The Failure of the Media in Canada

[Argus]

Someone in another thread suggested it was the media's job to keep us informned and let us know when the government has gone awry.

I haven't seen much of that lately.

How many times have you seen a reporter interviewing some sleazy politician who refuses to answer the question, but instead dodges all around it? How many times have you seen a cabinet minister, or the PM, tell what is obviously a bald-faced lie at a press conference, or to a group of reporters? How often do you see this challenged?

Wouldn't it be nice, if after a politician dancing around a question for two minutes the reporter would say something like "But minister, you never actually addressed the question." And then repeat the question. Or how about when some minster makes a ludicrous statement like "Of course there was no political motivation or involvement in the changes in the helicopter contract", and have some reporter say "You really expect us to believe that?" or "Doesn't it embarrass you to lie like that in front of a whole room full of people who know you're lieing?"

Not gonna happen of course.

The thing is, senior government officials deal mainly with senior reporters, members of the national press gallery. Members of the press gallery are generally very well-paid, and quite content with their lot in life at the apex of journalism. Life is good the way it is. They generally aren't looking for anyone to come in and shake things up. They're seen as important by other journalists. They get greeted on a first-name basis by bigshot politicians, and get to go to fancy parties. They are given little tidbits of information, and interviews with senior bureacrats and ministers.

Act up and they lose it all. Start giving ministers a hard time and those interviews disappear. Access to the senior levels of public service dries up. You don't get invited to the fancy parties any more. Big shot politicians stop calling you by your first name. And hey, if you can't get the access any more, then maybe your organization pulls you and replaces you with someone who can. You wind up covering traffic accidents or famine and wars in third world countries.

So who is going to act up and challenge senior ministers?

There is a way to do it, of course, if you're good, if you're clever. You can get the information anyway by building up contacts with lower level staff, assistants, secretaries, messengers, etc. It's the path that used to be taken when journalists were a little more active than they are now, and when they tended to understand the little guy better - because they were little guys. Journalists didn't always get six figure salaries, nor were they always educated enough to quote Chaucer and Marx. Once upon a time they were more comfortable hanging out with messengers and secretaries than cabinet ministers and senior bureacrats.

But the easy way to do your job is to just wait for the press release, re-write it a little, and suck up to cabinet ministers in hopes of getting a few interviews here and there. And so far as I can see, all the members of the national press gallery have chosen this route.

The watch dogs have become pampered, overfed pets - of the burglars.

[cybercoma]

As you say about rewriting press releases, one needs not to look any further than a few of the national publications to see that the front page story is almost word for word identical between all of them. Any support srticles that delve deeper into the subject are filled with banality that really has nothing to do with the point anyway. It's sad and unfortunate the way things have gone in the media, but at least we're not as bad as the United States yet.

[August1991]

It's sad and unfortunate the way things have gone in the media, but at least we're not as bad as the United States yet.

I disagree. Canada has no equivalent of magazines such as Harper's or Atlantic Monthly which publish long pieces on politics. This is how investigative journalism often takes shape.

Maclean's is no match for Time and Newsweek (and even Actualite is arguably better). The National Post used to have an edge but no longer.

Stevie Cameron is a poor substitute for an investigative reporter; English Canada has no Michel Vastel or Normand Lester. (Quebec had several biting satires when Chretien was PM.) Maurice Strong, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, CSL and Power Corporation remain a book waiting to be written. Such books are published regularly in the US.

Modern English Canada lacks even writers of the calibre of Pierre Berton, or Bruce Hutchinson. I see no Peter Newman.

True, if we take the sponsorship scandal as an example, it was exposed because of Daniel Leblanc's articles in the G&M and Duceppe's relentless questioning in the House. Canadian blogs might fill the void.

Why does Canada have this problem? It is hard not to conclude that the CBC is partly to blame. It is unimaginable that any CBC journalist would take on a Liberal PM the way the Washington Post took on Nixon.

More fundamentally, many people in Ontario simply do not want to read bad news about the federal Liberal Party. For them, such bad news is viewed as an attack on Canada itself. This is a consequence of Quebec politics - a bitter but peaceful civil war - spilling over to the federal arena.

