One recent example from CBC Television came in the form of a personal attack on author Chris Hedges. A well-known American writer, Hedges had agreed to appear as a guest on the Lang O’Leary Exchange to discuss the Occupy movement. He was in the process of calmly and lucidly explaining that movement’s rationale when interviewer Kevin O’Leary interrupted to dismiss Hedges as “a leftwing nutbar.”

A second example, also from CBC TV, came from the October 13 edition of The National’s “At Issue” panel. Along with two journalists, the At Issue panel consists of a senior advisor with a Canadian partner of the global public relations giant Burson-Marsteller, and the economically conservative commentator Andrew Coyne.

Asked whether the rallies currently sweeping the globe could bring about real change in Canada, Coyne could barely contain himself:

“Even in the U.S. where people have far more problems to actually worry about, it’s not clear that these people represent anybody other than themselves,” he frothed. “There’s always a constituency that doesn’t like capitalism (or) rich people… They just decided to get together and shout about it some more.”

Evidently Mr. Coyne can’t bring himself to read opinion polls showing many middle-class Americans share the demonstrators’ worries about growing economic inequality and unemployment. Concern about corporate greed and corruption is certainly not confined to those currently in the streets.

So Coyne’s glib dismissal is itself easily dismissed. But the pundits (and some journalists) also make a more plausible point. The protesters, they say, are a motley bunch. They don’t have a single message, or specific solutions.

It is true that the movement hasn’t answered the question posed by AdBusters, the Vancouver-based magazine that originally inspired the rallies: “What is our one demand?” But that’s not surprising. And it’s certainly no reason to dismiss the movement.

Social movements have often started out with a shared grievance, not a particular solution. Think of the flagship of today’s global movements, environmentalism. It ranges from conservationists who want to preserve wilderness, to more politically-oriented groups advocating policies to counter global warming, to radicals who see civilization itself as the problem. A smorgasbord of approaches. But united by a concern that the ecosystems on which humans depend are threatened, and need our conscious protection.

So too with Occupy Canada. The people involved share one belief: that the currently dominant “neoliberal” or “free market” version of capitalism is not working for the vast majority of people. While it creates wealth for some, it is also the destructive global engine behind massive and growing inequality, the current fiscal and economic crisis, and climate change and environmental collapse.

An economic system that is rumbling along out of democratic control creates so many types of perceived injustices, affecting so many different constituencies, that it is hardly surprising that there is no “one size fits all” solution.

It’s also hard to nurture citizen-based political campaigns in a society that teaches people that rebellion is a matter of buying edgy fashion accessories. That so many people have come out into the streets demanding change – political change – is an impressive achievement in and of itself.

That doesn’t stop some journalists from complaining that they don’t know what Occupy Wall Street is about. Perhaps they don’t know how to deal with a movement that doesn’t provide blue-suited leaders, glossy handouts, and a narrow message box test-marketed in focus groups. Today’s generation of activists values participatory and consensus-based processes, more than programmatic statements.

To observers like me, schooled in the movements of the 1960s and 70s, that can be frustrating. I’m told that the first ninety minutes of the Occupy Vancouver rally on October 15 were taken up deciding how to make decisions. But in a networked, “social mediatized” society, maybe that’s the way to build the trust and buy-in needed to launch a new and sustainable movement.

Eventually, protest must eventually be turned into policy, if there is to be change in how the world allocates resources. And there is no shortage of ideas about policy alternatives. AdBusters itself has touted a tax on financial transactions (originally proposed by conservative economist James Tobin) to reduce the volatility of global money markets, and to raise funds for international development. Amongst the folks I met at Occupy Vancouver, there would likely be common ground in policies like a more progressive tax system, and public investment to reduce youth unemployment and develop sustainable energy and technology.

Last May (have the pundits forgotten?), 30 percent of voters elected the NDP as Canada’s official opposition – a party with progressive policies on a range of issues. Maybe the Occupy movement should add another demand:  that media pundits on our public airwaves reflect the realities and diversity of our society, rather than rehash hackneyed “free market” dogma.

]]> http://www.policynote.ca/occupy-canada-media-pundits-vs-reality/feed/ 13 http://www.policynote.ca/oleary-breached-cbc-standards-ombudsman-rules/ http://www.policynote.ca/oleary-breached-cbc-standards-ombudsman-rules/#comments Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:30:02 +0000 Ben Parfitt http://www.policynote.ca/?p=4586 It took just a week following the airing of an “interview” on CBC television’s The Lang & O’Leary Exchange for the public broadcaster’s Ombudsman, Kirk LaPointe, to rule that the public broadcaster’s journalistic standards had been breached.

For all those who saw the segment on the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations – either when it aired on October 6 or, more likely, after the fact as the segment was posted and viewed on various websites – the verbal utterances of the show’s co-host, businessman and entrepreneur Kevin O’Leary, were jaw dropping in their insensitivity.

Not the least being the following, directed at Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges, in response to his characterization of the objectives of the thousands of people who had, by then, taken to the streets in protests in New York City and Washington DC, where Hedges was among those to speak to the throngs:

“Listen, don’t take this the wrong way,” O’Leary said to Hedges, “but you sound like a left-wing nutbar. If you want to shut down every corporation, every bank, where are you going to get a job? Where are you going to work? Where’s the economy going to go?”

