Why I Quit My Job

[August1991]

Until Thursday, I was CTV’s Quebec City Bureau Chief, based at the National Assembly, mostly covering politics. It’s a fascinating beat - the most interesting provincial legislature in Canada, and the stories coming out of there lately have been huge. The near-implosion of the Parti Quebecois has kept the press gallery hopping well into summer.

...

But even though I had the disposable income, I never bought a television. I was raised without one, and once I moved out on my own I decided I didn’t want one in the house.

Kai Nagata

This rant is attracting interest around the blogosphere and IMV, it makes some good points about stuff the guy seems to understand and some bad points about stuff that he doesn't understand. But I was struck by the fact that he admits to not owning/watching TV.

Would a print journalist admit to never reading a newspaper?

[TimG]

This rant is attracting interest around the blogosphere and IMV, it makes some good points about stuff the guy seems to understand and some bad points about stuff that he doesn't understand.

What I find amusing is how the guy is clearly a young naive leftie but seems to think he is unbiased and objective. Biased news is something I have to expect but it is really annoying to hear that news casters like Kai are incapable of seeing their own bias.

[bush_cheney2004]

...This rant is attracting interest around the blogosphere and IMV, it makes some good points about stuff the guy seems to understand and some bad points about stuff that he doesn't understand. But I was struck by the fact that he admits to not owning/watching TV.

Would a print journalist admit to never reading a newspaper?

Worse than that, this poor sap makes the obvious error of bemoaning Canadian foreign policy snuggled up to the USA while making direct lamentable comparisons to missing satirical elements easily found in American news media.

Has "Fox News" been in Canada long enough to be such a lame excuse for many years of his alleged issues?

[Molly]

"In this race to the bottom, the less time and money the CBC devotes to enterprise journalism, the less motivation there is for the private networks to maintain credibility by funding their own investigative teams. "

This is high on my list of reasons why the CBC is well worth the money spent on it, and more.

And this: "Meanwhile, the people who are supposed to be holding decision makers to account are instead broadcasting useless tripe, or worse, stories that actively distract from the massive projects we need to be tackling instead of watching TV." has been leaving me queasy for quite some time.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Molly

[Molly]

Part of me feels sorry for this guy and his discovery of his own naivete.

He was hired to be a talking head, not a thinking one. Obviously he either didn't understand the implications of that, or didn't realize the personal toll it would take on him. He wasn't paid the big bucks for his dashing good looks and lovely enunciation- that can be found for minimum wage at any 'Hooters'. The purchase of a soul is a little more pricey.

[Shwa]

Human beings don’t always like good nourishment. We seem to love white sugar, and unless we understand why we feel nauseated and disoriented after binging on sweets, we’ll just keep going. People like low-nutrition TV, too. And that shapes the internal, self-regulated editorial culture of news.

And a little ironic that for someone who complains about the distractions, why he quit his job has become "news." Self-fullfilling at the very least, with a hint of shabbiness at the edge.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

His 15 minutes are up.

[Michael Hardner]

He wasn't paid the big bucks for his dashing good looks and lovely enunciation- that can be found for minimum wage at any 'Hooters'. The purchase of a soul is a little more pricey.

And by his own admission, he's "broke". So what was he spending his money on ? I suspect he will have to find another soul-buyer.

[scribblet]

Poor Baby who no one has ever heard of outside of Quebec. He quits in a narcissistic hissy fit because he can't promote his own left wing views, heaven they should be filtered, even the poor babies tweets - I guess the idea of impartiality in the news is a conundrum to him. LOL

Edited July 12, 2011 by scribblet

[Molly]

I guess the idea of impartiality in the news is a conundrum to him.

Hint: There is no such thing.

[cybercoma]

I don't think it was a hissy fit, since his post was rather articulate. I also don't think it was narcissistic, considering he put it up on his personal blog, which might as well be an online journal.

He raises a very good point that deserves exploration, but, right on queue, the political right seems to think this is an attack on them and moves quickly to oppose it. What I take from this article is that we need to be more aware of capital interests in journalism and how it may influence reporting. Nagata is clear right from the start that journalists and editorial boards have a tremendous amount of influence, so it's not like he's calling for defcon 5 or anything. However, it's worth looking at what happens when a network or news source has the choice between publishing or broadcasting important, perhaps difficult to understand news, and something that might be more popular, drawing more viewers and revenue. By now, I'm sure most people are familiar with the Monsanto story in Florida. It seems time and again that the government and those that are supposed to be holding them accountable (news outlets) are consistently on the side of capital. More recently, news sources were highly inconsistent in communicating that the postal workers had actually been locked out. They continued to say they were on strike after the company locked the doors. The problem is that they can't appear to be inflammatory to corporate interests because it is these interests through advertising revenue that pay the bills for the networks, magazines and newspapers. So there's definitely a paradox here that's worth being aware of. I think Nagata is just trying to shed light on that.