[Advocat]

More fundamentally, many people in Ontario simply do not want to read bad news about the federal Liberal Party.  For them, such bad news is viewed as an attack on Canada itself.  This is a consequence of Quebec politics - a bitter but peaceful civil war - spilling over to the federal arena.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure I totally agree with the above. I think there has been a polarization of media: Liberal/Conservative; East/West. Each pole tends to report on "their" side with gentleness and the "other" side with invective (or at least insinuation). As most news services belong to one of the four or five major chains, it tends to be easy to figure out what the editorial/managerial preference is for each chain... and you'll read the same news/commentary in each of their papers or from their stations.

I do agree Canada needs an objective and hard-hitting national news service, but I'm not sure one could survive in the modern age of conglomerate media companies.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I disagree.  Canada has no equivalent of magazines such as Harper's or Atlantic Monthly which publish long pieces on politics.

I disagree. The Walrus is a quality Canadian magazine in the style of Harper's.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Someone in another thread suggested it was the media's job to keep us informned and let us know when the government has gone awry.

A novel suggestion. Unfortunately, as with all things nowadays, their job is to make a profit. A 'copyright' to a breaking story, the 'inside scoop', only lasts a couple of minutes, in this age.

"Doesn't it embarrass you to lie like that in front of a whole room full of people who know you're lieing?"

Without concrete proof, (as in 'guaranteed to win in court')an accusation like that is libel. To make a slanderous case, backfiring in the face of the honest accuser, which isn't worth it anymore. It would detract from profits.

[Canuck E Stan]

Can anyboby out there verify that the Ottawa press gallery is held by 25-30% CBC (get my paycheck from the government)people? I seem to remember Doug Fisher saying so in one of his columns. I believe he stated that this was too many from one news source.

[Riverwind]

Can anyboby out there  verify that the Ottawa press gallery is held by 25-30% CBC (get my paycheck from the government)people? I seem to remember Doug Fisher saying so in one of his columns. I believe he stated that this was too many  from one news source.

What a lovely deceptive statistic. Even if it were true (which it may be) why would that be a bad thing?. You can't know that CBC is over represented unless you have something to compare it to like the the representations for CanWest/Global and CTV. Furthermore, CBC is really 4 news organizations: English Radio, French Radio, English TV and French TV - you would need to take that into account too. Lastly, reporters working for profit commercial media outlets are just as subceptable that sort of bias because their pay checks from employers which political agendas of their own - you either believe that reporters are capable of being unbiased no matter who their employer is or you believe they are all likely biased - its is niave or self-serving to single out CBC reporters as particularily subceptable to bias.

[Argus]

Can anyboby out there  verify that the Ottawa press gallery is held by 25-30% CBC (get my paycheck from the government)people? I seem to remember Doug Fisher saying so in one of his columns. I believe he stated that this was too many  from one news source.

What a lovely deceptive statistic. Even if it were true (which it may be) why would that be a bad thing?. You can't know that CBC is over represented unless you have something to compare it to like the the representations for CanWest/Global and CTV. Furthermore, CBC is really 4 news organizations: English Radio, French Radio, English TV and French TV - you would need to take that into account too. Lastly, reporters working for profit commercial media outlets are just as subceptable that sort of bias because their pay checks from employers which political agendas of their own - you either believe that reporters are capable of being unbiased no matter who their employer is or you believe they are all likely biased - its is niave or self-serving to single out CBC reporters as particularily subceptable to bias.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that while you're correct that those "for profit" organizations might be biased due to their employer, you forget that in the case of the CBC, the employer is the goverment they're reporting on, and their boss is the man that government appointed.

I was speaking about the self interest of the reporters as opposed to media bias in general, but if you want to get into that, combine the CBC with Canwest Global, owned, for all intents and purposes, by the Liberal Party of Canada, and CTV, whose president described Jean Chretien as the greastest prime minister in history, and you've got a seriously biased ownership group.