Later when Hedges likened O’Leary’s offensive prattle to that more becoming of a Fox News host and said he usually avoided shows where “character assassination” was the order of the day, O’Leary suggested they then turn to the issues. At which point Hedges said words to the effect that it was O’Leary who had got things off to a bad start by calling him a “nutcase” and O’Leary took it upon himself to hurl yet more verbal abuse.

“I didn’t call you a nutcase, I called you a nutbar.”

LaPointe’s dissection of the episode and his conclusion that it breached the CBC’s journalistic standards is well worth reading, and highlights for those who may have had the pleasure of seeing him on the occasional guest spot on the At Issue panel on CBC’s The National, just what a bright light he is. In part, here’s what he said:

There is room at the inn for a range of views, but there is no room for name-calling a guest. At the very least, suggesting Hedges was a “nutbar” undermined what was likely a more interesting discussion. At worst, it permitted The Lang & O’Leary Exchange to be criticized as no different than the all-heat, no-light discussion shows that diminish discourse, far from the ambitions of a flagship business program on a public broadcaster. O’Leary might have been genuinely curious about Hedges’ views, but his opening salvo only fed contempt, which breached policy. When O’Leary asked Hedges “don’t take this the wrong way,” it came across as disingenuous and begged the question: Is there a “right way” to take being called a nutbar?

Correctly and quickly, CBC News concluded it was unacceptable for O’Leary to do what he did. Its private apology to Hedges was a responsible gesture, as was its discussion with O’Leary about the inappropriateness of the name-calling. What was unclear was why the program would stop there and not acknowledge this also to the audience. Only the guest received the benefit of the private apology, from the programmer and not the principal himself. When CBC News acknowledges error, I believe that closure is better achieved and accountability better demonstrated by communicating that to the audience and not simply to the correspondents. In this instance it would help fulfill the spirit of CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices, a substantial policy which in principle embraces the public element of its implementation.

The CBC, the Lang & O’Leary Exchange, and LaPointe’s offices received hundreds of letters of complaint, including this one from me.

October 11, 2011.

Dear Mr. LaPointe,

As a former journalist and a long-time CBC TV viewer, I am troubled at the manner in which Chris Hedges, a guest on the Lang & O’Leary Exchange, was treated when he appeared on the show on October 6.

While being entertaining and provocative helps the CBC and other broadcasters to build and maintain their audience share, a line is crossed when it comes at the expense of being accurate, respectful and fair. This is especially true when the show in question is a news-oriented public affairs show and is aired by a public broadcaster.

The manner in which Kevin O’Leary treated Hedges was disgraceful from the get-go. At one point in just four short sentences Mr. O’Leary managed to not only inaccurately characterize Mr. Hedges’ position but also to be patently unfair and disrespectful while doing so.

“Listen,” O’Leary began, “don’t take this the wrong way but you sound like a left-wing nut bar. If you want to shut down every corporation, every bank, where are you going to get a job? Where are you going to work? Where’s the economy going to go?”

There is a huge gulf between advocating for the “shut down” of everything – as Mr. O’Leary unfairly and inaccurately suggested Mr. Hedges did – and what Mr. Hedges actually supported, which was increased regulation of the runaway US banking industry. Mr. O’Leary knows this, or ought to. Yet he chose to engage in trash talk, more befitting of Fox News than a public broadcaster. As a taxpayer who wants Canada’s public broadcaster to grow and thrive, this troubles me.

Mr. O’Leary is also bright enough to know that there is no gulf whatsoever between the derogatory words nutcase and nutbar; that choosing to use one or the other in characterizing a guest on a show that he co-hosts is disrespectful; and that deliberately and immediately hurling the verbal abuse back in a matter of seconds (“I did not call you a nutcase. I called you a nutbar.”) is a further and completely gratuitous provocation.

Despite Mr. O’Leary’s invective, Mr. Hedges maintained his composure and actually spoke to relevant issues – for example, banking industry regulation, which Mr. O’Leary chose to go nowhere near, personal attacks being his preferred mode of action, much like that regular guest on CBC’s hockey telecasts, Don Cherry.

What I’m trying to understand and hope you can help me with is this: CBC obviously knows the modus operandi of Mr. O’Leary. It knows or ought to know that his unprofessional antics result in violations of its own standards. So if the standards are breached – and I believe they are in this case – are CBC viewers to expect that edginess trumps accuracy, fairness and respect?

I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

Respectfully,

Ben Parfitt.

PS: I wrote this letter to you a couple of days ago, but had yet to send it. In the interim, I have read your fine distillation (October 13) of the show itself and your response to concerns received by many CBC viewers about Mr. O’Leary’s conduct. It is my hope that a public apology is issued to not only Mr. Hedges but to CBC viewers who deserve to hear that Mr. O’Leary’s behavior on October 6 was a clear breach of CBC’s standards.

