"Only one Tory candidate isn't open for another debate"
Sent: June 9, 2022 11:10 AM To: BRODIE FENLON <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: CBC Ombud <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org; Gray, Tracy - M.P. <Tracy.Gray@parl.gc.ca> Subject: "Only one Tory candidate isn't open for another debate"
Good morning Brodie,
Just touching base to express my extreme displeasure at CBC’s blatant and shameless click-baiting (and attempted vilification) of Mr. Poilievre this morning. As you know, CBC’s headline, referenced above, insinuates that Mr. Poilievre is the only MP who doesn’t want to engage in another debate prior to the leadership vote. However, when one reads the article, it expressly contradicts CBC’s headline, in that it first states that a representative from Mr. Poilievre’s campaign “did not immediately respond to a CBC request for comment”, and then goes on to cite the CPC President, who said that the party has not yet made a decision on whether a third debate is necessary.
I can’t think of any reason why the CBC might fear Mr. Poilievre, or want to smear him and his campaign. Oh wait! I just remembered one reason – he wants to defund your organization due to its addiction to the Liberal teat! Apparently the Liberals are a bit nervous of Mr. Poilievre, if you have to cook up craptastic* headlines like the above on their behalf. At this point, it is really more humorous than anything else. I’m trying to figure out the next logical career for an Editor in Chief at Canada’s Pravda. So far, I’m thinking your best moves up the corporate ladder likely involve a job application as a Pfizer spokesperson, or perhaps a position as a Liberal MP so you can well and truly solidify your deal with Satan.
Hoping one day, someone at your organization taps deep into their morality. And thank you for proving each and every day, to each and every Canadian, exactly why the CBC needs to be defunded now. In the meantime, I’m sure Mr. Poilievre would appreciate (but does not expect) a correction to your headline.
*urbandictionary.com advises this is a real word, meaning “the quality of being so crappy that the object is humorous”, or, “in a bad sense, extremely crappy”. It’s like the definition was made for your “news” agency!