The response to these leaks was as expected. All governments involved denounced the act of releasing the documents, but did not deny the validity of the documents; a very public case of ad hominem.

The public ad hominem has also been the standard response to the latest release of documents by Wikileaks. All governments involved, including the Canadian government, have denounced the release of these documents as dangerous and “harmful to national security.” Lawrence Cannon, the Foreign Affairs minister to the Harper government, characterized the leaks as “deplorable” and continued to say that the leaks “do not serve anybody’s national interests.”

While it may not serve any government’s interest, it seems to be a strange and dangerous characterization that the public, specifically organizations such as Wikileaks, should tailor their actions to serve the government’s actions rather than vice versa.

In fact, Rep. Peter King, a Republican from the great state of New York, has gone so far as to say that Wikileaks should be dubbed a “Terrorist” organization akin to Al-Qaida.

Not only does King argue that Wikileaks, an organization that does little more than feed media outlets, should be considered a terrorist organization but he follows suit with other government officials, claiming that the release of the cables by Wikileaks damages national security and puts lives at risk. Lawyers for Julian Assange (editor of Wikileaks) argued quite the opposite, saying that “I think you’ll find, if you look at it, there is no threat to either the security of individuals or ongoing operations.”

I think the majority of us remember writing essays in school and an important lesson can be taken from those essays and applied to this case. The burden of proof is implicit on those making a positive claim; in this case the governments arguing that these leaks harm national security. Lawrence Cannon and his colleagues who have joined arms in attacking the character of Julian Assange and Wikileaks have shown no proof that these releases harm national security. Until the public is shown the proof that these documents hurt national security, or indeed put lives at risk, than we have no choice but to believe the lawyers for Wikileaks. I, as well as many others (I hope), see a problem with putting blind-faith in our government as we are being asked to do.

It is a sad state of affairs when governments around the world devolve into name-calling and ad hominem attacks on those organizations, such as Wikileaks, who are working to open governments and expose things such as civilian casualites in Iraq and Afghanistan, friendly-fire incidents in warzones and a failure to investigate crimes done by an invading force against the civilian population in a war-torn country.

Aside….

Does this remind anyone of the movie Mean Girls? Girls (the government in this case) obsessed with gossipping?

Now, to be honest, I didn’t watch the whole thing. That’s the point though; I couldn’t. Though political theatre is never likely to win a Tony award it can usually peak my interest and keep me entertained. Mishaps like Peter Mackay’s hilarious comment directed at Belinda Stronach  and (though before my time) Trudeau’s legendary coining of ‘fuddle-duddle’ usually keep me entertained.  I even watched the throne speech.  Yeah, how many of you can say that and paid attention throughout? That’s what I thought.

But I digress. This interview with YouTube was clearly an attempt to reach out to youthful voters who are connected with the series of tubes (i.e. internet). It failed. Miserably. The one thing that Stephen Harper forgot is that us youthful voters like to be entertained, That’s what YouTube is for; entertainment.  The internet has great potential to connect people and be a great medium for political discussion, but for Christ Sake Stephen (may I call you that?),  take some caffeine pills or something, forget to comb your hair,  have a drink (it is St. Patrick’s after all), but for my sake and the rest of my generations sake, entertain us. It really is the only thing we want.

24-hours of breaking news

Usually, little ol’ bloggers like myself would think that taking on someone with many more advanced degrees and status in the real world would be a bad idea. I, on the other hand, have no qualms about doing just that.

Recently,  the news that Canadian singer/songwriter Gordon Lightfoot was dead went viral. Thankfully it turned out to be a hoax. A hoax perpetrated by the social media and news outlets that we all have grown accustomed to. Abby Goodrum, the Velma Rogers Graham Research Chair in News, Media and Technology at Ryerson University’s School of Journalism, argued in an article published in The Mark News said this,

“The Lightfoot example has less to do with the old media’s inability to harness new media and social networking technology than it has to do with the old media’s failure to do what we expect them to do: check facts; seek multiple sources for verification; filter through the noise and misinformation; get to the bottom of a story and get it right, no matter what a phone prankster posing as an authority and the mob on Twitter say.”

I fundamentally disagree with her.  For anyone who watched Global News Toronto that night at 11pm would have heard from Leslie Roberts that Global in fact did check with multiple sources, all of which confirmed the news that Gordon Lightfoot had passed.  The sources themselves turned out to be wrong. Therefore, Global News, did what they are expected to; check sources and reported what they knew. They also admitted that they had made a mistake and corrected the information when they learned, from checking sources, that they had been incorrect.

