It’s been obvious for years that good relations with the press are no longer required to communicate messages to voters. Plus! Brickbats for the Mounties and bouquets for the Globe
The RCMP seriously needs effective, ethical leadership. They lack both. As much as I recognize we need police, my warnings to my kids about the RCMP won't change until they do.
Refusal to describe crimes was one of the first failures of the local press. Back in the 80s a local paper decided that describing criminals was non-Diverse, so it just said "an individual". The paper immediately started to lose subscribers, but it DIDN'T CARE. Diversity mattered far more than readers or usefulness of news.
I was interviewed this week by CBC's Lily Dupuis to explain the troubles of the big Calgary water main. The result was clear, informative, scientifically correct, and provided the public with about all they could want to know. Clearly in the public interest.
And it was the best such piece on that topic; I've followed them all, and was also interviewed by the Herald and Global. Both were good, but CBC did the best job.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around does it make a sound?
Perhaps if CBC had maintained a mandate to inform the public on news of the day rather than propagandize and manipulate its audience/readership, more people would have watched your piece.
My point is that people aren’t watching/ listening/reading CBC like they used to. Trust is broken. Perhaps it is to our loss- perhaps you found the one cbc writer that isn’t a puppet/propagandist. Good for you.
You’ll have to provide citations on the loss of readers to CBC News stories. I went looking for figures on audience decline and could only find the story that it has increased from 14 million to 24 million since 2016.
So why do they need taxpayer money if they are so successful? Why are the polls very high for a party which has “defund the CBC” in its platform?
I have a quote for your from the same google search you did:
“A "dramatic drop in ratings" happened despite the broadcaster receiving $1.27 billion in taxpayer funds in the 2023-2024 fiscal year, Thomas said. "Now the CBC is dropping even more programming, becoming less relevant to Canadians every passing day."Jan 31, 2024”
You haven’t noticed that all the private newspapers and radio stations and so forth are ALSO losing money?
Other nations subsidize their national broadcasters, which ALSO lose money for the same reason the post office does: to serve the whole country, including rural people who aren’t worth it.
Difference is, most of those nations subsidize their national broadcaster much more heavily than we do. Why would all those nations do such a thing?
Because it’s a service they want, and are willing to pay for, exactly like in private industry, only you vote to spend the money.
I want to vote to spend that money, I want that service, I want it for poor rural people in Newfoundland who just lost their last newspaper yesterday.
And I’m not going to be argued out of it; I’ve liked CBCs work all my life.
There’s a lot of assumptions and weak accusations being made.
In the Strathmore case, you blame political correctness for the lack of information. What proof do you have that the police knew the suspects’ descriptions when the initial alert was issued? Why do you assume the police knew everything right away? What’s seems to have happened is that a murder occurred and the police immediately issued an alert before they had identified the suspects.
But why let facts get in the way when you can blame political correctness.
In the British case, you again assume the police knew everything right away.
Anyways, the lack of information did not caused the violence. We know that because even after information was released, the violence continued.
Thanks. The point is that people will fill a vacuum of information with gossip and misinformation so officials need to be better at anticipating that and getting as much information out as quickly as possible. I am aware it’s not always possible. In the Strathmore case there was a witness wounded/grazed at the time of the murder who was able to give police descriptions of the suspects. They declined to use that. In the UK case they were aware of who they had arrested but were restricted by their Young Offenders Act from releasing his name.
In reading this, the part that I would question is the thought that younger journalists are more partisan or biased. I would agree they are more open about their leanings. However, there is a long history of partisanship from the media. Think of the original Globe newspaper or the Chicago Tribune. Think of the Toronto star or the Sun media newspapers. They have long had a partisan take.
My other thought is that while more Canadians prefer unbiased content, that their money talks louder than their voices.
I do agree however, with many of the other points made in the article.
I would draw a sharp distinction between private, fee based media and a publicly owned broadcaster. The news consumer is free to financially support the publications or broadcasters of their choice. The paid subscription fee reflects a tacit acceptance of the standards for a particular outlet. The CBC , funded by taxpayers, must be held to a higher standard of objectivity and non-partisanship. The distrust, alienation and public resentment are a direct result of failing spectacularly in that mandate.
"journalists want to feel appreciated and important."
That is a poor reason for being a journalist. They should want to be a journalist because they enjoy what they are doing. Any other reason, is gong to lead to disappointment.
The press keeps reporting news without capturing what is material. We are moving to a complete net of known online, and known in the smart city through social credit, biometrics, facial recognition cameras.
Immediately following the violence, the ready solution was use of cameras. Reporters did not ask
1.when was the technology loaded
2. How many cameras were deployed
3. Who funded them
4. Where will citizen images land
5. Will ai be used to filter them
6. In this jumping off point of perpetual ccp style surveillance why is there silence. Media has proven itself disinterested in all the material stories of our time, pushing out narrative pieces.
