Let's Talk About Journalism

 Let's talk about journalism...

Basic tenets of journalism:
1. Is it true?
2. Is it verifiable (can you prove it's true)?
3. Is publishing it in the public good? 

1. Is it true?
Truth is fact. It is not conjecture, opinion, or spin. It is empirically provable. It is not rumour or heresay or speculation. It is not driven by ideology. Reporters should report truth. This may include, "X said-, however, this research shows this is inaccurate." 

Fact-checking political statements against demonstrably true information is part of "Is it true".
We are seeing a lot of so-called journalists falling down on the job here. Repeating any politician's statements as truth without due diligence is not journalism. 

The parties have PR departments for that. Doing the homework and knowing the facts allows journalists to call out politicians when their claims deviate from the truth. This is the job of journalism. 

Truth vs Lies/speculation/conjecture. Robert Fife should have been fired back when his inaccurate words led to Maher Arar being detained & tortured. He shouldn't have worked in journalism in Canada ever again. Neither should the other journalists involved.

Hear No Evil, Write No Lies | The WalrusMaher Arar was portrayed as a sly fox, a predator working with al-Qaeda. He turned out to be a hare, an innocent family manhttps://thewalrus.ca/hear-no-evil-write-no-lies/

And yet, it is from this same scribe that we got the SNC-Lavelin scandal and the WE scandal. Why are people still believing him? He compromised his journalistic credibility ages ago. 

Truth in reporting can involve asking penetrating incisive questions. "When did you first learn of the arrangement between Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright?" after the arrangement became public, is a penetrating, incisive question. 

"Are you going to put a gun to the oppositions' head to force through your corrupt legislation?" Is not. I hope people can see the difference. The second question is loaded with assumptions and hyperbolic imagery. It is an example of very bad journalism. 

Asking the PM, "When will the pandemic end?" and then reporting that the PM "dodged" the question, is shoddy journalism. You cannot ask a question to which there is no known answer and then accuse the interviewee of misconduct in being unable to answer. That is shoddy journalism. 

2. Is it verifiable? Can you prove it is true?
This is the dividing line between accepting rumours or leaks as fact, and doing your own research and digging to find out if there is anything to it. There is a terrible trend towards rumour reporting. (again, see FIFE) 

Currently, there are a number of Canadian news organizations who will be subject to lawsuits based on their escalation of rumour, innuendo, conjecture, and speculation related to the WE thing. Speculation IS NOT journalism. Especially ideologically-driven speculation. 

3. Is publishing it in the public good?
This is contentious, apparently. Some feel the public has a right to know everything about our elected officials. The key question is, what purpose does that serve? Does some tidbit of gossip about an MP benefit Canadians by knowing? 

If an MP's child wets the bed beyond the age where that is "normal", should it be broadcast by our national news outlets? If it's rumoured that an elected official had a spat w/ their partner, is that news? Would you like your personal life broadcast? What purpose does it serve? 

If an elected official is being tested for diabetes, is that in the public interest to report? A health concern may become a significant issue, if it impedes that representative's ability to fulfill their duties, but in Canada we have traditionally regarded our representatives' interactions with their health care provider to be a private matter. MPs and MLAs have traditionally come forward if they have a health issue that may interfere with their job. So, what possible public good is an accounting of medical tests anyone may or may not have had? 

Until very recently, the families of our elected officials have been sacrosanct. This set us above the media in most countries where tabloids report nonsensical speculation about every politician or royal's private life. The Queen frowns and tabloids have Camilla incarcerated 

Is it in the public good to recount every tweak to legislation? Hundreds, maybe thousands of minor tweaks to legislation, are passed every year. Most are incredibly boring. Changing the wording on bills of lading, changing the way some signage must be presented... 

Changing a measure of acceptable levels of something by a tiny amount... these things are happening all the time. Is it in the public interest to report them all? No. In fact, it would probably deter the public from reading any political news. 

There is a certain enlightenment that is required to discern when some minor bit of legislative tweak is going to be newsworthy, and in the public good. It takes a strong grasp of the field of expertise in question, and some good reporter's intuition to dig deeper. 