Now this isn’t to say that old media did everything right. Of course they didn’t, if they had, they would have known that Gordon Lightfoot was in fact alive and well. The problem though, is not the internet and the fact that bad news travels quickly, but the problem is that the audience is expecting information quickly and old media has given into that expectation by presenting news expediently rather than accurately.

Not only has old media, i.e. television, given into the expectation of presenting news quickly; they created the expectation. The onset of the 24-hour news channel provided viewers with news whenever they wanted it. The side effect of this was that watching television still had to be entertaining.  Therefore the news had to have something important (and thus entertaining) to report, whatever it happens to be. News has transformed from being important facts affecting everyone (politics, business, etc) to how to lose weight, dress better, or be happier. News has simply become a story told to fill time; the details of the story are expendable.

Aside: As usual, The Onion New Network has perfectly presented the absurdity of the 24-hour news channel.

Breaking News: Some Bullshit Happening Somewhere

It is not the mob mentality of new media forcing journalists to make mistakes. It is 21^st century, television journalism that is begrudging standards and chipping away at professionalism.

~James

Spelling mistake in National Post commercial

Caught this while watching television. It’s part of a National Post commercial. Maybe the National Post should do more proofreading.

“Security theatre, not acutal theatre.”

While I usually just sigh to myself, shake my head in disgust and throw these ill-fated pamphlets out before reading them, I decided to read this one. Why you ask? Well, as you know, government is currently prorogued. So I couldn’t quite get my head around which possible way the Conservatives were trying to spin my ideas now.

Standing up for Canada?

It turns out, according to our Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty, MP for Whitby-Oshawa (from whom this pamphlet was written), the Liberals aren’t tough on crime like the Conservatives are. To be fair to the ruling party, the Conservatives have introduced a number of crime bills, which the Liberal Party has opposed.

What motivated me to sit down and write this was this gem, “Our government brought forward legislation to get tough on criminals… but Ignatieff’s Liberals delayed legislation…” (italics mine) Wow. I am almost driven to speechlessness by  this statement. Yes, the Liberals may have tried to delay the legislation that they did not agree with; that is their job. That is why they are the Official Opposition. The point of democracy, my Conservative Party friends, is to work together to build a consensus that is best for the majority, if not all, Canadians.

Though the Conservatives being upset that the Liberals don’t agree with them isn’t what filled me with contempt. What enraged me was the complete lack of hindsight that the Conservative Party seems to have. Delaying legislation? That’s not that bad. The Conservatives on the other hand, killed their own legislation, by proroguing parliament for ill-conceived and ill-received political aspirations.

To send out these pamphlets telling Canadians that the Liberals are the ones not trying to move this country forward is not only hypocritical but reeks of ignorance, contempt and an apparent belief that the average Canadian is not only completely absent-minded but can’t remember what happened just over a month ago.

I am not only absolutely tired of the Conservative campaigning when no election has been called, but I am beyond insulted by the fact that the Conservative Party killed their own legislation for political gain and are now trying to convince the Canadian public that the Liberals are the ones delaying legislation.

Mr. Harper, if you want my vote, stop campaigning when no election has been called, stop proroguing parliament, stop the political theatre that you have created and get to work. Rather than telling the voter to stand up for Canada and vote Conservative, you need stand up for Canada, Mr. Harper, and move this country forward.

The Internet, as a tool to consume information, has dramatically changed how people consume news. First, the Internet has opened up doors to previously invisible ideas. Ideas from the other side of the world can present themselves in front of the willing eyes of a reader in less time than it takes for that reader to go make physical contact with someone.

As they say, competition makes everyone better. The expansion of the Internet, the new marketplace of ideas (to steal a term from J.S. Mill), is allowing people to form their own opinions and it is also allowing people greater access to people and ideas that they agree with. This is the beautiful part of this newfound marketplace. This ability for people to find politically like-minded individuals, to share opinions and fuel their hatred for the “other” side, has made populations as a whole more politically active.

It’s also no surprise that people are seeking out like-minded individuals on the Internet.

For the most part, the mainstream media seems to have ignored people’s newfound partisanship. The big news networks, aside from shockingly bland “Editorials,” seem to be stuck with the idea that news still needs to objective, bi-partisan and fair and balanced.

It’s ironic that the one news organization that is especially not “Fair and balanced,” is the one that claims to be. Fox News’ slogan of “Fair and Balanced,” may not be exactly fair, but it’s definitely working.

Fox News is doing well.  Really well.

