This Is Worrisome

Those of you who may regularly read this blog likely know that I have always been a big supporter of mainstream media. Despite their limitations, they have always been, to me, a source of credible information due to the heavy fact-checking that journalistic ethics demand.

Now, however, we seem to be moving beyond fact-checking to self-censorship, and that should worry us all.

The first recent incident involved the online edition of Elle, which edited out a prominent and controversial Hamilton MPP.

A Canadian fashion magazine says it removed Hamilton politician Sarah Jama from a story on influential women after the publication’s editorial team received threats.

Jama, the Hamilton Centre MPP who has established herself as an advocate for marginalized groups, was featured in the September issue of ELLE Canada alongside seven other women “paving the way for those behind them,” the article reads.

ELLE publisher Sophie Banford said in an email that they opted to to remove Jama from the article, originally published Aug. 19, after members of its editorial team “were targeted with threats.”

“The decision was not made lightly,” she said. “The safety and well-being of our journalists are our top priorities, and it is within this context that we made the decision to remove the content in question.”

A Sept. 2 disclaimer at the top of the online version indicates the original story “represents the opinions of a political personality but does not reflect the opinions of the publishers” or the magazine’s parent company.”

“Following a number of concerning messages posted online and received by our magazine, the publisher chose to edit the original version of the article in order to protect everyone’s safety,” the disclaimer reads.

I don't think you need me to tell you why this is a very dangerous move.

Along the same lines comes a TVO disavowal of a documentary currently at TIFF about Russians fighting in Ukraine. Despite the fact that it is not propaganda in any way, it has invited scorn from the federal government: 

Speaking from the Liberals’ caucus retreat, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters Tuesday that both diplomats and the Ukrainian-Canadian community have expressed “grave concerns” about the film “Russians at War” — concerns which she shares.

“We as a country have to be very, very clear that there can be no moral equivalency in our understanding of this conflict,” she said. “It’s not right for Canadian public money to be supporting the screening and production of a film like this.”

The film's director begs to differ:

In response to the backlash, the film’s Russian-Canadian director, Anastasia Trofimova, asserted in a written statement that the film is not propaganda, and that it was filmed without the permission of the Russian government.

 “I want to be clear that this Canada-France co-production is an antiwar film made at great risk to all involved, myself especially,” she said.

“I unequivocally believe that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unjustified, illegal and acknowledge the validity of the International Criminal Court investigation of war crimes in Ukraine.”

In a move at least as cowardly as the one by Elle, TVO acted quickly to comply with Freeland's 'directive.'

“TVO’s Board of Directors has decided to respect the feedback we have received, and TVO will no longer be supporting or airing “Russians at War,” according to a press release posted to the public broadcaster’s website on Tuesday.

“TVO will be reviewing the process by which this project was funded and our brand leveraged.” 

Pierre Trudeau famously said, "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. Equally, it has no place in the minds, judgement and sensibilities of Canada.

P.S. I didn't write about last night's debate, but allow me to say that I was very, very satisfied with Kamala Harris's performance and went to bed content for a change.

 

 

World News Day

Given that it is World News Day, a few reflections from the Star's former public editor, Kathy English, seem appropriate:

Trustworthy journalism is news and information that is accountable, accurate, fair, and produced in line with journalism’s highest ethical standards. That means correcting our mistakes when we err. It means making clear distinctions between fact and opinion. It demands centering diversity and inclusion in the subjects and sources on which we shine journalism’s light and in the corps of journalists who report the news.

World News Day is intended as an important reminder to the public of why journalism — at its best — matters. As journalists we have an obligation to explain to you the ethical standards that distinguish responsible journalism in the public interest from much of the noise of the net.

In 2019, English asked Star readers why journalism matters to them.

“In this age of the public’s acceptance of lies and misinformation coming at us from every direction we must be able to rely on at least one institution that respects the truth, forces public figures to answer to those who serve them and holds commitment to the public good as something to strive for,” wrote reader Leo Keeler.

 “It is my conviction that in a world without fact-based reporting, the powerless will have no voice, the powerful will not be held accountable and the public will never know the difference,” [Devan] Munn said.

And finally, Brittlestar has some thoughts:

It seems quite obvious; we can never claim to be well-informed if we don't use solid sources for our information. Traditional, well-vetted and legitimate journalism is our best chance at achieving that goal.