[Netherlands]

Making a broad guess, I would say that there are between 10 to 15 reporters working for all four groups of the CBC in Ottawa. CPAC also has at least two English reporters, and presumably 2 French ones. CTV has at least 2, Global 1, and 1 representing lesser networks (i.e CITY, the A Channel, etc). You would also have a couple more generic radio reporters, a couple more correspondents working for Canadian Press, at least 3 reporters for the Globe and Mail, a couple for the National Post and the Toronto Star, probably about 5 or 6 representing other papers. My guess is that we have about 40 reporters working full time on the Hill, but this is just a guess.

[Advocat]

For those who may be interested, you can view a listing of the Parliamentary Press Gallery at: http://www.gallery-tribune.ca/members.html

Looks like there's a couple of hundred people listed, along with the stations/media they represent; I don't have the time to score how many people represent the different media, but the information is there for those who want to check.

[I Miss Trudeau]

but if you want to get into that, combine the CBC with Canwest Global, owned, for all intents and purposes, by the Liberal Party of Canada, and CTV, whose president described Jean Chretien as the greastest prime minister in history, and you've got a seriously biased ownership group.

You can't seriously believe that Global, or FoxNorth, is "owned by the Liberal Party of Canada."

[Muddyw67]

More fundamentally, many people in Ontario simply do not want to read bad news about the federal Liberal Party. For them, such bad news is viewed as an attack on Canada itself. This is a consequence of Quebec politics - a bitter but peaceful civil war - spilling over to the federal arena.

What evidence do you have that would support such a sweeping generalization like that? The lack of support for example the Conservatives in Ontario may have more to do with the rejection of neo con voodoo economics that remind us too much of the damage that Harris created and the fact that Stephen Harper and his crew of fundamentalist zealots might inflict a rather frightening version of American right wing Republicanism. I am typically an NDP supporter but the thought of Harper in government has forced me to vote Liberal. It is possible that this may explain Ontarions support of the Federal Liberal party as well-not an affirmation of the Federal Liberals but a fear of something distinctly much worse.

[Argus]

but if you want to get into that, combine the CBC with Canwest Global, owned, for all intents and purposes, by the Liberal Party of Canada, and CTV, whose president described Jean Chretien as the greastest prime minister in history, and you've got a seriously biased ownership group.

You can't seriously believe that Global, or FoxNorth, is "owned by the Liberal Party of Canada."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Global is owned by the Aspers, known for firing reporters who get too critical of the Liberal government. The only reason you might compare them to Fox is the Aspers' dedication to Israel, and thus their antipathy to all Arab causes.

[Argus]

More fundamentally, many people in Ontario simply do not want to read bad news about the federal Liberal Party.  For them, such bad news is viewed as an attack on Canada itself.  This is a consequence of Quebec politics - a bitter but peaceful civil war - spilling over to the federal arena.

What evidence do you have that would support such a sweeping generalization like that? The lack of support for example the Conservatives in Ontario may have more to do with the rejection of neo con voodoo economics that remind us too much of the damage that Harris created and the fact that Stephen Harper and his crew of fundamentalist zealots might inflict a rather frightening version of American right wing Republicanism.

I'm willing to bet this poster would normally, in real life, express his delight and efusive approval of all aspects of multiculturalism, and would joyously parade to the polls to vote for, say, a muslim woman in a burkha. Sikhs are okay, too, and Hindus. But let a guy go to a church and suddenly he, and everyone around him is a "fundamentalist zealot". This hateful bigotry against Christians is one of the reasons why the NDP will never succeed in forming a government. Nobody trusts them not to set up re-education camps and gulags for without acceptably politically correct beliefs.

[Muddyw67]

More fundamentally, many people in Ontario simply do not want to read bad news about the federal Liberal Party.  For them, such bad news is viewed as an attack on Canada itself.  This is a consequence of Quebec politics - a bitter but peaceful civil war - spilling over to the federal arena.

What evidence do you have that would support such a sweeping generalization like that? The lack of support for example the Conservatives in Ontario may have more to do with the rejection of neo con voodoo economics that remind us too much of the damage that Harris created and the fact that Stephen Harper and his crew of fundamentalist zealots might inflict a rather frightening version of American right wing Republicanism.