In fact, Fox News is doing so well that it:

“is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.”

Fox News also finished 2009 with double the viewers of any other News network.

I argue that, Fox News is doing well because they have adapted; they are giving people in this new, connected, partisan and politically radical world exactly what they want; contentious, partisan and entertaining news.  Fox News is feeding the fire of anger directed at the Obama administration with the “9/12 Project“, despite what the CATO institutethinks, and they are doing this for ratings. They shouldn’t be blamed for that, people have the ability to find out information for themselves, news networks should not have to coddle their audiences and pander to their sensitivities.

For too long, the anchors of the 6pm and 11pm news have sat atop their self-made pedestal of “truth”, and told people what they need to care about. For too long, the 6pm and 11pm newscasts and the daily newspaper were the only way to consume news; that’s now changed. In a world where people receive 140 character updates on everything on their phones 24 hours a day, the citizenry has the ability to research and form their own opinion. People no longer need to be told what is news, they can find out for themselves. “Real News” has always strived to be “objective,” and provide people with facts that they could then interpret for themselves. Fox News has simply given them more work. Fox is providing them with an opinion and simply put, pissing people off. It’s this anger, on one side of the issue or the other that is engaging. Fox is more entertaining and thought provoking than the majority of news outlets and not only should they not be blamed for that but they should be embraced. News needs to engage people and push them to make changes to what they see is wrong.  The other networks need to do the same, on one side of the political coin or the other, or they will simply be superfluous in the collective conversation.

~James

What will the media landscape look like in the next decade? Will the Internet replace the traditional media? What will be the role of advertisers and business in the delivery of news? I predict that not only will radio, television, print and the Internet be surviving and in some cases thriving, they will also look back through the history of media and take a lesson from the pages of the 19th century. Mainstream media will be forced to do this because of ever-increasing competition.

Since the advent of subscription cable, specialty television networks have been sprouting up and thriving in an era where people want specific information quickly and easily. Networks such as Outdoor Life Network, TSN, HBO, and The Food Network are all thriving with specialized programming. Even CBC and CTV have 24-hour news channels. These specialty channels have mimicked newspapers of the 19th century. By playing to a small, specific audience these networks have been able to focus and sometimes bias coverage of certain stories to play to the audience. Though bias in the 24-hour news channels is debatable, it is possible that it will become blatant.

Newspapers of the 19th century were essentially the specialty channels of today, and openly played to a certain audience and biased their stories towards the emotions and concerns of their audience. With the opportunities to consume information growing at an exponential pace throughout all mediums, specialty websites and channels have been growing.

It is not just the current recession forcing news organizations to change. The advent of the Internet as made the market of information so wide that it is difficult to compete for an audience. The effect of this, I hope, will be a specialization of news organizations in an effort to attract a specific audience and advertisers that want to appeal to that audience.

Magazines such as Newsweek have begun to revamp their format and pander to a specific audience. While traditionally a mainstream, general, current affairs magazine, Newsweek has recently decided to shift their audience to a well-educated, well-paid, elite individual. Thumbing its nose at the working class.

The possibility of media organizations turning towards ever-increasing specialization leads to the possibility of the problems associated with specialized media.  In the 19th century, media mogul William Randolph Hearst ran a “yellow” newspaper and was an expert in exaggerating news, specifically the Spanish-American War.

While many dismiss yellow journalism as useless and morally wrong, the prolific writer H.L. Mencken claimed in the May 1927 edition of the American Mercury that,

“The government we suffer under is still corrupt, but, especially in the cities, it is surely not as corrupt as it used to be. Yellow journalism had more to do with that change than is commonly put to its credit.”

Hunter was certainly not objective.

Yellow journalism, which has the potential to thrive in highly specialized environments, has a greater capability of promoting change than traditional objective journalism. The journalist that does not have to worry about being called biased and subjective will have more motivation to find a progressive and challenging story and will be more willing to attack that which is considered morally wrong. It will give the journalists a voice of their own rather than the brand marketed to the masses.

As Hunter S. Thompson said, “You can’t be objective about Reagan.”

It is of no question that advertisers have the ability to determine the stance of organizations on some subjects. A newspaper funded mostly by pharmaceutical companies would think twice about publishing a story criticizing the pharmaceutical industry. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Despite this, a news organization with a clear bias will not attract advertisers that disagree with the view but rather those than want to attract the audience of that newspaper.  This is the potential of specialized news organizations.

