The pathetic state of 'journalism' in BC

[flamingfingers]

While BC citizens are not alone in suffering from 'bought and paid for'' journalists, most of us are familiar with the MSM spin doctors who twist the truth to the breaking point. As an example, from Norm Farrell, here are some observations. Click on the link provided to see his graphs and the origin of his stats:

Monday, February 23, 2015
Agenda journalism

Black Press political reporter Tom Fletcher, whose wife is a Public Affairs Officer for the BC Liberal Government, occasionally recalls the nineties:

The dark decade, the dismal decade, the decade of destruction ...when investment, jobs and people packed up and headed for the B.C. border in response to the NDP governments of Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark...

That is Fletcher's memory and he reminds community newspaper readers throughout British Columbia whenever convenient. Many of us remember differently. BC Stats, a division of the provincial government, provides information to test Fletcher's accuracy. First, we can determine if people were departing in unusual numbers. Here are the population numbers:
• 1991: 3,404,049
• 2001: 4,049,297
• 2014: 4,657,947
The average annual population growth during the NDP era was twice what it's been under the Liberals:


All-industries job counts provided by BC Stats show:
• 1991: 1,577,500
• 2001: 1,920,900 - Average annual job growth: 34,340. Jobs per 1,000 population: 10.4
• 2014: 2,278,400 - Average annual job growth: 27,500. Jobs per 1,000 population: 5.8

(Click link to see graph)

Unfortunately, the situation is worse than it seems since many of the jobs created in recent years are McJobs: low-paying, low-prestige positions that require minimal skills. In the last generation, new service jobs are more than double the number of new goods-producing jobs. The following graphs show the number of positions in wealth creating industries at two particular points in time.

(Click link to see graph.)

Obviously this information is contrary to the bill of goods being sold by Tom Fletcher. He's not alone though. Gary Mason has referred to the BCNDP era as the "dismal decade" and various media members echo the concept. The late Ian Reid wrote that the Vancouver Sun had joined the BC Liberal militia and become "kind of their advance shock troops." They do this mostly by controlling the opinions expressed in editorials and news pages.

BC Liberals have courted the media assiduously and they use financial and other rewards to ensure loyalties. In addition, they employ paid staff and volunteers to troll social media to advance Liberal talking points and denigrate opponents.

Liberal allies fund astroturfing initiatives. An example was Concerned Citizens for B.C., a creation of government supporters led by Jim Shepard for a year before the 2013 election. Here is an example of messaging from CCBC:

They [NDP] took us from having one of the richest provinces in the country, where we were one of the strongest economies, to the absolutely worst economy in the province... to the point where we were on welfare...

Of course, in politics today, negative advertising and controversial claims are standard procedure. It is unsettling though when journalists become partisans, shaping reports to favour one segment of the political spectrum. It is common for reporters to repeat statements made by politicians without concern for accuracy or balance. Lies go unchallenged as if they are truth. A particularly odious example was published in Kelowna's Daily Courier, a publication owned by an ex-convict who was jailed for fraud in the USA.

One must not underestimate the destructive potential of publications serving cities and towns outside the lower mainland. Properties owned by Black Press, Glacier Media and Continental Newspapers are seen by more citizens than the big city dailies and generally, their pages reflect the interests of three very wealthy men: David Black, Sam Grippo and David Radler.

Because there are few alternatives available and populations are spread widely, stories that are biased or inaccurate are more likely to go unchallenged.

Columnist/reporters like Tom Fletcher find a happy home in their workplaces. They are willing to pervert lofty ideals of journalism to serve the owners' ideological purposes and to preserve their own places in the effort. Too often though, truth is the victim.

http://northerninsights.blogspot.ca/

[George+]

Read the Tyee, online.

It, at least , has some balance to its articles.

[The Green Barbarian]

Read the Tyee, online.

It, at least , has some balance to its articles.

[Veovis]

Read the Tyee, online.

It, at least , has some balance to its articles.

Read The Onion. It's about as honest.