I'm willing to bet this poster would normally, in real life, express his delight and efusive approval of all aspects of multiculturalism, and would joyously parade to the polls to vote for, say, a muslim woman in a burkha. Sikhs are okay, too, and Hindus. But let a guy go to a church and suddenly he, and everyone around him is a "fundamentalist zealot". This hateful bigotry against Christians is one of the reasons why the NDP will never succeed in forming a government. Nobody trusts them not to set up re-education camps and gulags for without acceptably politically correct beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope- wrong characterization- I deplore the burka and the oppression that it inflicts on females.

It's not about a "guy" going to church and quietly experiencing his faith in personal contemplation of the divine, its the obnoxious intrusive paternalistic and obscene expression of these so-called God revealed truths into the discourse of a democratic society. Was it not the Reform Party that thought it was ok for a minority to be removed from serving customers in a store if offended some wasp customer? I personally think Christians are an aberrant cult who have inflicted incredible harm in the world, especially to non Europeans. However since we as a society have agreed that this cult has a legitimate status in our society I am willing to tolerate it providing they only abuse each other with their silly mythology. It is when they start to emerge from their pointed brick buildings or garish evangelical covens and start to bully their beliefs into the wider discourse that I have to object. I feel the same way incidentally about Scientologists just to show you that I am an equal opportunity skeptic. However I do believe most devotely in grey Aliens.

[BHS]

but if you want to get into that, combine the CBC with Canwest Global, owned, for all intents and purposes, by the Liberal Party of Canada, and CTV, whose president described Jean Chretien as the greastest prime minister in history, and you've got a seriously biased ownership group.

You can't seriously believe that Global, or FoxNorth, is "owned by the Liberal Party of Canada."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sheesh, you people are insulated. What is the left ever going to do if the conservative movement in Canada ever develops a spine?

[BHS]

Nope- wrong characterization- I deplore the burka and the oppression that it inflicts on females.

It's not about a "guy" going to church and quietly experiencing his faith in personal contemplation of the divine,  its the obnoxious intrusive paternalistic and obscene expression of these so-called God revealed truths into the discourse of a democratic society. Was it not the Reform Party that thought it was ok for a minority to be removed from serving customers in a store if offended some wasp customer? I personally think Christians are an aberrant cult who have inflicted incredible harm in the world, especially to non Europeans. However since we as a society have agreed that this cult has a legitimate status in our society I am willing to tolerate it providing they only abuse each other with their silly mythology. It is when they start to emerge from their pointed brick buildings or garish evangelical covens and start to bully their beliefs into the wider discourse that I have to object. I feel the same way incidentally about Scientologists just to show you that I am an equal opportunity skeptic. However I do believe most devotely in grey Aliens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, who wants to keep who in the back room now?

I gather you feel that all personal beliefs are off limit in political discourse. Which is a little limiting, you know? Considering that pretty much all of politics boils down to personal opinion. Just saying.

Also, skepticism is the philosophical refutation of absolute knowledge, and doesn't include a verbal tar-and-feathering job on people like my grandmother.

[I Miss Trudeau]

What is the left ever going to do if the conservative movement  in Canada ever develops a spine?

Oh the conservative movement has plenty of spine already. The vacancy is a little more to the north.

[Argus]

More

I'm willing to bet this poster would normally, in real life, express his delight and efusive approval of all aspects of multiculturalism, and would joyously parade to the polls to vote for, say, a muslim woman in a burkha. Sikhs are okay, too, and Hindus. But let a guy go to a church and suddenly he, and everyone around him is a "fundamentalist zealot". This hateful bigotry against Christians is one of the reasons why the NDP will never succeed in forming a government. Nobody trusts them not to set up re-education camps and gulags for without acceptably politically correct beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope- wrong characterization- I deplore the burka and the oppression that it inflicts on females.

It's not about a "guy" going to church and quietly experiencing his faith in personal contemplation of the divine, its the obnoxious intrusive paternalistic and obscene expression of these so-called God revealed truths into the discourse of a democratic society.

So you don't have a problem with someone going to church, being a Christian believer, which explicitly requires him to accept the moral teachings of the Church.