7. How will the data be used
8. When did the programs to sort them get purchased
9. What rights do citizens have in such frameworks
10. What criminal legislation passed to accommodate this seizure of images.
11. What debate took place
12. When did beta testing take place
13. How long have cameras been operational
14. Did the smart city infrastructure fund , fund it
15 why are cameras mounting across all oecd countries
16. Why did the oecd set out goal legislation and impediment legislation
17. Why did the eu study chipping it's citizens in 2017
18. How do these new norms buttons against the rights of citizens to dissent.
19. Will these work with other schemes such as climate plans, green house gas budgets, ULEz, c40 arup Leeds report *** look at chapter 6 Peter,
20. Are we moving systematically to a social credit system.
21. Why has NO ONE NOTICED we are walking into a Permissive based Order. Where freedom is 2 feet in front of you only, and authoritarian governments can change the qr code from red to green.
22. What other social control, social credit schemes will work with known online and known in the physical world.
23. How will this work with Sadiq Khan's charge by the mile, also using cameras.
24. Will mobility rights also get tagged into these cameras
25. Will Sadiq Kansas technology be tested and then roll out across "western" nations(current leader of c40.org. Toronto is a c40 city)
54. Did we walk past search and seizure laws into perpetual government control
55. Did we walk past notions of privacy and autonomy
56. Did we walk into ccp style governance
57. And where has the press been exactly through this massive social change.
58. In that lens the speech you cannot say
58. The funding by government of euthanasia. What is the conflict of interest of authoritarian finding death of citizen. Legislation says someone can sign your consent when you aren't "able". Able not defined.
The non scratch the surface of the media is appalling. People recognize that real questions haven't been asked on so many topics I'm nauseous thinking of it.
Safe and effective
Or consensus
We aren't satisfied with governments passing authoritarian measures and corrals speech while media fills words on pages.
[21. Why has NO ONE NOTICED we are walking into a Permissive based Order. Where freedom is 2 feet in front of you only, and authoritarian governments can change the qr code from red to green.]
They more often change the QR code from green to red.
Equally pervasive, and ultimately misleading, is media reporting completely devoid of relevant context. Public distrust only deepens when agenda driven stories are intentionally left incomplete.
Hmmmm ..... have you given the area any thought, Lisa? I apologize for the smart alec start to this response but, truly, I just couldn't resist.
It is very clear that you have given this some considerable thought. I - or anyone - could come up with reasonable questions but you have terrifically pointed out how complex these areas are and that we, as consumers of information, must keep so much in mind.
And to conclude my comment I will conclude with your comment: "We aren't satisfied with governments passing authoritarian measures and corrals speech while media fills words on pages." Simply put, so many government measures have all the thought content of so much of the media, i.e. pretty doggoned little.
Thank you for your effort in making clear some of the complexity.
On the other hand, where is it written that a politician has to accept stupidity and bias in questioning / occasional attempted persecution from the media? The truth is, so many of we the great unwashed in the public get a kick out of these sorts of responses because we have seen so, so, so many times where the media is simply biased and "out to get" a politician, and where the media have - before starting questioning - determined the "slant" of the story.
I vote with Mr. Menzies that unbiased reporting is so important. Tough questions from an unbiased media are terrifically important to all Canadians. When the media only have tough questions but from a biased perspective that response from a politician is appropriate.
And, by the way, the bias is inherent in reporting from both sides of the spectrum in my view. Having said that, again, from my view, the "establishment" media so often reports with a leftist bias and a rightist bias sometimes is evident with some of the "minor" media (please pardon the expression you folks in the "minor" media!).
The point is that so often the bias is evident and it makes the resulting product much less useful. There are some journalists and some outlets that I trust to be reasonably unbiased but not at all the majority. In other words, many of the "news" items must be interpreted for bias before we can reasonably interpret for actual content.
Well stated. As a journalist your aim should be presenting all the facts without attaching star qualities to yourself by attacking according to your personal political beliefs.
Isn't there something called the 5 W's that journalists are supposed to use in reporting. I often see reporting where at least 1 of those is missing.
The RCMP seriously needs effective, ethical leadership. They lack both. As much as I recognize we need police, my warnings to my kids about the RCMP won't change until they do.
Refusal to describe crimes was one of the first failures of the local press. Back in the 80s a local paper decided that describing criminals was non-Diverse, so it just said "an individual". The paper immediately started to lose subscribers, but it DIDN'T CARE. Diversity mattered far more than readers or usefulness of news.
I was interviewed this week by CBC's Lily Dupuis to explain the troubles of the big Calgary water main. The result was clear, informative, scientifically correct, and provided the public with about all they could want to know. Clearly in the public interest.