The future of the media is that of specialized organizations. Journalists and newsrooms will be pandering to a certain crowd and tailoring their bias to attract and agree with the audience in question.  The effect of this will be an apparent contradiction in theory. Not only will mainstream media be an agent for change and educating the public, but it will also be trying to maintain a certain status quo. Newsrooms will question and challenge groups that do not affect advertising dollars. Journalists will not attack things their audience agrees with.  A working class newspaper will have no problem criticizing the corporate side of business, union-busting corporations and government acts which may hurt the lives of the wage laborer. Likewise, a newspaper devoted to people in the corporate side of the business world will have no problem promoting the ideas and attacking the left-leaning side of the political world.

Furthermore, newsrooms will also want to maintain the status quo of its audience; as any business would. Newspapers, websites, television and radio will be even more dependent on advertising dollars as public funding of news becomes less and less important. The calls for CBC to be privatized are becoming stronger and publically funded news in the United States is almost impossible to find.

While in a world without the Internet, specialization of this kind could be dangerous. People without access to differing ideas would essentially be brainwashed; forced to succumb to an idea for lack of choice.  The Internet has the potential to unlock chains of ignorance.  The worldwide encyclopedia of knowledge and ideas that the Internet is, allows people the freedom to access any piece of information available.  While the Internet also allows for a vast amount of misinformation, it has the ability to refute the misinformed. The Internet will replace education as society’s great equalizer.

~James

With the recent suspension of our democratic rights as Canadian citizens as a result of the prorogation of parliament, I don’t feel ashamed to suspect the value of my human rights. Although there has been a limited response to this undemocratic act, the prorogation stands as one of the most partisan suspensions of our rights in recent (if not all of) Canadian history. This act has made me truly consider how important my rights are in this country. What happened today, in the case of Omar Khadr, has only served to advance this concern.

Omar Khadr

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that they could not enforce a lower-court ruling to force the federal government to request the repatriation of Mr. Khadr, but that his present detention stands as a violation of his Charter rights. The Court decided that because they would intervene in Canadian foreign policy, which stands within the jurisdiction of the legislative arm of the government, they would not issue a direct legal ruling on the case. Despite refraining from this action, they actively affirmed that Mr. Khadr’s rights are being denied during his detainment at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Let me start by saying that I do not necessarily prescribe guilt to Mr. Khadr. With that in mind, I do believe that his detainment holds some merit but that his innocence should remain intact until he is proven otherwise. I do not know all the facts of the situation which led to his imprisonment but this is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand in this case, is simply that Mr. Khadr is a Canadian citizen and that his rights are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I was trolling the message boards on CBC.ca last night, I became quickly aware that there are a number of Canadians who are willing to simply write off Mr. Khadr as a terrorist without any appreciation of the conditions he has lived in or the evidence of the case.

Mr. Khadr stands as the last remaining inmate to hold citizenship in an occidental nation. The remaining citizens have been actively repatriated, tried, and imprisoned or released in their respective countries. Yet, Mr. Khadr remains. I can partially understand the American standpoint on this case. They say that he killed one of their soldiers and they are attempting to try him for that crime. But that does not excuse the inaction of the Canadian government in its response to his situation.

A simple question should be raised here. If Mr. Khadr is to be defended by the same rights that apply to all Canadian citizens equally, then why has the federal government of this country (through successive Liberal and Conservative administrations) been so adamantly opposed to extending this protection to him? I’d like to believe that should I be imprisoned in a foreign jail that my government would at least make some attempt to protect my rights, especially after the highest court in that country had confirmed that this detention stood as contradictory to those personal rights. Yet, we still see so little action.

Rights are the fundamental infrastructure to our nation. By their very nature, they come to the forefront most often when they are being violated. Yet, if we cannot extend these rights to a man (who was, not long ago, a boy) then what purpose do they hold? If we can’t even pretend that our rights are to be applied to our citizens, then why do we even pretend to stand for them? Unless my government finally stands up and protects the rights that we are entitled to (even those who are subject of such harsh punishment), I get the undeniable feeling that this cynicism that I am allaying will not be mollified. Unless they do that, I don’t even know if I can believe in the Charter anymore.

~ Drew

From Canoe.ca

Once again, Stephen Harper has reneged on his campaign promises of reforming the Canadian Senate. I believe that most people recall the PM’s grand plans to reform the senate into an elected body, with Senators sitting for 6-year terms; a plan that was driven by his promises of accountability. Despite these grand overtures, Harper has once again named a number of partisan Conservatives to the country’s higher house in favour of developing (some form of) a majority. Claiming the upper house stood as a bulwark to the progress of his government (making no mention of his legislative minority in the House of Commons), Harper has re-affirmed his commitment to promoting accountability only when it suits his political interests.