You just want him to ignore all those moral teachings everywhere outside the church doors. Have I got that right? What kind of people would that make for? Hypocrites? People with no morals? People willing to ignore all they believe in order to please the electorate? This is who you want in politics?

Or perhaps you think all believers should be banned from politics? Do enlighten me.

Was it not the Reform Party that thought it was ok for a minority to be removed from serving customers in a store if offended some wasp customer?

No. It wasn't. You are, unsurprisingly, quite incorrect. Again.

I personally think Christians are an aberrant cult who have inflicted incredible harm in the world, especially to non Europeans.

This is the kind of bigoted drivel I was referring to. Imagine if someone said:

"I personally think Jews are an aberrant cult who have inflicted incredible harm in the world."

Would anyone have any doubt what kind of mentality is behind such a quote?

Yet here we have an NDP supporter, ostensibly one of those oh-so-tolerent folk feeling perfectly free in making precisely the same remark only at a different target group.

"I personally think Sikhs are an aberrant cult who have inflicted incredible harm in the world."

I don't think you'd get the above poster to dare say this, especially at an NDP meeting! Has he even a clue about what bigotry means?

[Muddyw67]

More

I'm willing to bet this poster would normally, in real life, express his delight and efusive approval of all aspects of multiculturalism, and would joyously parade to the polls to vote for, say, a muslim woman in a burkha. Sikhs are okay, too, and Hindus. But let a guy go to a church and suddenly he, and everyone around him is a "fundamentalist zealot". This hateful bigotry against Christians is one of the reasons why the NDP will never succeed in forming a government. Nobody trusts them not to set up re-education camps and gulags for without acceptably politically correct beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope- wrong characterization- I deplore the burka and the oppression that it inflicts on females.

It's not about a "guy" going to church and quietly experiencing his faith in personal contemplation of the divine, its the obnoxious intrusive paternalistic and obscene expression of these so-called God revealed truths into the discourse of a democratic society.

So you don't have a problem with someone going to church, being a Christian believer, which explicitly requires him to accept the moral teachings of the Church.

You just want him to ignore all those moral teachings everywhere outside the church doors. Have I got that right? What kind of people would that make for? Hypocrites? People with no morals? People willing to ignore all they believe in order to please the electorate? This is who you want in politics?

Or perhaps you think all believers should be banned from politics? Do enlighten me.

Was it not the Reform Party that thought it was ok for a minority to be removed from serving customers in a store if offended some wasp customer?

No. It wasn't. You are, unsurprisingly, quite incorrect. Again.

I personally think Christians are an aberrant cult who have inflicted incredible harm in the world, especially to non Europeans.

This is the kind of bigoted drivel I was referring to. Imagine if someone said:

"I personally think Jews are an aberrant cult who have inflicted incredible harm in the world."

Would anyone have any doubt what kind of mentality is behind such a quote?

Yet here we have an NDP supporter, ostensibly one of those oh-so-tolerent folk feeling perfectly free in making precisely the same remark only at a different target group.

"I personally think Sikhs are an aberrant cult who have inflicted incredible harm in the world."

I don't think you'd get the above poster to dare say this, especially at an NDP meeting! Has he even a clue about what bigotry means?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps if I said Christianity is an aberrant cult it would be less offensive and which is no less bigoted then saying Nazism is an aberrant cult which you might agree with. I expect that you might take issue with the comparison, but if we compared Nazi behaviour (much of endorsed by Christian cult followers by the way, including Lutherans and Catholics) and the behaviour of the various Christian cults throughout history, I wonder exactly what the differences, if any, would there be? Now it terms of Christianity's moral teachings, which ones were you referring to? How about "Judge not less you be judged?" I like that one. If someone offends you turn the other cheek, or love your enemies as you love yourself-another good one. The sense that the rich will have one hell of time getting into heaven that the mythological Jesus character discussed should send some sort of fear into Conservative capitalist true believers. How about the reoccurring theme of sharing with those less fortunate or the idea that accumulating wealth is bad for the soul? All wonderful moral ideas- I would welcome Christian cult followers to manifest these beliefs seriously in the world. Unfortunately they don't seem to want to do that do they? They wish to persecute gay people and deny them their civil liberties and boy do they ever judge their behaviours, especially their sexual ones which really gets them into a tizzy.I could offer you a Freudian interpretation of this effect but this would be a digression. Of course the Catholic Christian cult followers, while extolling sexual restraint on their followers, indulge in the most disgraceful and predatory sexual practices on children.. didn't the mythological Jesus character say :" suffer little children and let then come to him for protection?" Often Christian cult followers make grand statements about others they don't like by saying they are going to hell- That strictly speaking is blasphemy because it purports to assume they know what God is thinking about-a very bad thing in the zany world of Christian concepts.