And it was the best such piece on that topic; I've followed them all, and was also interviewed by the Herald and Global. Both were good, but CBC did the best job.
That's just my experience. This week.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around does it make a sound?
Perhaps if CBC had maintained a mandate to inform the public on news of the day rather than propagandize and manipulate its audience/readership, more people would have watched your piece.
I don't understand the comment.
How could you find out how many people watched "my" (Lily's, actually) piece?
And why say "watch" ?
My point is that people aren’t watching/ listening/reading CBC like they used to. Trust is broken. Perhaps it is to our loss- perhaps you found the one cbc writer that isn’t a puppet/propagandist. Good for you.
You’ll have to provide citations on the loss of readers to CBC News stories. I went looking for figures on audience decline and could only find the story that it has increased from 14 million to 24 million since 2016.
So why do they need taxpayer money if they are so successful? Why are the polls very high for a party which has “defund the CBC” in its platform?
I have a quote for your from the same google search you did:
“A "dramatic drop in ratings" happened despite the broadcaster receiving $1.27 billion in taxpayer funds in the 2023-2024 fiscal year, Thomas said. "Now the CBC is dropping even more programming, becoming less relevant to Canadians every passing day."Jan 31, 2024”
You haven’t noticed that all the private newspapers and radio stations and so forth are ALSO losing money?
Other nations subsidize their national broadcasters, which ALSO lose money for the same reason the post office does: to serve the whole country, including rural people who aren’t worth it.
Difference is, most of those nations subsidize their national broadcaster much more heavily than we do. Why would all those nations do such a thing?
Because it’s a service they want, and are willing to pay for, exactly like in private industry, only you vote to spend the money.
I want to vote to spend that money, I want that service, I want it for poor rural people in Newfoundland who just lost their last newspaper yesterday.
And I’m not going to be argued out of it; I’ve liked CBCs work all my life.
Listened to?
Read. It was a print piece. Perhaps comment after reading?
There’s a lot of assumptions and weak accusations being made.
In the Strathmore case, you blame political correctness for the lack of information. What proof do you have that the police knew the suspects’ descriptions when the initial alert was issued? Why do you assume the police knew everything right away? What’s seems to have happened is that a murder occurred and the police immediately issued an alert before they had identified the suspects.
But why let facts get in the way when you can blame political correctness.
In the British case, you again assume the police knew everything right away.
Anyways, the lack of information did not caused the violence. We know that because even after information was released, the violence continued.
Thanks. The point is that people will fill a vacuum of information with gossip and misinformation so officials need to be better at anticipating that and getting as much information out as quickly as possible. I am aware it’s not always possible. In the Strathmore case there was a witness wounded/grazed at the time of the murder who was able to give police descriptions of the suspects. They declined to use that. In the UK case they were aware of who they had arrested but were restricted by their Young Offenders Act from releasing his name.
In reading this, the part that I would question is the thought that younger journalists are more partisan or biased. I would agree they are more open about their leanings. However, there is a long history of partisanship from the media. Think of the original Globe newspaper or the Chicago Tribune. Think of the Toronto star or the Sun media newspapers. They have long had a partisan take.
My other thought is that while more Canadians prefer unbiased content, that their money talks louder than their voices.
I do agree however, with many of the other points made in the article.
I would draw a sharp distinction between private, fee based media and a publicly owned broadcaster. The news consumer is free to financially support the publications or broadcasters of their choice. The paid subscription fee reflects a tacit acceptance of the standards for a particular outlet. The CBC , funded by taxpayers, must be held to a higher standard of objectivity and non-partisanship. The distrust, alienation and public resentment are a direct result of failing spectacularly in that mandate.
Great column!
"journalists want to feel appreciated and important."
That is a poor reason for being a journalist. They should want to be a journalist because they enjoy what they are doing. Any other reason, is gong to lead to disappointment.
“If you want to be loved and appreciated become a fireman.”
The press keeps reporting news without capturing what is material. We are moving to a complete net of known online, and known in the smart city through social credit, biometrics, facial recognition cameras.
Immediately following the violence, the ready solution was use of cameras. Reporters did not ask
1.when was the technology loaded
2. How many cameras were deployed
3. Who funded them
4. Where will citizen images land
5. Will ai be used to filter them
6. In this jumping off point of perpetual ccp style surveillance why is there silence. Media has proven itself disinterested in all the material stories of our time, pushing out narrative pieces.