If Harper is so determined to increase accountability and democracy in this country, as he claimed in his last two campaigns, should he be so apt to embrace patronage when it becomes available to him (as is the case with Senate appointments)? His theme here is that these five senators are “crime and punishment” conservatives. They are people who stand tough on crime and will provide moral leadership (as well as numeric superiority) in the upper house. He believes that since his government’s crime bills have been blocked on several occasions, he needs to develop a majority in one house which will allow them to push through this legislation. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that the majority of the House of Commons (the elected representatives of Canadians) have steadfastly denied this legislation because it is not the will of the majority of Canadians. So not only is he going against his campaign promises to reform an undemocratic institution, he is actively pushing through legislation which is widely viewed as being against the political will of the elected representatives of Canadians.

This man never ceases to amaze me with his smug and megalomaniac behaviour.  He has been a study in saying one thing and doing the opposite. By filling the Senate with men and women who have long bought into his “cult of personality” (Kool-Aid anyone?), Harper has managed to once again stomp on Canadian democracy. Add this to the most recent prorogation of parliament and I begin to worry that our PM has become exactly what he railed against during the years of Liberal government that he sat in opposition: a tyrant. He has become so comfortable in power that he neglects his responsibilities to Canadians. He neglects that we have a constitutional right to elect representatives, who in turn vote to do what we please. He neglects the checks on his power and acts as if it is absolute. Mr. Harper’s hyocrisy in claiming that he stands for accountability while pursuing these avenues is, to date, one of the most vile and devious acts of his time as PM.

~ Drew

(Note: What makes this entire situation even more devastating to me is the appointment of Bob Runciman, who has stood as the MPP in my riding since before my birth. The rest of Ontario (as he acted as leader of the Ontario opposition), and even Canadians, have probably heard of him through some of his “finer” moments, most notably his reference to Belinda Stronach as a Dipstick, and for his noted views on race and responsibility for crime in Toronto. I implore you to take a look at your newest Senator)

courtesy of the CBC

For those of you who don’t routinely visit the Conservative Party of Canada’s website, and considering it’s the Conservative Party’s website, I think it’s safe to assume not many of you do. They recently began advertising their “Ignatieff.Me” section in which they show Ignatieff saying “It’s your America, just as much as it is mine,” clearly as part of the ongoing attempt to paint Ignatieff red, white and blue…. or at least not the red and white  for which we stand on guard.

They also try to argue that Ignatieff is only politically active for his own elitist, selfish reasons. Well, that’s debatable.

Though I find it hard to believe that the Conservatives think they can bask in some divinely inspired selflessness.

Not after Proroguing government again.

I say that suspending parliament (at all, nevermind three times in four years) is selfish because it rips away open discussion in Parliament and strips criticism from the set of tools that the opposition parties have to keep the government in check. Without the ability to keep Prime Minister Harper and his Party in check the country is stripped of the very ideals that we hold dear.

Harper’s spokesperson, David Soudas, said that the move to prorogue parliament until after the Vancouver Olympics is, in fact, “routine.” While the Liberal Party, NDPs and Bloc Quebecois are all saying that Harper is only doing this to stop the investigation into Colvin’s allegations of torture, the Conservative Party states that they are suspending parliament in order to (from CBC):

to consult with Canadians, stakeholders and businesses as it moves into the “next phase” of its economic action plan amid signs of economic recovery.

This insults me and stinks of bullshit  for a number of reasons.

First of all, is the Conservative Party really that inept at governing that they can’t hold Parliamentary sessions and consult with Canadians at the same time?

Second. Shouldn’t the Government of Canada be continuously consulting with Canadians? Not just when it has time?

Lastly, and most importantly, this pisses me off because it seems as though the other parties hardly care. Looking through the Liberal Party website and the NDP website only one of the two have a press release about the suspension.  Gilles Duceppe, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, seemed to think that a simple 140 characters on Twitter would suffice.

The saddest thing about Duceppe’s twitter rant is that it required about 140 times as much action as the majority of Canadians citizens want to put forth. As lazy and ineffective as Facebook activism seems to me, only just over 7000 people put in the effort to join a group against proroguing government.

Harper gets away with this only because we let him. Write your MP, write the opposition MPs, write Conservatives! Write Stephen Harper! Hell, if you have more energy than the majority of people in the 21st century, pick up the phone and call the PMO!

What does it take to get people to protest injustice in this country?

~James