Hello,
I am writing to request an official complaint be investigated with respect to CTV News net. I found it highly insulting and repulsive for a major news broadcast to indicate because I smoke I could be referred to as a non-Human species. The headline Smokers an endangered species, is only the tip of the years long campaign of hate and segregation being logged against those who choose to use a legal product.
I demand CTV retract this offensive editorial and apologize to 6 million Canadians they have insulted on numerous occasions directly and through distribution of hate filled content in what they dispense.
Law abiding friends and neighbors are being taught by this and other media groups to hate and distance themselves from others with no crime or damage as the motive. I would propose those broadcasters dispensing medical advice should at minimal have credentials checked to validate their legal right to do so.
The Ontario Government teaches children through a website appropriately named stupid, their own parents harm others smell like dog crap and kill defenseless babies. The Health Canada website reiterates the claim smokers are in fact killing babies. There is absolutely no credible science to substantiate such claims in fact targeted research done by the World Health organization contradicts what we hear in the popular media every day.
I have included a link clearly demonstrating the hate being promoted and the damage the media groups do to community in fear mongering campaigns. This vigilante justice consistent and repetitive fears and smears campaign has gone beyond the limits of advocacy but approaches international crimes of autonomy reminiscent of 1930s Germany. I would like to refer your organization to a paper published in the British medical Journal if individual rights violations are in doubt the article describes clearly what those rights entail. The ad agency fear mongering being presented as news by an agency with a duty to clear and credible presentations, in regard to the trust the public affords them, is a matter of serious concern.
There should be clear regulations in place to make these groups clearly identify the source and if the article is news worthy, a paid ad or worthy of credibility with the evidence offered to substantiate claims being presented in an unbiased presentation. Media groups who are placed in a position of trust and are able to guide public opinion reflecting in our abilities to make important choices. Autonomy rights are among those I speak of. Political branding could well be investigated as well as it is no secret the major media groups demonstrate clear political biases proven in the long list of controversial news items glossed over or never reported at all. We hear instead new studies and research presented daily of questionable origin. The fact word for word study reports are seen presented on numerous networks simultaneously, a concern is exasperated as to the source of this information.
The law is clear we have the right to the best available information concerning our health the news groups need to cease in the presentation of such information unless they are prepared to accept full responsibility if the information is found to be false or damaging to others.
The groups are reporting information easily mistaken for news without conscience or shame, it appears they have never investigated most of the materials presented with any substantial or credible effort otherwise competent and responsible journalists would never be presenting such hateful demeaning reports.
In evaluation of many of the anti smoker strategies which in fact support the cigarette and Nicotine delivery industries as evident in quarterly profit reports. Punishing the victim while protecting the product is the flavor of the day. How many smokers can compare the ingredients on the side of the package to make clear decisions with respect to what they are using? Is a bag of potato chips more dangerous than a package of cigarettes? It appears the lack of regulation in product ingredients could be responsible for increased smoking deaths, popularly called “preventable” in the News. If as the news reports indicate they are “preventable” why is the public being led to believe the protection of non-smokers will aid in that prevention. Alternatively, a government position; the victims of an unsafe unregulated addictive product are responsible for medical costs as an indefensible excuse for convenient and excessive taxation.
There is indisputable evidence Chlorine mixed with organic materials creates Dioxins the media groups in campaigns designed to protect manufacturers may have allowed the thousands of preventable cancer deaths to go unchallenged when a simple regulation banning the use of chlorine decades ago could have been highly beneficial.
In contrast, perspective real science dealing with the product in place of taxation and abuse of the victims would result in an inclusive solution respectful to all. There is an excellent article in BMJ, which gives good reason why deception in seek of the common good is a huge mistake, which no doubt is already seeing dangerous repercussions. Anti smoker advocacy is being seen for what it really is manipulative and deceptive violating international rights of the individual to the best quality information available. CTV and others could well be involved an a criminal act if they are knowingly supplying false or deceptive information I have on numerous occasions attempted to contact the media groups to comment on stories presented although many others like myself have supplied them with information contradicting what they present apparently there is a selection process in respect to opinions which can be made public.
I believe my rights have been violated long enough. If the Canadian broadcast media is to be involved in propaganda campaigns, originating in a socialist government campaign which clearly advocates for the profits of corporations to the detriment of the individuals I would like to challenge their right to a license as a credible news channel they do not reflect Canadian Culture or values or respect my rights as a citizen or guarantees to the person described in the constitution.
I am a human being deserving of equal respect, contrary to their presentations.
I am far from extinct contrary to the advice of their clients.
I do not believe any company describing themselves as a media group presenting “news” has a right to a broadcast license to do so if the quality of material is less than total honesty, to inform the public in an unbiased way, as opposed to attempts to lead the public in what we will decide is the public mood. The quality of news on this network would more adequately be described as parroted views of advertisements to reflect the views if the sales department devoid of respect for the audience they report to.
There are serious health concerns in this country which are not being aided by lobbying efforts of media groups attacking weak government officials to achieve paid advocacy roles to promote little more than control of market share. The broadcast news in this country has failed to take out the trash, as we trusted them to do. Regulation is the only avenue left to dissuade the undermining of broadcast media through large purchasing power of stakeholder partnerships in Government, industry and institutionalized permanent charity groups to fulfill their own monetary objectives. The disease and poverty, which could have been avoided through responsible investment, of the funds in question, could have benefited us all.
Best Regards;
Referenced materials
Rights of the individualResearch by the World health Organization
Result of the hate campaigns indefensible in any perspective.
“When you give a lesson in meanness to a critter or a person,
don't be surprised if they learn their lesson."
- Will Rogers
No comments:
Post a Comment