7. How will the data be used
8. When did the programs to sort them get purchased
9. What rights do citizens have in such frameworks
10. What criminal legislation passed to accommodate this seizure of images.
11. What debate took place
12. When did beta testing take place
13. How long have cameras been operational
14. Did the smart city infrastructure fund , fund it
15 why are cameras mounting across all oecd countries
16. Why did the oecd set out goal legislation and impediment legislation
17. Why did the eu study chipping it's citizens in 2017
18. How do these new norms buttons against the rights of citizens to dissent.
19. Will these work with other schemes such as climate plans, green house gas budgets, ULEz, c40 arup Leeds report *** look at chapter 6 Peter,
20. Are we moving systematically to a social credit system.
21. Why has NO ONE NOTICED we are walking into a Permissive based Order. Where freedom is 2 feet in front of you only, and authoritarian governments can change the qr code from red to green.
22. What other social control, social credit schemes will work with known online and known in the physical world.
23. How will this work with Sadiq Khan's charge by the mile, also using cameras.
24. Will mobility rights also get tagged into these cameras
25. Will Sadiq Kansas technology be tested and then roll out across "western" nations(current leader of c40.org. Toronto is a c40 city)
26. Will it work with green house budgets as measured in Globalcovenantofmayors.org
27. Does our country have a smart infrastructure on each streetlight (yes..or just about)
28. Will the smart infrastructure work with cbdc
29. How does this infrastructure or the information work with digital id.
30. Why aren't citizens aware.
31 why aren't the most meaningful changes to social architecture noticed.
33. How will any of this rolling architecture work with international treaties and regulations rolling out through the WHO and the UN in September
34. Why did the press nee ask tough questions or really raise it.
35. What is plan 2050 in Winnipeg.
36. What is changing in our official plans to enable smart infrastructure
37. Do those official plans change egress routes from the city
38. Do they change denisification (Winnipeg dig.. mandatory denisification as home expropriation)
39. Would 15 minute cities require liquor you could walk to.
49. How will facial recognition work with vehicles leaving (see Oxford 100 permissions to leave Oxford) there 15 minute area.
50. What else can the cameras do.
51. What technology has already been tested
52. Is this going in across Canada too
53. What do ICLEI c40 completestreetsforcanada.ca measure and have as goals.
54. Did we walk past search and seizure laws into perpetual government control
55. Did we walk past notions of privacy and autonomy
56. Did we walk into ccp style governance
57. And where has the press been exactly through this massive social change.
58. In that lens the speech you cannot say
58. The funding by government of euthanasia. What is the conflict of interest of authoritarian finding death of citizen. Legislation says someone can sign your consent when you aren't "able". Able not defined.
The non scratch the surface of the media is appalling. People recognize that real questions haven't been asked on so many topics I'm nauseous thinking of it.
Safe and effective
Or consensus
We aren't satisfied with governments passing authoritarian measures and corrals speech while media fills words on pages.
https://youtu.be/xvtKU6aeUr0?si=jOIwvHx_oVyAxfjT
[21. Why has NO ONE NOTICED we are walking into a Permissive based Order. Where freedom is 2 feet in front of you only, and authoritarian governments can change the qr code from red to green.]
They more often change the QR code from green to red.
Equally pervasive, and ultimately misleading, is media reporting completely devoid of relevant context. Public distrust only deepens when agenda driven stories are intentionally left incomplete.
Hmmmm ..... have you given the area any thought, Lisa? I apologize for the smart alec start to this response but, truly, I just couldn't resist.
It is very clear that you have given this some considerable thought. I - or anyone - could come up with reasonable questions but you have terrifically pointed out how complex these areas are and that we, as consumers of information, must keep so much in mind.
And to conclude my comment I will conclude with your comment: "We aren't satisfied with governments passing authoritarian measures and corrals speech while media fills words on pages." Simply put, so many government measures have all the thought content of so much of the media, i.e. pretty doggoned little.
Thank you for your effort in making clear some of the complexity.
Wellllllll ..... perhaps.
On the other hand, where is it written that a politician has to accept stupidity and bias in questioning / occasional attempted persecution from the media? The truth is, so many of we the great unwashed in the public get a kick out of these sorts of responses because we have seen so, so, so many times where the media is simply biased and "out to get" a politician, and where the media have - before starting questioning - determined the "slant" of the story.
I vote with Mr. Menzies that unbiased reporting is so important. Tough questions from an unbiased media are terrifically important to all Canadians. When the media only have tough questions but from a biased perspective that response from a politician is appropriate.
And, by the way, the bias is inherent in reporting from both sides of the spectrum in my view. Having said that, again, from my view, the "establishment" media so often reports with a leftist bias and a rightist bias sometimes is evident with some of the "minor" media (please pardon the expression you folks in the "minor" media!).
The point is that so often the bias is evident and it makes the resulting product much less useful. There are some journalists and some outlets that I trust to be reasonably unbiased but not at all the majority. In other words, many of the "news" items must be interpreted for bias before we can reasonably interpret for actual content.
Well stated. As a journalist your aim should be presenting all the facts without attaching star qualities to yourself by attacking according to your personal political beliefs.