The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
CBC reporter attacks CTF for owning a car
Chris Rand at the CBC wanted to take a shot at the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. He really did, you can sense a certain desperation to find something to take them to task with. The CTF was submitting a petition calling for an end to pensions for convicted criminals. Mr. Rand did not want to talk about the issue or take a stand on it. He wanted to talk about Derek Fildebrandt’s car.
Mr. Fildebrandt is the Research Director for the CTF and he owns a 1997 BMW. This car, according to the update in Mr. Rand’s post, was salvaged for $500 and has 250 000 km on it. For Mr Rand this represents “a certain cachet of new wealth and privilege in Canada.”
At first I thought that Mr. Rand should send an apology to Mr. Fildebrandt but then I realized that this was the highest compliment. If the best that the opponents of the CTF can do is complain about a 13 year old BMW, doesn’t that say something good about the CTF?
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on April 27, 2010 in Canadian Politics, Media | Permalink | Comments (7)
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Revisiting wafergate: the political scandal that wasn't
Last spring, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff stood in front of Canadians and issued an ultimatum to Prime Minister Stephen Harper: unless the government passed meaningful Employment Insurance (EI) reforms, the Liberals would force election-weary Canadians back to the polls. Of course the Conservatives never passed any EI reforms and Ignatieff never defeated the government.
This did not, however, stop Ignatieff and his cronies from trying to discredit the prime minister through some underhanded political moves. On July 8, 2009, Canada was rocked by a political scandal. Harper was caught on camera at a Catholic funeral taking a communion wafer, but the camera did not capture whether or not he put it in his mouth. The circus freak-show that people lovingly refer to as the mainstream media quickly jumped on the bandwagon of what would come to be known as Wafergate.
“IT'S A SCANDAL,” screamed a headline in Saint John's Telegraph-Journal. “At least one anonymous priest alleged Harper insulted Catholics by putting the host in his pocket,” said CBC reporter Rosemary Barton who proceeded to show the video to streeters and record their phony outrage for the 10 P.M. newscast.
That's right, she quoted an anonymous priest. Now there are some situations when it is legitimate for journalists to rely on anonymous sources. Woodward and Bernstein famously relied upon an anonymous source who they referred to as “Deep Throat” during their investigation, which uncovered the Watergate scandal. However, Rosemary Barton is no Woodward and Stephen Harper is not Richard Nixon. There are many issues with using anonymous sources, especially if the journalist doesn't investigate the claims that are being made.
“In recent years, as the number of news outlets has grown and news sources have become more sophisticated in the art of press manipulation, confidentiality has shifted from a tool journalists used to coax reluctant whistleblowers into confiding vital information to something quite different—a condition press-savvy sources imposed on journalists before they would even speak to them,” wrote Kovach and Rosenstiel in their book on journalism ethics.
In this case, it turns out the anonymous priest may not have existed at all. It appears as though the CBC used the same source as the Telegraph-Journal, which issued the following apology almost a month later:
“The story stated that a senior Roman Catholic priest in New Brunswick had demanded that the Prime Minister's Office explain what happened to the communion wafer which was handed to Prime Minister Harper during the celebration of communion at the funeral mass.… There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now.”
Regardless of whether or not the anonymous priest actually exists, it is clear that the CBC completely disregarded the journalistic principle of originality, which suggests that journalists should actually verify the information they receive to see if it's true or not. You know, the kind of thing you might see in a job description for a detective, or maybe even a reporter. Journalists who do not follow this principle will often find themselves printing stories that aren't exactly true and a journalist's first loyalty should be to the truth.
“The people who got it right were those who did their own work, who were careful about it, who followed the basic standards of sourcing and got their information from multiple sources. The people who worried about what was 'out there,' to use the horrible phrase that justifies so many journalistic sins, the people who worried about getting beaten, rather than just trying to do it as well as they could as quickly as they could, they messed up,” said New York Times reporter Michael Oreskes about the media circus surrounding the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
This is the trap the CBC and a number of other Canadian media outlets fell into. Instead of verifying the original newspaper report, they ran with the story and treated it as though it were an actual political scandal. “Now while the paper ran an apology there was no apology from the CBC or anyone else for treating the story as NEWS, not as a sideshow, not as a carnival, not as a oddity on the Internet, but as NEWS, like it really happened, like it was really truthful,” said Charles Adler on his nationally-syndicated talk radio show.
