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. 

Media Literacy: Deconstructing Political-Speak Part 1

When a politician like Jason Kenney, who spent more than a decade working for Stephen Harper, gets in front of a camera or microphone, you can bet that there will be no "winging it". Every word out of his mouth is deliberate.. and thought through. There is no going off script. He knows what he wants to communicate and how he wants to communicate it. There is no accidental phrasing or memory slips. That is the first thing to keep in mind. 

Here is a clip of a @CTV_PowerPlay interview about wildfires. Parsing will follow. Watch, then follow along...

He avoids the question about man-made climate change and says there have always been forest fires. His government has kept the carbon levy on major emitters that was set up by the NDP. He tries to make it sound like it's a new program they are developing. 

He talks about using the proceeds to support research and development to shrink emissions, but the implication is that these developments will be geared to the fossil fuel industry as opposed to alternative green technologies. 

If he was planning to use the money to diversify Alberta's economy and support green energy tech, he would have said so. Always deliberate. Always planned messages, remember? 

Then he gets into hyperbole about how shutting down Alberta's economy would make no difference (who has said they want that? No one, but he would like people to see that as an NDP goal) and goes on about punishing people for heating their homes in the winter. 

Which the carbon tax did not do, everyone below a generous income level got a rebate that was greater than the amount paid in tax, but what do facts matter when you are trying to maintain a narrative that benefits you? 

Then he suggests that economists don't think the carbon tax approach makes any difference to emissions. Some Nobel Laureates would disagree with him, but, whatever... 

It's fascinating to find so much spin and misinformation in one short interview clip... 

I hope you have found this fun, and I hope you have found this interesting. Stay tuned for the next installment of media literacy!