Despite the often-brave posturing we hear about rebuilding after natural disasters, perhaps it is time to lose the hubris and realize that yes, even North America is subject to the devastations wrought by climate change. The American hubris of exceptionalism will not protect them from the fury of nature that has visited so many other regions of the world.
It must be a sobering and, one hopes, humbling, realization.
The following is from Ft. Meyers, Florida, brought to you by Hurricane Ian.
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:
By now you have probably heard about Pierre Poilievre's outrage over an apparent threat against his wife, Anaida.
Here is a shot of PP with MacKenzie:
Poilievre had previously sidestepped calls to denounce MacKenzie, including from leadership rival Jean Charest, after the men were photographed together at an event during the Conservative leadership race this summer.
Nick Seebruch wrote on Sept.2,
Jeremy MacKenzie, the de facto leader of the Diagolon cult... has gone on social media calling for the execution of Canadian Armed Forces personnel. He has encouraged his followers to harass health care professionals, and is facing assault and weapons charges in Sask., and weapons charges in N.S. in an unrelated case as well.
After the photo of MacKenzie shaking hands with Poilievre began circulating on social media, he refused to denounce MacKenzie or Diagolon by name instead stating: “As I always have, I denounce racism and anyone who spreads it,” then deflecting by pointing to what he called “. . .Justin Trudeau’s many racist outbursts . . .”
Then there is the unpleasant participation of PP's wife, Anaida, in inciting hatred, associating Trudeau with pedophiles and terrorist, as I wrote about in a previous post:
That the rage-farmer's wife is all in with Pierre's pursuit of power at any price is evident in a recent Tweet she sent, recommending Canadians visit an extremely right-wing site trafficking in sensational headlines, love of 'freedom' and hatred for Trudeau.'
I could go on and include references to Poilievre's own indifference when members of the media, especially females, have been subjected to terrible abuse and threats, as well as his self-serving response in reaction to Chrystia Freeland's verbal assault when she visited Alberta, but I think you get the picture.
The hands of both PP and his wife are unclean, precisely what happens when flinging mud at others. The fact that Poilievre now posts supreme outrage at the inevitable result of stirring up the baser instincts of people is unseemly and hollow.
One suspects he is making the "Great Pivot" to appear now as a regular public official, only concerned about his family.
And who, if they don't know any better, could argue with that?
UPDATE: Our national satirical treasure, The Beaverton, has some acerbic fun with PP. Here is their headline:
The gullible and the stupid will always be with us.
What none of them want to know or understand is that serious journalism entails great responsibilities, one of the foremost being accuracy. And reputable journals own up to it when that responsibility is not properly discharged.
An excellent illustration of this pertains to a story journalist Michelle Shephard filed in 2010 from Somalia that turned out to be less-than-accurate. Donovan Vincent, The Star's public editor, writes:
Michelle Shephard, then a national security reporter for the Star, travelled to Mogadishu to write about 17-year-old Ismael Abdulle, who told her that the year prior he had been captured by members of Somali terrorist group al-Shabab on his way home from school.
When Shephard met Abdulle for the interview, he was missing his left foot and right hand, limbs the extremists cut off as part of their extreme interpretation of sharia. It was a lesson for turning them down, Abdulle told Shephard.
As a consequence of the story, members of the Toronto Somali community mounted Project Ismael", and ultimately the lad was accepted into Norway as a refugee.
Unfortunately, a significant element of Abdulle's story was false, something he ultimately admitted to Shephard in 2019.
He confessed that he was in fact a thief when al-Shabab caught up with him, just as the terrorist group had claimed publicly at the time. He was armed with a pistol when they grabbed him, he said.
Abdulle and the other boys didn’t escape from al-Shabab after the amputations. They were let go — another lie, he said.
Why did he misrepresent the facts? Abdulle says he made up the story because he wanted to find a westerner to help him get to Europe. That’s when Shephard came along.
He told her he created the story at the time to make himself look “innocent.”
While there are traditional safeguards in place to ensure the accuracy of stories, the fact that this reporting was from a conflict zone complicated matters significantly. Nonetheless, Vincent sees this as a serious breach.
In the Star’s lengthy journalistic standards guide, the blueprint for how we operate as a news organization, you’ll find this line: “Good faith with the reader is the foundation of ethical and excellent journalism. That good faith rests primarily on the reader’s confidence that what we print is correct.”
We can’t lose that faith. It’s our duty to print the truth and be able to stand behind what we say.
The case is a cautionary tale for all journalists.
Whether it’s a war zone or any other challenging circumstance, journalists need to find ways to confirm whether the details they’ve gathered are true. And if there’s a doubt, there’s always the option of simply not publishing.
No matter how sympathetic the victim, reporters still need to ask probing questions and maintain a level of skepticism. In cases involving victims of torture, for example, we have to balance that skepticism with compassion.
The non-thinking, reflexive elements of our populace will say this story verifies their cries that mainstream media are purveyors of fake news. What they will conveniently ignore, however, is the real story, that even after almost 13 years, the inaccuracy of Shephard's reporting is being addressed in an effort to set the record straight.
I have yet to see such efforts on Rebel News or any other fringe source of 'information'.
Sometimes, humour is the best weapon.
If you are sensitive to coarse language, do not watch. Otherwise, enjoy this rejoinder to the TrudeauMustGo hashtag and those who embrace it.
H/t Dave Anchovy
There is never a moment in my post-teaching life when I have regretted retiring. The paperwork was bad enough, but in the latter part of my career, the politics were becoming very difficult for someone like me to tolerate. The careerists were always looking over their shoulders, ever fearful of obstacles on the horizon that might impede their constant upward trajectory. Even phone calls from dissatisfied parents affrighted them.
The real victims in all of this were basic educational principles and, most sadly, the students.
The following letters to the editor exemplify this fact:
Ontario schools cancel the Crown. How?, Sept. 17
The York Region District School Board issued guidance to teachers that discussion of the Queen’s death is “not encouraged” because it might be “triggering,” as “monarchies are steeped in problematic histories of colonialism,” and so on. Children are curious and resilient. With the help of adults, they may deal with events that are distressing: the divorce of their parents, the death of their grandparents.
Educators now have the opportunity to explain why millions mourn this woman, while others think of her as the symbol of historical colonialism and imperialism.
And yet the York board wants to silence educators on the subject.
The problem is not that the York board has a low opinion of the Queen.
It is that they have a low opinion of children.
David Mayerovitch, Ottawa
Last year, in the high school that I teach in, a teacher was temporarily removed from class for reading part of “To Kill a Mockingbird” aloud. The teacher had, of course, very carefully laid the groundwork for the book and prepared the students for its disturbing content. They had were well into reading the book. But that day, a student in the class had their phone on, recording, waiting, and after the passage was read, they asked to go to the washroom. Instead, they went right to the office.
There was a flurry of activity after the complaint, and, to make a long story short, the book has been pulled from the whole board, along with several others that the administration (or the board) deemed to be potentially sensitive.
So one student complained, and, instead of working it through, the books were taken from the hands of the rest of the students in the class, who never got to finish the story or the discussions of the issues inside it.
I wonder what exactly they learned from that experience.
Your article says “Basic civics — teaching students about the complications and contradictions in our constitutional system — can’t be taught if educators are told to duck controversy because of potential sensitivity.”
This is exactly what is happening in libraries and English classes all over the country.
We need to be able to talk about racism, and every other damaging “ism,” without the fear of being accused of being racist.
But the fear is real in the teaching profession, and I imagine everywhere else.
No one wants to be escorted out of the building and have their reputation tarnished or ruined.
These discussions are being silenced, and this is a great loss to our education system.