[Michael Hardner]

However, it's worth looking at what happens when a network or news source has the choice between publishing or broadcasting important, perhaps difficult to understand news, and something that might be more popular, drawing more viewers and revenue. By now, I'm sure most people are familiar with the Monsanto story in Florida. It seems time and again that the government and those that are supposed to be holding them accountable (news outlets) are consistently on the side of capital.

That may just be a symptom, though. By now, most large organizations know how to make the news and how to avoid the news. As such, the news has degenerated into a parade of video clips of explosions, crying widows, and puff pieces.

To my mind, the commodification of news is understandable. Markets have to expand, so news becomes entertainment and the mass media necessarily becomes a trivial review of the popular opinion of certain events.

As our "systems" become more complex - the mundane issues of budgets and policies are made more and more invisible, except to those with a vested interest or those few people who take the time to search out information. So there is a void of "real news"... but open systems deal with voids - and I'm hopeful that the web will continue to progress until a real alternative emerges that thinking people will turn to for real information. It doesn't matter if that alternative gets the numbers that mass media gets, because that alternative will have more influence with those who vote and make opinions. That is my hope.

[scribblet]

It seems to me that CTV where trying to keep the news impartial, but this guy doesn't like that, no, he wants to colour his reports with his own ideology. Maybe the Star will take him on, but after he slagged his employer like that he may not be employable.

[Shwa]

I don't think it was a hissy fit, since his post was rather articulate. I also don't think it was narcissistic, considering he put it up on his personal blog, which might as well be an online journal.

He raises a very good point that deserves exploration, but, right on queue, the political right seems to think this is an attack on them and moves quickly to oppose it. What I take from this article is that we need to be more aware of capital interests in journalism and how it may influence reporting. Nagata is clear right from the start that journalists and editorial boards have a tremendous amount of influence, so it's not like he's calling for defcon 5 or anything. However, it's worth looking at what happens when a network or news source has the choice between publishing or broadcasting important, perhaps difficult to understand news, and something that might be more popular, drawing more viewers and revenue. By now, I'm sure most people are familiar with the Monsanto story in Florida. It seems time and again that the government and those that are supposed to be holding them accountable (news outlets) are consistently on the side of capital. More recently, news sources were highly inconsistent in communicating that the postal workers had actually been locked out. They continued to say they were on strike after the company locked the doors. The problem is that they can't appear to be inflammatory to corporate interests because it is these interests through advertising revenue that pay the bills for the networks, magazines and newspapers. So there's definitely a paradox here that's worth being aware of. I think Nagata is just trying to shed light on that.

Well it appears that his focus is TV news in particular and perhaps he has a larger view of journalism in all it's forms. But really, what is "news?"

To me, it is a mere product of an institution that has commodified a social phenomenon, namely, people talking about one another or talking about events. In your daily conversations, how much do you talk about important and difficult to understand things? I am betting that there is some gossip and fluff, some exciting events you discuss. Whatever percentage of your discussions is 'serious' news only defines your expectations. And, it is a commodity after all.

That corporate interests usurp "the story" is a well known fact which has been discussed over and over, even here on this message board. The good "news" is that - as it stands now and hopefully remains so - there are plenty of outlets for other types of news, about complex events and relationships, etc. And there doesn't really appear to be too many restrictions on that sort of reporting.

So this fellow simply dropped out from the supply chain, similar to an autoworker dropping off the line as a conscientious objector to the manufacture of gasoline powered cars when electric cars are available to be made. The irony here is that his "story" became fodder for the very thing he complains about.

[Shwa]

As our "systems" become more complex - the mundane issues of budgets and policies are made more and more invisible, except to those with a vested interest or those few people who take the time to search out information. So there is a void of "real news"... but open systems deal with voids - and I'm hopeful that the web will continue to progress until a real alternative emerges that thinking people will turn to for real information. It doesn't matter if that alternative gets the numbers that mass media gets, because that alternative will have more influence with those who vote and make opinions. That is my hope.

Hmmmm.... good points here. I have an idea, but I am going to post it in the Media category...

[bush_cheney2004]

Jessica Hume of the National Post:

...He laments this lack of altruism and equates it with reporters no longing caring about “social values” and “fighting the good fight.” Aside from the fact I cannot think of a single group of professionals who comes closer to working for free than journalists, I also can’t think of a group who is less likely to be in it for the money.

After the revelation that people won’t report for free, we get to the Nagata’s real disappointment: his uncomfortable discovery that journalism is… (wait for it).. a business...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/07/12/jessica-hume-kai-nagata-does-journalism-a-favour/

[Black Dog]

It seems to me that CTV where trying to keep the news impartial, but this guy doesn't like that, no, he wants to colour his reports with his own ideology. Maybe the Star will take him on, but after he slagged his employer like that he may not be employable.

Funny how you fail to provide any citations for this, despite there being a 4,000+ word blogpost to draw from.

[Saipan]

Quit job, buy real big pants and be a Ninja.

http://files.sharenator.com/ninja_fail_ninjasninja_related_materials-s400x190-15716-580.gif

[TimG]

What I take from this article is that we need to be more aware of capital interests in journalism and how it may influence reporting.

