Doug SaundersVerifierat konto

I believe they are trying to stand up for free expression. Like protesting without getting shot.

Their obsession with Israel does not make us look good. If they take the phrase "Canadian Journalists" out of their name I'll be fine with it

So it's "obsession with Israel" to protest the killing or wounding of unarmed journalists? That's disgraceful.

I would be pleased with any organization that did that. This letter had nothing to do with that -- it was days before the incident to which you refer; its political lobbying hurt the ability of journalists to draw attention to this sort of abuses against journalists or anyone

The CJFE specifically mentioned the targeting of journalists. See for yourself: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156053072106211&id=600701210&ref=bookmarks … (CJFE statement reprinted at the end). Seems squarely within the CJFE's mandate to speak out.

Speaking out would have been fine.

Which they did. Which is attracting all the criticism.

They did not. When they were the CCPJ they spoke out in defence of journalists in danger. This was one-dimensional political lobbying that damaged the credibility and effectiveness of progressive journalism and harmed any genuine effort to speak out

If Canadian Journalists for Free Expression can't condemn the murder of journalists, what is it you think they should do?

I would welcome them condemning the murder of journalists; that's what they did when they were CCPJ. I am asking that they return to doing this

So if they had only condemned the killing of the journalist and not the killing of unarmed demonstrators you would have been ok with this statement?

Condemning was not what that letter was doing

So they should condemn the killing of journalists, but not ask for an inquiry into the killing? I am really struggling to grasp your position here.

You can't see the difference between journalists taking a position and an org claimed to represent journalists lobbying a government on foreign policy? We're not a political party. We come to conclusions based on evidence. Prima facie stances are not journalism

I don't see a problem with a group dedicated to free expression taking action to defend free expression. I don't see a problem with journalists condemning the killing of a journalist or even demanding an investigation into it.

Either of those would have been fine. I hope they will return to doing those things

True. But what would it take for you, the G&M FA columnist, to chime in on the topic once in a while?

As I did in today's paper? Perhaps consider reading before commenting, bro

A rare event. , You could have taken a firmer position given it was in the opinion pages. Cdns deserve to know that Israel has no intention of allowing a real Pal'n state. https://lobelog.com/?s=netanyahu 

Everyone's a critic. But that's not the topic here

You are right that journalists shouldn’t try to dictate government policy. But Jim is right that Canadian media’s coverage of Israel is singularly weak.

agreed. Every article should explicitly point out that elected Hamas charter calls 4 the murder of all Jews, and the destruction of the Jewish state. almost that majority of the killed where members of the terrorist group Hamas( as per Hamas own website)

That will come back to haunt Israeli decision makers one day. It appears they knew the identity of those killed, an assassinated them while they were acting peacefully, as opposed. Those killed were assassinated, as opposed to being killed while threatening Israel.