UPDATED: Fearless Journalism, Or Presidential Appeasement?

Happy New Year, everyone.

And now, a return to regular programming.

As 2017 dawns and the Trump presidency draws near, I have been wondering if the MSM will show any real backbone and fulfill the role traditionally ascribed to them as bulwarks of democracy. Or will they simply continue to be the abject failures that journalist and social prophet Chris Hedges calls them, sell-outs as part of the liberal class he takes to task in his book Death of the Liberal Class?

One of the prizes that journalists, on behalf of their corporate employers, hold most sacred is access. Given the unbridled contempt Trump has shown toward criticism, will there now be an effort at appeasement of the temperamental one? Indeed, Will both external and internal factors influence the media's approach to political coverage?

Early signs offer cause for concern. Take, for example, this report from The Guardian:

A journalist was temporarily banned from Facebook after a post in which he called Trump supporters “a nasty fascistic lot”, in the latest example of the social media platform’s censorship of journalists.

The social media giant later reversed its decision and apologized, but the trouble began when writer Kevin Sessums shared a post by

ABC political analyst Matthew Dowd that read: “In the last few hours I have been called by lovely ‘christian’ Trump fans: a jew, faggot, retard. To set record straight: divorced Catholic.”

Sessums added his own commentary, writing:

But as those who do hold Trump to the standards of any other person have found out on Twitter and other social media outlets these Trump followers are a nasty fascistic lot. Dowd is lucky he didn’t get death threats like Kurt Eichenwald. Or maybe he did and refuses to acknowledge them. If you voted for Trump and continue to support him and you think you are better than these bigoted virulent trolls, you’re not. Your silence enables them just as it did in the racist campaign that Trump and Bannon ran. In fact, hiding behind a civilized veneer in your support of fascism I consider more dangerous. We’re past describing you as collaborators at this point. That lets you off the hook. You’re Russo-American oligarchical theocratic fascists.

Seesums was initially informed that his post violated FB's community standards, a curious justification given much of what it deems to be consistent with those standards.

The writer's reaction was swift and excoriating:

It’s chilling. It’s arbitrary censorship ... Do I have to be careful about what I say about Trump now?

That does become the central question, doesn't it? And that leads to this concern: will mainstream journalists now practice a kind of prophylactic self-censorship? They might be wise to heed the advice of Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald, who said on Saturday that

journalists needed to “grow a backbone” to deal with President-elect Donald Trump.

With a Republican-controlled House and Senate, expect the usual checks and balances of the American political system to completely fail. Let us all hope that mainstream journalism doesn't have to be consigned to the same category as well.

UPDATE: This Washington Post piece, replete with links, gets to the journalistic heart of the matter.

The Shape Of Things To Come?

The other day, I wrote a post about how NBC Nightly News was attacked by Donald Trump via his weapon of choice, Twitter, a perhaps apt mechanism given the president-elect's incapacity for sustained thought or discourse.

But NBC is hardly the only media outlet in his sights. His latest is an attack on Vanity Fair in retaliation for a scathing review of a restaurant in the lobby of Trump Tower called Trump Grill. This excerpt probably set the Orange One off:

“The allure of Trump’s restaurant, like the candidate, is that it seems like a cheap version of rich,” Tina Nguyen wrote, saying the restaurant “reveals everything you need to know about our next president.”

That seems to have led to this retaliatory tantrum:

"Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of @VanityFair Magazine," Trump tweeted Thursday morning.

"Way down, big trouble, dead! Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out!"

At one time, being personally and/or professionally attacked by an incoming president would have been a shocking notion to all but the most rabid among us. Now, I fear, it will simply become a common and expected feature of a Trump presidency, one that may have long term consequences.

At a time when mainstream media are losing their cachet and readership, will they have the determination and integrity to continue being the guardians of democracy, or will they mutate, as some already have, into a kind of Praetorian Guard for this strange new emperor of the American Empire? The signs are not entirely promising.

Sarah Kendzior offers some unsettling thoughts on the question:

According to reporter Daniel Dale, Mr. Trump told at least 560 lies during the course of his campaign. Some lies are audacious in that they are easily disproven – for example, when Mr. Trump claimed he did not tell U.S. citizens to “check out a sex tape” after tweeting to them to do so. Flagrant lying is a hallmark of despotism. It sends the message that one should not bother speaking truth to power when power is the only truth. It implies that the teller of the lie defines reality, no matter what evidence there is to the contrary, including the liar’s own words.