As it turns out, Wafergate wasn't a scandal at all, which brings us back to Ignatieff and his cronies. According to CTV News reporter Robert Fife, it is likely that Liberal Party insiders gave the story to the Telegraph-Journal, which is owned by prominent Liberal supporters. The paper's editor—who later lost her job over the whole affair—published the story without bothering to verify its authenticity. Other media outlets, like the CBC, made the same mistake by not verifying the original newspaper report.
“If the CBC and others want to continue to masquerade as agents of truth… if they want to pretend they are journalists why not practice Journalism 101, check out the facts as the newspaper laid them out. Confirm the story or drop it or say it's in one newspaper, one very liberal friendly newspaper. But if you simply adopt the story as truth because it conforms with your religiously held belief that the Prime Minister is an unknowing, uncaring, unfeeling, insensitive, anti-Catholic scoundrel, well then I suppose you would do what you did. And what you did wasn't honest, ethical, truthful, or useful,” said Adler.
Luckily, not everyone took this story so seriously. The National Post ran a front-page editorial cartoon depicting the prime minister saying “No Thanks, I've Eaten,” as the priest is handing him the wafer. Yet, for the other media outlets, there may be more to this story than a simple case of sloppy journalism. It is widely believed that the Telegraph-Journal ran the story as a partisan attack against the prime minister, since its owners are outspoken Liberal supporters. As for the CBC, the organization is well known for its anti-conservative bias.
In 2000, the CBC destroyed any hope Stockwell Day had of gaining ground in the election by broadcasting a well-timed piece that portrayed him as a scary right-wing religious zealot. This might not be so bad if the CBC didn't accept federal tax dollars to fund its shoddy journalism and partisan political attacks, but that's another ethical issue entirely.
Jesse Kline is a student journalist at the UBC Graduate School of Journalism.
Photograph courtesy CBC News
[Cross-posted at jesse.kline.ca]
Posted by Jesse Kline on March 10, 2010 in Media | Permalink | Comments (7)
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The laissez-faire approach to the death of newspapers
It's that time of year again. Buses and trains servicing the country's institutes of higher learning are now standing room only. Campuses have been brought back to life as students fill the halls and lounge on the grass in a desperate attempt to soak up the last rays of sunshine before they are forced to face the realities of another harsh Canadian winter.
And so I found myself sitting in my first journalism class of the new semester, tense with questions of what the coming year will bring. What is the professor like? What kind of workload will I face? The professor wasted little time introducing himself and the course. This week's assignment: read a collection of articles compiled by NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen.
The articles were all written in March 2009 by a variety of reporters, technology specialists, and media types. The theme of the articles quickly became apparent: newspapers are dying and no one knows how to make money in journalism anymore. Way to go, as if I don't have enough to worry about, I'm now being forced to read about how my chosen profession is in the midst of its death throes. There's already a high rate of suicide among students. Forcing them to spend hours reading about the futility of their chosen career would not seem to be helping the situation.
Nevertheless, there are troubling times ahead in the field of journalism. The fact is that the old business model doesn't work anymore and no one knows what will replace it. There seems to be a general consensus that, despite the mainstream media's many flaws, the fourth estate is essential to democracy. The media is the watchdog of government and without them, corruption will flourish. There is also consensus that the classic business model for newspapers, which are subsidized mainly by advertising, does not work anymore.
The main problem is that advertisers have many more options nowadays. At one time, major markets had one or two newspapers and a handful of television stations. It is no longer uncommon for cable and satellite providers to offer upwards of 500 channels at relatively inexpensive rates. Newspapers no longer hold a monopoly over local markets. The Internet offers advertisers targeted audiences and cheap prices. Moreover, newspapers give their online content away for free. Even if one of them wanted to start charging for their content, they could not compete with the rest of them.
The good news is that there are many creative ideas about how to fund good journalism and how news outlets might make money in the future. The problem is that there is no magic bullet. Journalism, in the near future, will probably use a variety of models to sustain itself. We must, however, remember that news is a business like any other. In order for journalism to thrive, people have to be able to make money off it.