[Urbane]

So if the NDP years weren't dismal then I suppose they were re-elected in 2001? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . .

I know, BC voters were so happy with the NDP that they decided to elect only two NDP candidates. They just wanted to give the rest a well deserved break. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . .

I love people who complain about history being re-written and do guess what?? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . .

[my5cents]

In keeping with this topic this may interest many.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp

The topic is "How big business spins the media", the same sadly is true about government.

[rustled]

In keeping with this topic this may interest many.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp

The topic is "How big business spins the media", the same sadly is true about government.

Thanks for posting this. I'm guilty of having made assumptions about that case, too. After watching this and a related YouTube and taking the temperature of my own home-brewed, I'm not sure I'll ever be comfortable calling a lawsuit "frivolous" again.

[flamingfingers]

Public Relations (Spin Doctors) Deliberately Deceived Public About Global Warming and Climate Change
Guest Blogger / November 6, 2013
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

“Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” E.R. Beadle.

In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton, graduate of Harvard Medical School and author of State of fear, said,

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We are in virtual reality primarily as Public Relations (PR) and its methods are applied to every aspect of our lives. The term “spin doctors” is more appropriate because it is what they are really doing. A spin doctor is defined as: “a spokesperson employed to give a favorable interpretation of events to the media, esp. on behalf of a political party.”

It doesn’t say truthful interpretation. There are lies of commission and omission and this definition bypasses the category of omission. It’s reasonable to argue that if you deliberately commit a sin of omission it encompasses both. A ”favorable interpretation” means there is deliberate premeditated deception. The person knows the truth, but selects information to create a false interpretation.

the rest is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/p ... te-change/

[Tacklewasher]

Thanks for posting this. I'm guilty of having made assumptions about that case, too. After watching this and a related YouTube and taking the temperature of my own home-brewed, I'm not sure I'll ever be comfortable calling a lawsuit "frivolous" again.

I remember this from when the case hit the news, and I think the takeaway isn't calling lawsuits frivolous (many are) but in not simply accepting the media's word on these things.

Which goes to this thread title. Take away the "in BC" part and I think it is far more accurate. The media these days really sucks. And I think there needs to be some way to hold them more accountable when they clear out lie (like Brian Willaims did) and when they don't do the research to support their story. Plus, I think every editor should be fined a couple of grand when the headline of a story is not supported by the story itself.

[rustled]

Thanks for posting this. I'm guilty of having made assumptions about that case, too. After watching this and a related YouTube and taking the temperature of my own home-brewed, I'm not sure I'll ever be comfortable calling a lawsuit "frivolous" again.

I remember this from when the case hit the news, and I think the takeaway isn't calling lawsuits frivolous (many are) but in not simply accepting the media's word on these things.

Which goes to this thread title. Take away the "in BC" part and I think it is far more accurate. The media these days really sucks. And I think there needs to be some way to hold them more accountable when they clear out lie (like Brian Willaims did) and when they don't do the research to support their story. Plus, I think every editor should be fined a couple of grand when the headline of a story is not supported by the story itself.

There will be frivolous lawsuits, but I won't be so quick to think I know what I need to know to make that call.

We (as a society) get what we support. Right now, it's quick-as-a-wink reporting. News agencies rely less than before on editors and fact checkers, because the public wants it now. We click on the most interesting headlines, and once we've clicked it matters little to the "news" provider whether we feel the content even supports the headline, much less whether the content was fair.

[my5cents]

A classic example of "The Pathetic State of Jornalism in BC" is the graphic used by CTV everytime (and long since shown to be completely false and misleading) the topic of the Northern Gateway Pipeline is in their news.

CTV shows the cartoon depiction of the wide open expanse of Douglas Channel that Endbridge invented, instead of reality. The question being "what's in this for CTV ?" Could it just be stupidity?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/16 ... 89223.html

[flamingfingers]

Truth as a victim - "Communications Specialists" do not inform the public - they disinform:

THE TYRANNY OF THE TALKING POINT

Spin doctors control what information government does and doesn’t release:

Dear government spin doctor

I am working on a story about how the job you’re doing is helping to kill Canada’s democracy.

