Journalism based on prime ministerial melodrama and assumptions continues to feed the public a toxic brew of misinformation - Plus! Fact-checking the “fact” checkers
I don't think you're accepting the larger, uglier truth that ALL stories about First Nations grievances are small stories that people barely notice or remember. Yes, maybe the politicians made some speeches and flew flags at half-mast, a tempest on Parliament Hill, but if you asked 100 people on the street, not 10 could fill in any detail. It doesn't make top-10 lists of anybody's favourite issues.
If you're going to examine why journalism is distrusted, I think you have to start with networks that have to pay $700M for outright defamation with very extreme, consequential lies - and yet are very successful businesses, the more-successful for having told those exact lies to prevent audience flight to OAN and Newsmax.
SOME media are not 'trusted', if they tell the truth! There is a great demand for that British journalism, where the news organization has a very strong ideological position, stronger than their position on the facts.
Since the Iraq War, the NYT apology, the movie "Shock and Awe", I can't think of a news organization I really do trust to cover all sides. The WSJ called Colin Powell's speech that convinced nobody, "Irrefutable", in 60-point type across A1. How do I trust them?
There was as much evidence for WMDs as there was for dead kids in those schoolyards, but everybody ate it up with a spoon. Support was nearly unanimous in Canada:
..while Gwynne Dyer was trying to wave his arms. I've trusted him, but not any of those papers, ever since. If I don't get any apologies for a @!#$ing WAR, then don't expect any for the graves-story.
Thanks Peter for this.
I don't think you're accepting the larger, uglier truth that ALL stories about First Nations grievances are small stories that people barely notice or remember. Yes, maybe the politicians made some speeches and flew flags at half-mast, a tempest on Parliament Hill, but if you asked 100 people on the street, not 10 could fill in any detail. It doesn't make top-10 lists of anybody's favourite issues.
If you're going to examine why journalism is distrusted, I think you have to start with networks that have to pay $700M for outright defamation with very extreme, consequential lies - and yet are very successful businesses, the more-successful for having told those exact lies to prevent audience flight to OAN and Newsmax.
SOME media are not 'trusted', if they tell the truth! There is a great demand for that British journalism, where the news organization has a very strong ideological position, stronger than their position on the facts.
Since the Iraq War, the NYT apology, the movie "Shock and Awe", I can't think of a news organization I really do trust to cover all sides. The WSJ called Colin Powell's speech that convinced nobody, "Irrefutable", in 60-point type across A1. How do I trust them?
There was as much evidence for WMDs as there was for dead kids in those schoolyards, but everybody ate it up with a spoon. Support was nearly unanimous in Canada:
https://www.readthemaple.com/20-years-ago-canadian-media-lined-up-to-call-for-war-in-iraq/
..while Gwynne Dyer was trying to wave his arms. I've trusted him, but not any of those papers, ever since. If I don't get any apologies for a @!#$ing WAR, then don't expect any for the graves-story.