But only after digging, consulting with experts, should that sort of thing become news. If there is something newsworthy and in the public good. And to report it, it must pass all three tests. 

Likewise, it is shoddy journalism to not publish information that does not align with some ideological stance. Two things came to my attention today that I fear will not get the attention they deserve from a public good standpoint. 

Here's one:

Here's another:

Journalists need to understand that good news stories can absolutely be in the public good. Our media must not hide good news just because they don't like the government. Especially now. We all need good news. Why are our government's success stories not being told? 

We need our fourth estate to be pure of partisan biases and interference. Now more than ever. We need reporters who do their homework and call out misinformation. We need journalistic integrity. We do not need rumours, or innuendo. We need facts and clear information. 

Where Are Our Journalists (Part 3)

I believe in the CBC. At least, I believe in the concept of a public broadcaster that operates independent of political or corporate pressure. That is truly independent. That works for the good of Canadians.

On February 5, 2019, The National aired an interview with Jason Kenney, leader of the Alberta United Conservative Party. The interviewer, co-host of The National Rosemary Barton, sat and smiled while Mr. Kenney made a number of inaccurate statements.

To start off, Jason Kenney declared that Alberta is going through the longest period of economic decline and stagnation since the Great depression. He said the GDP has decreased by 7%.

In 2014 the bottom fell out of the oil industry. This was not brought about by the NDP government, but by global forces far beyond the control of any provincial premier. Then began a period of regrowth. Alberta's GDP at basic prices increased by 4.6% in 2017 to $327.4 billion, the largest increase in Canada, ending two consecutive years of decreases. 

As the figures from Statistics Canada show, the economy is neither declining, nor stagnating. To get a visual of the GDP over the course of the past 10 years, here is another Stats Can graph.

Recall that the NDP was elected in 2015, so that decline had already begun. And 1 year after the NDP becoming government, the downturn turned into growth again.

The interviewer did not challenge Mr. Kenney on his numbers.

Kenney asserted at least twice that Alberta has been "very generous" in Confederation, "very generous" to the rest of Canada. Well, no. That is not how it works. Alberta does not write a cheque to Ottawa, or Quebec, or any other province. All Canadians pay income taxes, based on their annual income and according to a formula that is supposed to make the tax burden more fair between the different income levels.

A person in Nova Scotia, or Quebec, or Manitoba, or Alberta, or any other privince or territory, making the same income and having the same allowable deductions, pays federal tax at the same rate. What is happening is that there is a concentration of high wage earners in Alberta because of high-paying jobs in the oil and gas sector. This does not mean that Alberta, as a province, pays a disproportionate amount of federal tax. As far as federal tax is concerned, all Canadians are treated the same.

I know there are lots of charts and graphs out there showing that Alberta's collective contribution to the federal coffers is bigger than any other province's and that Alberta receives back less in transfer payments for education and health and social services.  This is simply because Alberta has proportionately more high-wage earners and other provinces have proportionately fewer. And, because Alberta has proportionately more high-wage earners, the province is starting out ahead of other provinces in its ability to provide social programming paid for by provincial taxes. Also, given the much higher average income in Alberta, fewer citizens need to avail themselves of certain kinds of social programs.

The interviewer did not challenge Mr. Kenney on this point.

Jason Kenney said Premier Rachel Notley made a mistake in not demanding the government appeal the court decision which said the project had not met the threshold on the requirement to consult with First Nations. We all know the CPC liked to appeal and fight everything to the Supreme Court. We know that they usually lost these appeals, and that these appeals are quite costly to Canadians. The duty to consult is in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already clarified that duty and indicated that this is not negotiable. So, if the Premier had demanded an appeal, that does not mean the federal government would have yielded to such demands. Indeed, it seems unlikely that they would have given that appeals are 1) costly, and 2) unlikely to succeed. It doesn't seem very responsible fiscal management to throw money at lost causes.

The interviewer did not challenge Mr. Kenney on this point.

Jason Kenney said that Rachel Notley had somehow signaled the Federal government to "kill" Northern Gateway. That is just a strange claim to make. The approval process was set up by the Harper government. The pipeline expansion project passed approval. Then the courts came back and said the approval process was flawed.