I know that your role, as a so-called communications professional, is to put the best spin on what the government is or isn’t doing.

That means you often don’t respond the questions I ask, you help elected officials do the same thing and you won’t let me talk to those who actually have the answers.

While this may work out very well for you, it doesn’t work out so well for my audience who, by the way, are taxpayers, voters and citizens.

So your refusal to provide me with information is actually a refusal to provide the public with information.

And if the public doesn’t know what their government is actually doing, it can continue doing things the public wouldn’t want it to do.

That just doesn’t seem very democratic to me. Does it seem democratic to you?

I understand you’re just doing your job.

I did that job before myself before I became a journalist, working as a communications officer for the British Columbia government.

So I don’t think you’re a bad person.

But you should know a few things about me.

My job isn’t to help you put the best spin on what the government is or isn’t doing.

My job is to tell the truth.

And, because that’s my job, you should know a few other things about how I’m going to report this story.

First, if you don’t respond to my questions, I’m going to let my audience know that.

Second, if you respond to my questions with non-answers, I’m going to let my audience know that too.

Third, I’m not going to put those non-answers in my story for the sake of false balance.

That’s because me asking questions about what the government is doing wrong isn’t an opportunity for you to simply tell the public about what government is doing right.

You have a big advertising budget for that.

Instead, it’s an opportunity to explain to the public why the government is or isn’t doing that thing I asked you about.

And, finally, if you refuse, ignore or interfere with my requests to interview public officials, my audience will also find out about that.

This may sound like hardball at best and blackmail at worst. But it’s actually the last and only defense I have against you and your colleagues.

Public relations professionals outnumber journalists more than four to one in this country – and for good reason.

It pays to promote and protect the powerful but it doesn’t pay to hold them to account.

My hope is that more journalists will also start routinely telling their audiences about the strategies and tactics you use to frustrate the public’s right to know.

If that happens then the public might start caring about the damage that’s doing to our democracy.

And, maybe, just maybe you might start rethinking what you are doing.

After all, there was a time when journalists could actually talk to public officials without having someone like you always watching over their shoulder and telling them exactly what to say.

I know it’s a long shot.

But it’s the only shot I can take against the tyranny of your talking points.
Sincerely,
Sean Holman, Journalist

Read his squibs here:
http://seanholman.com/2015/02/23/the-ty ... ing-point/

[GrooveTunes]

http://www.straight.com/blogra/402951/watch-anti-harper-ad-cbc-refuses-air

[flamingfingers]

http://www.straight.com/blogra/402951/watch-anti-harper-ad-cbc-refuses-air

So 'attack ads' concocted by the HarperCons are OK but media are censoring us from ads attacking the HarperCons?

[rustled]

From the story:

The non-profit group, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, have created an ad highly critical of Stephen Harper's government. ... The group approached the CBC to air the ad, only to have it rejected. The CBC claims its decision was to avoid appearing as if it was endorsing the ad's campaign.

I see some issues with the ad. It's certainly amusing (and would make a great skit on a comedy show), but the negative stereotyping alone could give one pause and the clear implication our prime minister is a mafia don takes it well over the line. I would expect the senior management of the CBC to fire employees who chose to air this as an ad, no outside interference required, simply for showing a lack of good judgement, which is perhaps why the rest of the media turned it down, too.

Still,I no longer have television, so I'm not current on what's fashionable in attack ads today. Maybe this one doesn't cross the line because that line has moved (a lot) from where it was five years ago. Can you provide examples of non-anti-Harper ads (concocted by the Conservatives or anyone else) which the networks will air, that show the line has moved?

The news story's fearmongering (that I may be listed with CSIS just for watching it) is a bit on the paranoid side, don't you think? If CSIS is adding my IP address to a watch list over this ad, it's a safe bet my IP address is already there. When journalists start tossing that kind of thing into their stories, it really doesn't help readers think with clear heads. Not an example of good journalism, in my opinion; rather the contrary.