It is that later sentence that gives one pause, since the MSM are becoming part of the problem:

... as inauguration looms, Mr. Trump’s team may not have to work too hard to keep the U.S. press in line. U.S. journalists, always his greatest ally due to corporate collaboration and fear of retaliation, [emphasis mine] are already mainstreaming the Trump administration’s most inflammatory ideas. To read the U.S. media today is to see a CNN debate on whether Jews are people, the Associated Press falsely tweet that the KKK has disavowed white supremacy, and countless mainstream media puff pieces on neo-Nazis that focus more on their fashion sense than their fascist beliefs.

Will mainstream media thus become normalizers and apologists for the incoming demagogue? If the following is any indicator, there is much to be concerned about:

Donald Trump's campaign struck a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group during the campaign to try and secure better media coverage, his son-in-law Jared Kushner told business executives Friday in Manhattan.

Kushner said the agreement with Sinclair, which owns television stations across the country in many swing states and often packages news for their affiliates to run, gave them more access to Trump and the campaign, according to six people who heard his remarks.

The price of this access, it appears, was steep:

In exchange, Sinclair would broadcast their Trump interviews across the country without commentary.

And what about those outlets that insisted upon calling their own shots?

Kushner ... told the business executives that the campaign was upset with CNN because they considered its on-air panels stacked against Trump. He added that he personally talked with Jeff Zucker about changing the composition of the panels but Zucker refused. He repeatedly said in the panel that CNN wasn't "moving the needle" and wasn't important as it once was, according to three of the people present.

The campaign then decided not to work as closely with CNN, and Trump ramped up his bashing of the cable network.

So will this be the shape of things to come? Will the unofficial fiat be, "Play ball with the Trump administration or be denied access?"

I think I know the answer to the above. What I don't know is how many media outlets will opt to save, not sell, their souls.

Toward A New Clarity Of Language

With conventional media fighting an ever-growing juggernaut of fake news, news that is either outright lie or gross distortion, two national journals have joined a growing chorus in refusing to use the euphemism alt-right: The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail.

After much discussion and input, Kathy English, The Star's Public Editor, reports the following:

... several senior Star editors met to discuss this issue. In order to seek some measure of consistency, we decided to consult further with our main wire services – The Canadian Press and the U.S. based Associated Press.

This week, both services issued “style notes” on how to refer to the self-labeled alt-right....

The main points to guide Star journalists in writing and editing:

Avoid using alt-right generically.
“We should strive to be accurate and precise, and at least for now, the term ‘alt-right.’ is neither. Terms like ‘white nationalist’ or ‘white supremacist’ are known, accurate and much clearer to readers.”

If you use the term alt-right, define it.
“Phrasing like ‘the ‘alt-right,’ a white nationalist movement’ is appropriate.”

... the Associated Press provided a clear definition of the alt-right, telling us that it’s a name embraced by “some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States.”

And, it adds, “the movement criticizes ‘multiculturalism’ and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race.”

With all that’s at stake here, journalists must not rely on euphemistic words that gloss over racism and hate. As the AP rightly tells us, be specific and call it straight: “We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them.”

Language matters. It is our job as journalists to provide readers with accurate, clear and precise words that tell it like it is, not veil reality. We should not serve as unquestioning heralds for those who espouse ideology abhorrent to universal values of equality.

To be clear: the so-called alt-right stands for white supremacy. By any definition, that is racism.

In an abbreviated form, The Globe's Sylvia Stead says essentially the same thing.

While I regularly consult a number of alternative news sites, all of which enjoy sterling reputations, it would be foolish to suggest that the days of mainstream media are over. Now, more than ever, journalists toiling in conventional media may be our last highly visible bulwark against a rising tide of darkness, division, and devolution.

Fair And Balanced Reporting, Or Craven Corporate Pandering?

I just finished reading Rather Outspoken, a memoir by Dan Rather, former anchor of CBC News who was essentially fired for reporting the truth about George Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard in lieu of going to Vietnam. While there was plenty of evidence to support the fact that Bush was absent without leave for about a year, the CBS report on it, truncated by 'the suits,' made it seem that the veracity of the claims rested solely on one series of disputed documents, known as the Killian documents.