Or it might be just biases of the editors. I remember when the climategate story broke. None of the Canadian media would cover it. After it happened and 3 kangaroo court committees swept everything under the carpet and no one in the media asked the tough questions that should been asked. I suspect it is because most are journalists are like Nagata and think that the "climate cause" is too import to derail with any reporting about the shenanigans that scientists and their government sponsors are up to.

[cybercoma]

Or it might be just biases of the editors. I remember when the climategate story broke. None of the Canadian media would cover it. After it happened and 3 kangaroo court committees swept everything under the carpet and no one in the media asked the tough questions that should been asked. I suspect it is because most are journalists are like Nagata and think that the "climate cause" is too import to derail with any reporting about the shenanigans that scientists and their government sponsors are up to.

Biases of editors is another issue. I'm not suggesting that it's one or the other. There are many competing interests at play here. However, there is something to be said for the old cliche about not biting the hand that feeds and whether that's in the best interests of the public. What should journalism be? Should it be profitable entertainment or does it serve a higher purpose? Can it be both? etc. Edited July 12, 2011 by cybercoma

[TimG]

What should journalism be? Should it be profitable entertainment or does it serve a higher purpose? Can it be both? etc.

I think objective reporting is a pipe dream given the fact that many journalists are like Nagata and are blind to their own biases. The only real remedy are multiple sources that report from different biases. People who care can watch them all and figure out the truth is somewhere between. Edited July 12, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Or it might be just biases of the editors. I remember when the climategate story broke. None of the Canadian media would cover it. After it happened and 3 kangaroo court committees swept everything under the carpet and no one in the media asked the tough questions that should been asked. I suspect it is because most are journalists are like Nagata and think that the "climate cause" is too import to derail with any reporting about the shenanigans that scientists and their government sponsors are up to.

Why should they cover baseless accusations that were found to be false ? If I call the PM a murderer in this thread would one expect national news to jump on it ?

Those quotes were taken out of context, and misrepresented by quasi-journalists and blogoholics. They died the quiet death they deserved.

[Saipan]

Journalism and biases.

http://www.akdart.com/med1.html

[TimG]

Why should they cover baseless accusations that were found to be false?

Actually, that is the point. They are not false accusations if you took the time to seperate the strawmen created by alarmists and the what skeptics were actually saying. The committees that were supposed to investigate this refused to actually look at the issues raised by sceptics (they refuseed to even talk to sceptics).

You would know this if you actually took the time to investigate the sceptic side of this story but you don't since you have made up your mind and the facts don't matter to you. You simply want to live in your tidy little bubble where scientists never do anything bad. Frankly, I am getting tired of your uninformed nonsense on this topic. If you want to comment - go learn the sceptic side of the story. Then you might actually have an opinion that has some connection to the facts.

PS. The information commissioner in the UK has recently issued a damning ruling for UEA which validated all of the things the sceptics had been saying. But you don't know that because the news media don't cover this story.

Edited July 12, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, that is the point. They are not false accusations if you took the time to seperate the strawmen created by alarmists and the what skeptics were actually saying. The committees that were supposed to investigate this refused to actually look at the issues raised by sceptics (they refuseed to even talk to sceptics).

Why does somebody get to weigh in on a misconduct investigation just because they're a skeptic ? They don't. The committees looked into these issues and rightly found little that was done wrong.

You would know this if you actually took the time to investigate the sceptic side of this story but you don't since you have made up your mind and the facts don't matter to you. You simply want to live in your tidy little bubble where scientists never do anything bad.

That's just not true. I only really got interested in the topic when Climategate came up and I have my problems with how science operates, but Climategate was just a big nothing IMO.

Frankly, I am getting tired of your uninformed nonsense on this topic. If you want to comment - go learn the sceptic side of the story. Then you might actually have an opinion that has some connection to the facts.

PS. The information commissioner in the UK has recently issued a damning ruling for UEA which validated all of the things the sceptics had been saying. But you don't know that because the news media don't cover this story.

If they don't cover it then why did we hear about it ? It shouldn't have got any coverage, if you consider that baseless accusations should be thoroughly investigated before publishing them - and ruining reputations.

But... this has already been covered in threads on here - seek them out and look at the arguments we made there, or start a new one maybe.

[TimG]

Why does somebody get to weigh in on a misconduct investigation just because they're a skeptic ? They don't.

So your are arguing that the police should not be talking to victims and witnesses when investigating a crime? Your position is absurd. The fact is the climategate emails mentioned many skeptics by name. Any serious investigation would have sought these skeptics out and asked for their interpretation of the events covered.

That's just not true. I only really got interested in the topic when Climategate came up and I have my problems with how science operates, but Climategate was just a big nothing IMO.

Because you have no interest in learning why it matters and how the subsequent cover ups demonstrate that our scientific institutions are not doing the job that they are supposed to be doing.

In any case, it is pointless discussing this topic. For some reason you are absolutely pig headed on this topic and refuse to even consider the possibility that skeptics have valid points which are being ignored. It is kind of strange given you willingness to be open minded on other topics.

Edited July 12, 2011 by TimG