I hope this clarifies my positions somewhat for you-by the way I dislike all organized religions and think their all equally as aberrant as the Christian cult. I agree with Marx and Lennon "Religion is the opiate of the masses"...and "imagine no religion...its easy if you try..no hell below us above us only sky"

By the way a Reform party MP did offer that it would be perfectly acceptable for a businessman to remove a visible minority from serving the public if someone found him/her objectionable. It cause quite a ruckus at the time I remember. It might have been under that wonderful cranky Prescott Manning who smelt of musty bibles and repressed masterbation even through the TV. I think he was from BC although I could be wrong.

[cybercoma]

Please, just stop.

I'm moved to nausea by your incredible ignorance for the Church and its teachings. Those who abuse those teachings for their own means are the ones you're looking to blame, not the Church or the religion itself.

I can't really tell, but the whole Ten Commandments thing must've gone right over your head.

[Riverwind]

Those who abuse those teachings for their own means are the ones you're looking to blame, not the Church or the religion itself.

Like those who selectively choose passages from the Bible to justify their own polticial agendas. In the past Genesis 9:25 was used to justify slavery. Today people use Leviticus 18:22 to justify homophobia.

[Muddyw67]

Please, just stop.

I'm moved to nausea by your incredible ignorance for the Church and its teachings.  Those who abuse those teachings for their own means are the ones you're looking to blame, not the Church or the religion itself.

I can't really tell, but the whole Ten Commandments thing must've gone right over your head.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well.. The Ten Commandments has in origins from the Jewish tradition-I was simply feeding back some of the mythical Jesus's alleged observations which are more germain to the Christian cult tradition- I'm sorry your not feeling very well and I hope you've taken some Gravol for your nausea-Unfortunately Gravol doesn't begin to alleviate the suffering that the Christian cult has inflected on the world and continues to inflict in one form or another. Actually I don't feel ignorant about it's teachings at all given I was raised in it and took at least one course in religion at University. You may consider my take on the Christian myth ignorant or objectionable which is your right- Hmmm...wasn't there a time when anyone disagreed with literal bibical material were killed

tortured etc??? What an incredible history of enlightment and life affirmation the Christian myth has brought to the world.

[mirror]

By the way a Reform party MP did offer that it would be perfectly acceptable for a businessman to remove a visible minority from serving the public if someone found him/her objectionable. It cause quite a ruckus at the time I remember. It might have been under that wonderful cranky Prescott Manning who smelt of musty bibles and repressed masterbation even through the TV. I think he was from BC although I could be wrong.

I well remember this above incident in the news, however it was another MP not Preston Manning. The sad reality is that this is a lot more common than we are prepared to admit as our Canadian goodie two shoes image suggests.

Progressive people laugh when they hear Liberals and Conservatives going at it over their media representation or more to the point, their lack of it. The reality is the media apart from the CBC, are owned by big business so obviously the New Democrats are severely underrepresented.

Without wanting to turn this thread into another BS religious discussion, the New Democrats probably have more Christian ministers representing them in Parliament than any other party.

As far as Canada, or more precisely English Canada having some great journalists, for some independent thinkers as opposed to those who are sheeplike and follow the crowd, try reading Paul Wells at Macleans, Chantel Hebert, James Travers, Linda McQuaig, and Carol Goar at the Toronto Star, Heather Mallick & Rick Salutin at the Globe and Mail, and Reverend Blair at Vive le Canada. They are there if you look for them.

BTW I thought the moderator here asked us to not insult each other. I think we need to respect his request.