…
Ignoring the "go fuck yourself" for the moment, I still don't see the relevance of it being a special interest page for First Nations. If anything, that makes it more important not to promote a non-issue.
I'm not misunderstanding the claims about the piece. They're reporting the ridiculous reaction of some members of First Nations. It's only a story because of the PC cloud hanging over our country.
It's ridiculous that in this day and age you have to worry about the race of the person in a stock photo contingent on the subject matter, when said subject matter affects everyone regardless of race. Is that not ludicrous?
Let's start with the last item you mention, the photo: It has nothing to do with the CBC's reporting, it was chosen and published by the local paper who got it from Sun Media. Supposedly it <sarcasm>
illustrated</sarcasm> the paper's feature warning parents in the mostly Caucasian school that returning students likely meant the return of head-lice. If that pic is relevant to your denunciation of CBC News, you need to start with explaining how a picture of one little girl contributes to a warning that some kids bring head-lice with them. She's a cute kid, but only connection with the subject must be the danger of head-lice in that long hair.
Of course you're entitled to your own opinion of the pic, and equally entitled to negative opinion of those — like the local First Nations — who have a different opinion. But one of the staples of news reporting is the op9inions of groups, especially aroused and angry ones, be they NIMBYs protesting a condo development, a couple of pro-lifers with new signs at the abortion clinic, or Nazis protesting statue removals. It's entirely SOP. Why denounce CBC News for it? Are you suggesting you want them to pick and choose the protest they report and censor others by some standard of yours? If so, just what is that standard? Reporting a protest is not equivalent to supporting it. That seems to be the implication behind your judgement that CBC reporting was a "promotion of a non-issue". I don't want anyone judging issues for me, but if they do, I'd rather it was folks who'd spent years pondering and debating the ethics and standards of doing so. Especially when they default to informing over censoring.
The limited stated scope of the website directly contradicts your assertion that CBC was promoting the issue the First Nations identified. If anything one might ask if they were trying to keep it limited and parochial.
As for the anatomically ludicrous suggestion I offered, I apologize for its childishness. Given how wide of your own assessment of the "…non-issue" of the photo your attack on the CBC was, and your gratuitous invitation to fuck you, the temptation to low humour was irresistible.
If you want to discuss the issue of the paper's photo choice, and/or whether it was, or was not a just cause of First Nations anger, go ahead. But that's nothing to do with the CBC report.
