Bridle’s warning? Why isn’t the CBC educating Canadians on the law of medical experimentation on human subjects as outlined in the Nuremberg Code? The condition for experimentation on human subjects is that authorities must meet high standards of public education in order to achieve informed consent from the human subjects participating in the huge medical experiment presently underway. The capacity in Canada to provide a firm basis of informed consent from the human subjects in this unfolding medical experiment is being undermined by the censorious coverage of the COVID-19 crisis by our national public broadcaster.

Unfortunately the CBC seems to be mired these days in a lack of respect not only for science but also for due diligence as well as for getting to the bottom of the whole story, not just the aspects of the story that support the political policies of the government. I would be gratified, sir, if you were to prove me wrong in this accusation through your conduct of a genuine independent investigation of the CBC’s flawed and biased COVID coverage.

The Bridle case embodies a convergence of many controversies that should be rocking the CBC to its very foundation. The credibility of the entire Crown Corporation is presently at issue as is the credibility of the Office you now fill Mr. Nagler. From what I can see from my Internet search, Radio Canada is also suppressing the story outlined on June 17 in Canada’s Parliamentary press conference facility.

So, in conclusion, let me return to my main theme. I very much doubt that the journalism policy of CBC/Radio Canada allows for the suppression of information touching not only on the state of knowledge of Canadians but also on our ability to make independent decisions with informed consent about matters that have major life or death implications for our entire citizenry.

Yours Sincerely,

Anthony James Hall

Professor Emeritus

University of Lethbridge

*

CBC Ombud <[email protected]>7:36 AM (7 hours ago)

to Ombudsman, BRODIE, me