This is also a problem that cannot be solved by government intervention, despite what the political left will tell you. If the media is supposed to keep government honest and if money buys influence, then any government involvement in the industry would be counterproductive. This is a problem that can only be solved by the market and the nature of markets ensures that a viable business model will eventually emerge.
Let's take the worst case scenario where no one is able to find a viable business model before most of our major papers go out of business. Sure we might still have television and radio news broadcasts, but they do not provide the level of in-depth coverage and investigative reporting that have been traditionally provided by newspapers. Furthermore, local television stations are also facing financial hardship. Losing our metro dailies and TV stations would create a void in local news coverage. This situation would most certainly be bleak.
Yet, just because people don't pay for news at the moment, does not mean there is no market for it. I stopped getting the newspaper for a number of reasons. First, I rarely have time to read very much of it and I don't want a stack of unread papers piling up in my bathroom. Second, I can get all the information I need on the Internet at no additional cost. The Internet changed everything because scarcity is not much of an issue in a digital environment. A company can produce a limited number of newspapers in a given day, but a virtually unlimited number of people can consume the same stories online.
This does not mean that people no longer place a value in news. If all the free articles on the Internet were to suddenly disappear, I would certainly pay to gain access to them. I would also pay for a newspaper delivered to me electronically on e-paper. In other words, if the supply of news is reduced by a significant amount, market processes will ensure that there will be money to be made in the news business once again. There is no lack of demand for information and knowledge about the world around us.
Getting back to our worst case scenario, while things may get bad for awhile, the issue will work itself out as long as we don't see significant government intervention in the industry. Again, government intervention would give it undue influence with organizations that are supposed to keep it honest. It would also mean that the government would pick winners and losers, which would stifle the entrepreneurship and ingenuity that is needed to design and implement the business models that will work in the future.
So, am I worried about the future of journalism? No. Am I worried about getting a job after I graduate? I'm terrified.
[Cross-posted at jesse.kline.ca]
Posted by Jesse Kline on September 16, 2009 in Media | Permalink | Comments (6)
Monday, September 14, 2009
TVO's Jesse Brown: "All publicly funded content should be in the public domain"
Jesse Brown, host of TVO's Search Engine podcast has a guest post up at Boing Boing. In it he makes an "unpopular" case:
A few years ago I hosted a mini-series for CBC Radio called The Contrarians, a show about "unpopular ideas that just might be right". Each week I'd take a controversial opinion and try it on for size. Sometimes the show was serious, sometimes it was silly- I rarely agreed with the positions I took, but operated on the principle that no idea is so radical or offensive that we should be forbidden to contemplate it (if only to learn why we should discard it). The CBC brass was incredibly supportive of the project and I was given license to explore a lot of unorthodox subject matter. Topics included:
- Multiculturalism doesn't work (we just eat each other's sandwiches).
- Feminism isn't dead, it's just finished (take a bow, ladies- you won!).
- It's a myth- Canadians aren't funny.
- Copyright should be abolished.
I'd love to link to these shows now, but I can't. They were never posted online or offered as podcasts. I tried posting them on my personal website, and was instructed to take them down by CBC management. I was told I was violating their copyright. Every now and then I'll get an email from a teacher or listener requesting an episode of The Contrarians, and I have to explain that I'd be breaking the law to send one.
Let's put aside my personal frustration at having my work locked away. The real question here is, since CBC content is funded by the public, shouldn't the public own it? Or at least have access to it? Actually, the CBC archives are just the tip of the iceberg: the overwhelming majority of stuff made for Canadians with Canadians' money is inaccessible to Canadians.
In Canada, movies are supported by Telefilm, TV by the Canadian Television Fund, books and art by The Canada Council for the Arts, and so on. But most of this stuff isn't distributed very well or for very long, and you can only get your hands on a fraction of it.
So I want to put forth one more contrarian position: I think that any publicly funded content should (within, say, 5 years of its creation) be released to the public domain.
Thoughts?