The book is worthwhile as a reminder of the noble ideals of old-school journalism, the crucial role a free press plays in a democratic society, and as a warning about what happens when news becomes a fungible commodity; in the case of CBS, it became merely one element in the corporate drive for profit and expansion. That it can no longer be relied upon to 'speak truth to power' is made despairingly evident in Rather's book.

I don't have time to go into much detail, but essentially the problem Rather outlines is that government wants something from the media (good press and a means to promulgate its version of 'truth') and the corporate behemoths want things from government. In the case of CBS, Viacom, its parent company, wanted an easing of restrictions on how many stations a network could own. In the past, they were limited to six, but, at least in part due to its willingness to pull stories, apologize for segments aired that offended the administration, etc., that number, at least in 2012 when the book was published, is now 39. The quid pro quo should offend all critical thinkers.

It is a book I highly recommend, and I make it the subject of this post for one reason. Last night I happened to catch the CBS Evening News coverage of the Republican Convention. While they did not shirk from the Melania Trump plagiarism, they did offer ample opportunity for the Trump side's spin, culminating in something that I feel merits some scrutiny.

If you advance the video to about the 8-minute mark, look at the curious perspective offered in the name of 'balance':

View More: Politics News|Live News|More News Videos

Fair reporting or corporate pandering? You decide.

Another Reason To Be Cynical About The MSM

The implications of this are truly and deeply frightening.

Another Failure of the Press

I had an experience yesterday that served only to deepen my cynicism about the mainstream press (The Toronto Star being the sole exception). I called The Hamilton Spectator's Stephanie Crozier to suggest that her story about Friday's protest at the constituency office of my Conservative M.P., David Sweet, had overlooked an important element, the fact that a No Trespass sign had been erected at the entrance to the strip mall housing Mr. Sweet's office.

She told me that she didn't see how that was newsworthy. I tried to point out to her that it was a violation of our fundamental rights as citizens of a democracy, and that the kind of gated community mentality represented by the sign was perhaps also indicative of a deeper problem with what is happening in this country under Harper.

Her response was that the interdiction seemed reasonable, given that the owner's property had allegedly suffered some damage to plants some time ago. She had not pressed him on whether this damage had been caused by an individual or a group. As well, she had spoken to Sweet's office manager, who had stayed behind a locked constituency door during the protest, despite the fact that it was supposed to be open to constituents. Again, she saw this as perfectly reasonable.

While she was pleasant and cordial enough in our telephone discussion, I got the distinct impression as we ended our conversation that she had pegged me as some sort of crank.

Why am I even bothering to write about this? Is my ego so fragile that I cannot accept that my view did not hold sway over her? Not at all. It's just that when one remembers that a free press used to be regarded as a mainstay in protecting our democracy, it is yet another reminder of how debased our fragile democracy has become, and that the press has done little to mitigate that slide.

The Ever-Increasing Importance Of Alternative Media

After reading Rick Salutin's column yesterday about the very real limitations of Canadian journalism even when juxtaposed against the scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch's publishing empire, I had the opportunity to read a story from rabble.ca that confirms the need for the independent voices working in alternative media. Entitled CUPW: A cautionary tale of union-busting, with a little help from the media, the article underscores the frequently lazy journalism practised in MSM while amply demonstrating how the conservative forces in our country use it to propagate and perpetuate its message.

The following excerpt provides a brief overview of a few of the fictions about Canada Post promulgated by those eager to whet the newly-awakened appetite for union-busting rife in North America:

 ...as the strike loomed, Canada Post announced that it had calculated the union's demands would cost $1.4 billion. When the union demanded an explanation of this eye-popping figure, management refused. But the figure appeared in many media stories.

Another widely used figure was a 17 per cent drop in mail volumes that supposedly occurred between 2006 and 2010. This number received massive media coverage and was cited to support the myth of financial crisis....Prior to the strike/lockout, the union was informed that admail and parcels were rebounding. Between 2006 and 2009, letter volumes decreased by 7 per cent, not 17 per cent. But the fake 17 per cent is still being bandied about by the media, despite union requests that this misleading figure be corrected. Nobody who reported the 17 per cent, including reputable academics and columnists, ever bothered to publicly correct their misleading statements, despite being contacted.

I hope you will take a few minutes to read the entire article. The more information we have from all sources, the more effectively we can think for ourselves - a much preferable option, in my view, than the Pavlovian slobbering the conservative agenda is designed to elicit.