Loading...
The Citizen, 2018-08-30, Page 5So the term “fake news”officially crossed the 49th parallel last week when former Conservative Party rebel Maxime Bernier warned about it as he announced his resignation from the party and his plans to found his own right-of-centre party in time for the 2019 federal election. It was only a matter of time before some Canadian politician tried to tap into the same vein of distrust that has been so successful for U.S. President Donald Trump. Here’s hoping Canadians aren’t as vulnerable as Americans to this charge that the media can’t be trusted. Down there, a recent Pew Research Center poll showed a mere 21 per cent of those interviewed said they had a “lot” of trust in information from national news outlets. A further 49 per cent said they had “some” trust, while 29 per cent had no faith in these organizations. To me it seems this distrust grew from a perfect storm of changing personal attitudes and changing technology. The reaction against runaway political correctness has drawn more people to leaders who “tell it like it is”, from former Toronto Mayor Rob Ford to U.S. President Donald Trump to, Bernier hopes, him. At the same time, people have been abandoning the long dominant sources of information like newspapers. They’re also “cutting the cord” on cable television, losing coverage from authoritative sources like CBC, CTV and Global news. Instead many people get their news from various online sources. The same weight goes to outlets that may be commenting off the cuff on issues as to news organizations with a team of reporters on the story who operate under a defined set of fact- checking principles. Not that the mainstream news media is blameless in the loss of public trust. Too often these days opinion leaks into news coverage. This is particularly a problem in broadcast news where star reporters often seem to be delivering personal essays instead of news coverage. The problem isn’t as bad in newspapers where there’s a more rigid wall between news coverage and opinion pages. Still, while journalists may recognize such subtleties, how many readers differentiate between a newspaper’s news and opinion pages? How many think the paper is shaping news coverage because of the editorials and columnists who comment on news events? Mixing opinion and news coverage has been a fact of life in newspapers almost from the invention of the printing press. Most towns had two newspapers in the 1800s because they were seen as a way to influence voters. If a newspaper had been started and it seemed a little too conservative in its leanings, often liberal leaders in the community would recruit someone to start up a newspaper that supported their views. The same would hold true if a liberal-oriented newspaper came first. As newspaper amalgamations took place, the publishers of the remaining papers realized they needed to be as neutral as possible to attract readers of all beliefs. They began separating opinion from news coverage. By the 1920s the policy that reporters shouldn’t try to shape opinion had taken hold, but then along came Henry R. Luce who created Time magazine specifically to promote his right wing ideas. He claimed you couldn’t have completely objective news coverage so why even try? Still, the majority of those attracted to journalism as a career tended to be liberal- minded. Lord Roy Thompson, who created a newspaper empire in Canada and Britain in the 1950s was asked once why he hired so many liberal writers. He replied philosophically, that liberals tended to make better writers than conservatives. The media is also a victim of humans’ competitive nature. Many years ago the head of the journalism program at Ryerson University taught a course in the value of ethical reporting but often somehow undercut the message to students by telling entertaining stories of the days when the Toronto Star and the now-defunct Toronto Telegram were so intent on breaking news stories first, that reporters from one paper might sabotage the cars of reporters from the other so they couldn’t get back to the office to write their stories. Competitiveness today seems on a more personal level that leads to a sort of “gotcha” spirit in covering politics where reporters hurl questions at politicians hoping they’ll slip up and say something that will create headlines for days. This, of course, is great it you dislike the politician being grilled but if you support him or her, you think the media is biased. That makes the internet a comforting retreat because there you can always find someone who thinks like you. Then you can dismiss any fact you don’t like as “fake news”. Other Views Shattered dreams and lessons taught Keith Roulston From the cluttered desk ‘Fake news’ charge crosses border Shawn Loughlin Shawn’s Sense Naomi H. has the dubious accolade of being the embodiment of how posting things on the internet can come back to haunt people. Naomi (no last name) was in the envious position of receiving an internship at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and, reportedly, took to Twitter to celebrate the announcement. Unfortunately for her, she left her adult dictionary at home and slipped some expletives in to the Tweet, saying: “EVERYONE SHUT THE *&^( UP I GOT ACCEPTED FOR A NASA INTERNSHIP.” Naomi’s tweet caught the attention of Homer Hickam, a pretty famous member of the National Space Council, which is in charge of NASA. As a matter of fact, his autobiography was the subject of the 1999 film October Sky, which details his rise from enterprising teen to NASA engineer. Hickam, in a single-word response to Naomi’s tweet, suggested she watch her language, to which the intern-to-be responded with a very low-brow response. Ignoring how anyone who wants to work at NASA could not be aware of Hickam and his contributions to NASA, especially given that the film based on his life was critically acclaimed, Naomi could serve as a poster child for why personal information shouldn’t be shared on the internet. What followed Hickam and Naomi’s exchange was a veritable storm of people trying to defend either of them. Soon after, it came to light Naomi had lost her internship. Blame was placed at Hickam’s feet, despite people coming to his defense, and some took it as a chance to blame a patriarchal system. Eventually, however, Hickam announced he had nothing to do with the retraction of the internship, going so far as to say that he has no control over hiring or firing and saying he had taken measures to try and help make sure the