Sounds logical to me. Of course, I'm not convinced that ideas are property that can be owned nor that the government should be even funding media and the arts, but crown copyrights limiting our access to content provided supposedly "for our own good" through money taken from us through coercive taxes--that's just downright silly. The beneficiaries are certainly not the consumers or taxpayers, and the normal argument that copyrights are necessary to incentivise content creation doesn't apply here as in the private sector.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on September 14, 2009 in Media, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (6)
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Roadkill Radio focus tonight to be on families
Join me and guest co-host Ron Gray tonight for an inside view of the politics of the family tonight on Roadkill Radio. Larry Jacobs, Managing Director for the World Congress Families, will give us a wrap-up of this year’s conference held in Amsterdam.
Next, our old friend Kevin Libin, founding editor of the Western Standard, will talk about the on-going problems that happen when government wants to “protect children” and fails miserably. Check out this link to Kevin’s recent article, "Ministry of Crises," in the National Post.
Then former premier Bill Vander Zalm will update us on the rising and determined opposition to the HST in B.C. Check out this site for all the info.
It all happens tonight, 7:30-9:30 p.m. PDT at www.roadkillradio.com.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 25, 2009 in Media | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Anti-HST movement is featured on Roadkill Radio tonight
Be sure to tune into RoadKill Radio at www.roadkillradio.com from Terry O’Neill and guest co-host Ron Gray will begin by interviewing the brilliant Ottawa-based writer John Robson who, in a recent column for CanWest, longed for Winston Churchill-like leadership, and not appeasement, in the face of "Islamist threats and abuse." In fact, he approvingly quotes from Bruce Bawer's book "Surrender," which accuses Western academic, cultural and political elites of grovelling in the face of this menace. We'll then welcome political activist Chris Delaney into the studio, to talk about his plans to organize a political protest rally on September 19th in Vancouver against B.C.'s decision to adopt the Harmonized Sales Tax. The rally, which was announced last week, will feature former premier Bill Vander Zalm, who is calling on British Columbians to organize a "Citizen's Initiative" to rescind the HST decision. Vander Zalm himself will be joining us by phone.
And this just in: NDP leader Carole James will also be at the rally. Meantime, former NDP strategist Bill Tieleman, http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/, tells his readers today that he has 80,000 on his Facebook protest group opposing the HST. One more thing: the Conservative Party of B.C., to which Delaney is closely associated, is staging its AGM in Chilliwack the week after the rally. Could the anti-HST anger in B.C. be the spark that finally brings the B.C. Tories to life? And finally, we’ll talk with Rod Taylor, deputy leader of the Christian Heritage Party, about the recent defections to the CHP by members of the Social Credit and CAP parties. And we’re sure to have something to say about last weekend’s NDP convention, too. All this and our Roadkill Radio Warrior of the Week too!
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 18, 2009 in Media | Permalink | Comments (5)
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Did the earth just move?
No one seems to have noticed, but when the National Post published its story yesterday, about the new, image-free book on the "Danish cartoons," it illustrated the story with a reproduction of one of the cartoons. See for yourself: bottom right corner, page a12, August 14 issue. The Post failed to publish any of the cartoons four years ago, of course, when doing so would have invited widespread criticism from proper thinkers, politically correct leaders and, of course, most Muslims.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 15, 2009 in Media | Permalink | Comments (1)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Mid-summer's fun on Roadkill Radio
Log onto Roadkill Radio and join Terry O’Neill and guest co-host Ron Gray tonight from 7:30-9:30 p.m. Pacific for another newsy and provocation edition of Roadkill Radio. We’ll begin by discussing the alarming outbreak of anti-child literature and journalism in recent weeks—everything from the cover story of Maclean’s to a full page-three feature in the National Post. All this at a time when Canada's birthrate is already plunging! What’s behind the move to de-stigmatize childlessness among married couples and, moreover, to encourage them not to have children? We’ll find out by talking with David Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
Finally, we’ll conduct an in-depth interview with Dr. Walter Block, the former chief economist for the Fraser Institute, current Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Chair in Economics and Professor of Economics at Loyala University New Orleans, Senior Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and self-described “libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher.” The subject: Libertarianism: Is it conservatism’s future? This is one you’ll not want to miss!
All this plus: an update into our Freedom-of-Information efforts with the federal Human Rights Commission, and we'll name our Roadkill Radio Warrior of the Week too. Join us tonight at 7:30 p.m. Pacific.