The interviewer did challenge, asking how could a Premier have done anything to over-ride the Federal government? Kenney responded that she should have fought for it instead of surrendering.

Jason Kenney said Rachel Notley surrendered to President Obama's decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline down through the US. Again, not Alberta's jurisdiction. At the time, Premier Notley indicated she was not surprised. After former PM Harper's belligerent stance on the issue while a guest in Washington, who could be surprised? She was disappointed that Obama had chosen to use the term "dirty oil", and added that this is a sign that Alberta's oil industry needs to do better to improve its image. I am not sure what Jason Kenney thinks she should have done. Should she have taken a plane to Washington to go and kick Obama in the shins? Not a Canadian decision to make. And if the Canadian Prime Minister could not bully President Obama into signing off on it, what chance does a provincial premier have of making any impact? Premier Notley wisely decided to choose her battles, and set about to improve the reputation of Canadian oil.

The interviewer did not challenge Mr. Kenney on this point.

Jason Kenney went on to suggest the Federal government should have invoked section 92 of the Constitution, related to the supremacy of Parliament over Provincial jurisdiction. In other words, he feels the federal government should have over-ruled the BC government and forced the pipeline through. Although this might be the way things are done in totalitarian states, our federal government wisely decided to work with Alberta and BC and the First Nations to get a consensus. It is not even clear that this would be possible, had they wanted to take the hostile approach, as the court had clearly ruled that the approval process was inadequate and there was still work to be done there. Apparently, Jason Kenney has brought the CPC disdain for the courts with him to provincial politics.

The interviewer did not challenge Mr. Kenney on this point.

When asked what the rest of Canada should make of the situation in Alberta, the yellow vest protesters and so on, Jason Kenney began by saying we should not be distracted by a small number of yellow vest people who have extreme views. He asserted that the vast majority of the protesters are what Ralph Klein would call "severely normal Albertans". He then goes on to put on his "look, I'm being completely reasonable here" face, and speaks at length about how important Alberta is to Canada's economy and how "all we ask is that the governments and politicians who benefit from the resources developed from the hard work of Albertans, allow us to sell those products..."

The last bit does a few things. Gloria Filax, in her 2011 book, "Queer Youth in the Province of the 'Severely Normal'" explained the term, as used by Ralph Klein as follows:

Klein used the phrase ‘severely normal’ interchangeably with a fictitious pair he called ‘Martha and Henry’ in his pronouncements about socially contentious issues. Severely normal came to stand in for an Alberta subject who was: adult, right-wing, conservative, fundamentalist Christian, white, straight, worked hard, eschewed big-G government, male. All others in the province became ‘not normal’ in relation to ‘severely normal discourse’ and included:

Physically and mentally disabled, gays and lesbians, environmentalists, feminists, non-white people, Aboriginal peoples, non-Christians, most women, children, youth, elderly people, anyone working for the government (unless elected) like nurses, social workers and teachers, non-human life forms. Significantly, all these groups were and continue to be the majority of those inhabiting the province. There were many contradictions to discourses of ‘severely normal’ but it was continuously invoked when any group disrupted the cultural fabric that emerged as Ralph Klein’s Alberta. Queer people in the province were one such group that came to dominate the political and cultural landscape of Alberta in the 1990s.

Then, Kenney goes on to give oxygen to the notion that politicians and governments in other parts of Canada, who live off the blood, sweat and tears of Alberta labour, are somehow conspiring to keep Alberta down. Promoting this idea that Alberta is somehow being willfully persecuted is not helpful. It ignores the fact that there are processes that have to be gone through and things that are in the works but have not come to fruition yet, much like a child wanting desert first. It is disrespectful to those who have valid concerns about this pipeline project, and to those who are working hard to make it happen. As Harper learned with Keystone XL, stamping your foot and demanding doesn't really work in the adult world.

You can watch the full interview here.

I feel there could have been considerably more fact-checking on the part of the CBC. I feel the interview was more of a PR piece for Jason Kenney, and I struggle to understand why the CBC would provide any party leader this sort of podium.

We need #HardTalkCdnEdition