situation didn’t constitute a black mark on Naomi’s record. As a matter of fact, Hickam has been reported as saying that, after reviewing her resume, she deserves a chance to be a part of the aerospace industry and he plans to try and help her achieve a role better than the one she lost. Hickam went on to say that Naomi reached out with an apology, which he accepted. So the question remains, if it wasn’t Hickam, who was it that instigated the internship being rescinded? It was NASA, but it turns out those endeavouring to support Naomi’s cause may have been her biggest enemy. On more than one occasion, her supporters used the #NASA tag to bring attention to her plight which, sure enough, brought the attention of NASA staff, or so the internet says. So, in the end, it could have been the rabid defenders of Naomi that cost her her dream job, although it would be naive of me to say that no one from NASA would have seen the tweet without the tag. This takes me back to when social media sites like Facebook and Twitter were in their infancy and more mature people warned others not to share anything on the platforms they wouldn’t want coming up during a job interview. It was an important lesson then, but it’s even more important now. Between screenshots, people looking for a cause to fight for and the ability of tech savvy employers to find things online, it’s a gambit to be involved in Twitter or Facebook. We know this well around The Citizen’s offices. The very headshot that accompanies this column (while in need of an update I’m told) was once jokingly replaced with a funny picture my coworkers were able to find online. That’s a pretty benign example, but, with cautionary tales like Naomi’s out there, it’s little wonder people are wary of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. My friends in the teaching industry have renamed their Facebook accounts and subsequently deactivated them to make sure their students (or students’ parents) can’t find anything untoward about them. I know others still have gone about routing out their old Facebook photos and posts to try and make sure they don’t come back to haunt them. It reminds me of a parable that I used to like to tell my decade-younger siblings any time they post something questionable online (up until they were 18): I suggest they take it down, they say, “Oh yeah, because you never did anything wrong when you were our age.” Then I said to them, “No, I did plenty of stupid things when I was younger, but there wasn’t an online archive filled with photos or posts of that stupidity.” Sure, there are days when old posts float up that make me wonder what I was thinking but, it’s nothing I feel would haunt me more than the stories I tend to tell people of my past. Regardless, the tale of Naomi the would-be NASA intern is one I plan on bookmarking for future use when Mary Jane is old enough for social media. Regardless of the outcome, it’s as good a cautionary tale as there will be. Denny Scott Denny’s Den THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2018. PAGE 5. Lean into it This week, former Publisher Keith Roulston, who is also the President of our board of directors, tackles something in his column (just a few inches to the left) with which I’ve always struggled. Keith discusses the idea of bias in the media. This topic, of course, is front and centre in some very important discussions right now, many of which centre around U.S. President Donald Trump. The man often cries “fake news” when a media outlet publishes or broadcasts facts that prove to be unfavourable to him or his team. The debate is whether the news being reported is truly fake, and thus, bias against him, or if he’s simply trying to discredit a factual free press that’s bringing to light inconvenient truths about him. In his column, Keith discusses the changing media landscape and the whole “echo chamber” concept, but what he talks about that I’ve always had trouble grasping is the idea of a publication or network “leaning” one way or the other with its beliefs. I grew up with this concept on the Loughlin family kitchen table every morning. My father, a Toronto Police officer with 33 years on the job, read the Toronto Sun, the city’s right- leaning option. As I became interested in writing, journalism and news, however, I gravitated towards the Toronto Star for its excellent writing and reporting. This development did not go unnoticed by him, who would try to talk me off of the newspaper whenever he had the chance. He would cite what he felt were sentiments the newspaper held that were anti-police and he often discussed the political candidates the newspaper would endorse come election time. Whether it was the federal or provincial election, or even the Toronto mayoral election, you could set your watch to the Star’s endorsement not getting my father’s vote. Speaking of endorsements, though common, I’ve never felt they have a place with any unbiased media outlet. If a newspaper says it feels someone would be a better president than someone else, to me that would tarnish any coverage to follow. However, it’s a widely accepted practice and it’s not going anywhere. As a young man who wanted to grow up to be a reporter, I struggled with the basic concept of “leaning” one way or another. If a reporter is covering an event or digging up a story, I always felt that should be a very non- political exercise. I think I quoted the excellent New Yorker reporter Ronan Farrow recently in this space when he reported on a Democrat accused of sexual misconduct. He found himself having to answer to readers of all political stripes because of the man’s political leanings. Farrow answered that – and I’m paraphrasing – the issue at hand was sexual misconduct, not the man’s political views. In my first reporting class, our instructor walked into the room and called us truthseekers. That enthusiastic comment seems like it was from a different lifetime now. With so many “journalists” working to forward the agenda of one political party or another (including the one “working” for our honorable Premier) I have always taken pride in the fact that I work for an independent news organization that doesn’t take its directives from a head office with certain political interests that may not jive with my own. The Citizen doesn’t tend to lean (though I know Keith has told me that some readers over the years have disagreed) and that doesn’t just make me confident in what we do, but it makes me proud that our news is actually news and not a piece of anyone’s agenda.