Canadian journalists are increasingly under attack online

[erinmore3775]

I believe that GG has struck the right chord.


"In the end, attacking journalists is fundamental to the destruction of democracy. Those who do so are expressing a desire to destroy democracy because they hold views that are unacceptable to the citizenry, are megalomaniacs, or grifters. Nothing good can come out of that.

Democracy is messy, it is imperfect, but it the best form of government available to us. Having a free press is messy and imperfect but is fundamental to democracy.

If you find yourself attacking the free press, then I would suggest it is your views that you should be examining, not the free press.

Attacks on journalists are an attack on democracy, and that is simply unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians. Without a free press, there is no democracy."

There is a difference in criticism and comment and the desire to suppress certain viewpoints. While I may not agree with the bias and criticism of certain reporters, broadcasters, and news outlet I support their right and privilege to,report the news as they see it. If their reporting crosses of lines of liable, inciting violence, or disparaging ethnic groups or religions then the suppression of those statements is justified.

Unfortunately, our society is becoming more and more polarized and there are those who simply make a living by giving their followers/listeners/readers exactly what they want to hear whether it is fact or fiction. Likewise the audience is often too busy checking their likes to form an opinion of their own. A free press is essential to democracy and freedom of speech and thought. While it is important to be able to criticize the press and change the news channel we should be cautious that criticism does not turn into suppression.

[Urban Cowboy]

What's being passed off as "journalism" these days is a joke. Heck half of them can't even spell their story title correctly.

But do you agree that threatening them with violence for that is unacceptable?

No of course not, but in many examples, I'm of the mind their boss should be demanding that they step it up a notch, or find a profession they are better suited for.

Once upon a time anything about to be published was proof read, an important step that was used to identify spelling as well as grammatical errors, not to mention confirming sources to avoid legal repercussions, but that certainly doesn't appear to be the case anymore.

It certainly seems that media outlets, including Castanet, are more interested in clicks than accurate reporting.

[nucksRnum1]

Or what the Liberals do to Rebel News when the ban them from covering debates and any conventions.
Because they ask hard questions.

Rebel doesn't ask hard questions. They ask leading questions that may trap leaders and politicians into answers that will rev up their captive audience. I watch CBC all the time. Rosemary Barton backs Liberal - NDP - Conservative and Green politicians into a corner all the time asking hard questions. The Rebel is outlandish in their partisanship that it's palpable. That's why they are excluded.

[The Green Barbarian]

Rosemary Barton backs Liberal - NDP - Conservative and Green politicians into a corner all the time asking hard questions.

LOL that was a funny one. Rosie is a Liberal lap dog. She's just plain awful.

[Pappywinkle]

Rosemary Barton backs Liberal - NDP - Conservative and Green politicians into a corner all the time asking hard questions.

So true. Sadly, many Canadians - mostly those on the far right - like to hurl sexist insults at Barton, which is just so disgusting.

[ferri]

Canadian journalists are increasingly under attack online

I sure get tired of reminding people what the actual topic is. *Helpful Hint* Look at the Subject line! :)

[Pappywinkle]

This thread serves as further proof that Canadian journalists indeed are increasingly under attack online. Just look at the many insults hurled at journalists, like Rosemary Barton. One only needs to look at comments sections on other social media sites to see more of this, which tends to target any journalists who don't work for far right outlets. This is likely the same group that insists that being the loudest online is a barometer for the popularity of their views, but as we've seen in elections here and south of the border, being the loudest doesn't translate at all to being even remotely the most popular.

[featfan]

I believe that GG has struck the right chord.


"In the end, attacking journalists is fundamental to the destruction of democracy. Those who do so are expressing a desire to destroy democracy because they hold views that are unacceptable to the citizenry, are megalomaniacs, or grifters. Nothing good can come out of that.

Democracy is messy, it is imperfect, but it the best form of government available to us. Having a free press is messy and imperfect but is fundamental to democracy.

If you find yourself attacking the free press, then I would suggest it is your views that you should be examining, not the free press.

Attacks on journalists are an attack on democracy, and that is simply unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians. Without a free press, there is no democracy."

There is a difference in criticism and comment and the desire to suppress certain viewpoints. While I may not agree with the bias and criticism of certain reporters, broadcasters, and news outlet I support their right and privilege to,report the news as they see it. If their reporting crosses of lines of liable, inciting violence, or disparaging ethnic groups or religions then the suppression of those statements is justified.

Unfortunately, our society is becoming more and more polarized and there are those who simply make a living by giving their followers/listeners/readers exactly what they want to hear whether it is fact or fiction. Likewise the audience is often too busy checking their likes to form an opinion of their own. A free press is essential to democracy and freedom of speech and thought. While it is important to be able to criticize the press and change the news channel we should be cautious that criticism does not turn into suppression.

I agree so much with her.

How many news organizations are not paid by the Lieberals?
The ones that are not bought Are The Free Press.

[MCB]

FWIW (probably a broken button and half a penny) I think Journalism as a whole should be presented free of political bias aka presented from a neutral standpoint.

[JLives]

Quality of news is not the topic. Increased violence, harassment and bullying of journalists is. Whether their reporting is agreed to or not. It's concerning that the treatment of these people is so glossed over. Focus. This is an important issue. We need to maintain a vigilant free press.

[fluffy]

The ones that are not bought Are The Free Press.

"Bought" is a fluid term in this instance. A huge amount of "media" has sold out to private agendas without so much as a penny changing hands once you delve into the less-than-mainstream world of bloggers and social media. There is a huge responsibility on media consumers to verify the accuracy of what they read before they pass it along, and clearly many are ignoring that responsibility. Do you think that producers of questionable and/or outright false content are not aware of this ?

[Bsuds]

Do you think that producers of questionable and/or outright false content are not aware of this ?

They seem to thrive on it.

[fluffy]

They seem to thrive on it.

That they do, it is at the heart of their survival. They count on people willing to accept what they say as truth without so much as a second's thought as to whether or not the author actually knows or even cares what they are talking about. Of course an essential step in maintaining an audience of such unwitting and unquestioning followers is to destroy the credibility of anyone who does know what they are talking about.

[Bsuds]

I think they make their money with advertising clicks. Too bad there wasn't a way to put a stop to that then they would have no incentive to post all their crap.

[rustled]

Do you think that producers of questionable and/or outright false content are not aware of this ?

They seem to thrive on it.

They certainly do.

Which is why it's so amusing to see people defending "free press" while refusing to acknowledge the reason many rational people are so critical of the press today. Legitimate criticism - attacks on shoddy journalism and biased reporting - is being lumped in with "bullying". It's not much different than employees whining about being "attacked" and "bullied" when they're told they are not doing their jobs properly.

There's a difference between receiving genuine threats and attacks, and feeling "attacked" because one can't handle legitimate criticism of one's work. The piece did not seem interested in making that distinction, nor do some posters in this thread. Here's some of the source material:

The fine print:

Base: If experienced online harassment/threats in past year (n=703)
Q10. Please identify which of the following factors have been targeted as part of the online harassment you experienced. Select all that apply.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/fil ... -09-v1.pdf

IMO, defending a free press requires much more than showing how well one can empathize with journalists who are experiencing harassment related to their work. It certainly requires more than being a patsy for manipulative "journalism".