Yes, it is technically true that in straight up current dollars debt hit a historic high in this budget. But I have news for you, so did BC’s nominal GDP at the projected growth rates. And you know what, our population is also at a historic high. Care to take a guess about the consumer price level as measured by CPI? Yup, another historic high right there.

Perhaps you’re starting to get the picture: we cannot make meaningful comparisons of monetary amounts like debt, government spending or revenues over time in current dollars alone.

I was happy to see that Mr Palmer chose to dispense with the sensationalism in his print edition column’s title, where the debt reference in the subtitle is a lot less alarmist: Finance Minister Hansen’s 2011 budget not as comfortable as he’d like us to think: ‘Levels of prudence’ can’t hide the fact that the debt situation is heading in the wrong direction.

I came across Mr Palmer’s commentary first, but he only one of the majority of media commentators who compare straight up dollar figures for our debt level today with dollar amounts under the NDP (over a decade ago) without accounting for the fact that the size of the population we have to support has also grown as has our ability to support debt (our provincial economy). What this does is make the increases in debt appear larger than they really are.

It’s a very common mistake, and it often goes uncorrected because it happens to serve the interests of those who oppose government spending, and therefore debt, on ideological grounds.

The provincial debt is projected to hit $60 billion by 2014, most media commentators report. The exact billion dollar figures are there for their shock value — these are some truly large numbers — but raising alarm over them is a bit like raising alarm over a family’s $500,000 mortgage.

Sure, the number sounds big, but we can’t actually tell if it’s a affordable or not without information on that family’s income.

And let’s be clear, our province is the equivalent of a rather wealthy family with a total income (measured by the size of the economy, or GDP) of about $200 billion.

When expressed as a share of our provincial GDP, our current debt level seems very affordable indeed. Our current debt level is 16.5% of GDP, which is projected to rise to $17.8% of GDP by 2012/13 and then decline slightly (figures from the 2011 BC Budget).

Yes, it’s higher than the 13.4% we reached in 2008, but this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. We just went through the deepest recession we’ve had in 30 years. Of course debt would be higher than what it was during the boom — that’s what should happen.

The vast majority of government borrowing was used to finance capital spending. It spurred economic activity and created jobs at a time when the private sector was shrinking, providing a much needed stimulus to the economy.

There was no big boost in program spending, no real fiscal stimulus on this end. The small operating deficits we saw were caused by temporary, recession-driven reductions in revenue. Maintaining spending in the face of falling revenue was the right thing to do in order to support BC families through the recession and avoid putting an additional drag on the economy.

In the end, the BC economy grew faster than expected in 2010, but that had more to do with developments in the global commodity markets and the US economy than with made-in-BC policies. It could have easily gone the other way. Without the stimulus spending, BC would have experienced a deeper and longer-lasting economic downturn.

In short, increased government borrowing of that size was justified and our provincial debt levels remain affordable.

When measured properly, which is to say as a share of GDP, BC’s debt is nowhere near “historic highs”. It’s also among the lowest in Canada.

So enough of the debt hysteria already and let’s talk about some of the real issues that the next BC Premier will have to address.

The ads showed young men in embarrassing situations being interrupted by the police.  One risqué ad showed a lone teenage male in a locker room furtively using a tape measure, with the implication that he was measuring the length of his body parts.  The message in the ad was that getting caught drinking and driving was just as embarrassing as being, well, caught with your pants down.

The NDP demanded to know why the ads hadn’t been killed before $1.7 million had been spent developing them.

I think the government made the wrong decision and the NDP asked the wrong question.  A better question would have been, would these ads have helped stop young people from killing themselves on our roads?

No one spends millions of dollars on ad campaigns without doing public opinion research to find out if the ads are effective and worth the money.  ICBC is no exception.  In response to my FOI request, the Corporation released the results of two sets of focus groups.  In focus groups small groups of people are asked for their opinions and insights into an idea, a product, or in this case, an advertising campaign.

Last summer InQuest Consumer Insights and Planning held five focus groups in July to provide insights into developing an advertising campaign.  In November Ipsos conducted three focus groups to get opinions on the soon to be controversial advertising campaign.

Among the findings was that the biggest deterrent to drinking and driving was the fear of getting caught.  The risk of crashing simply didn’t enter peoples’ minds because “it won’t happen to me.”  Younger males were fearful of being caught doing something embarrassing.  “It was the fear of parents that was most evident,” and “Additionally, if being caught in the act of doing something brought disrespect to the family, that also evoked fear.”

The people in the focus groups were not offended by the suggestive campaign.  Ipsos found the campaign, “clearly resonates among all the respondents, younger and older.  There was a belief that it could encourage people to talk about the issue of drinking and driving.”

In 2008, 47 of the 225 people killed in car accidents in BC were between the ages of 15 and 24.  Many more had their lives ruined with permanent injuries.  A study by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that in 2007 alcohol was involved in more than 90% of traffic fatalities.  For people between the ages of 16 and 19 the figures was 100%.

Older people in the focus group said they had no problem with their children being exposed to the ads, but there is no doubt many people would find the ads in poor taste. 

So how do we balance it out – poor taste vs. perhaps saving young lives?  I think our elected officials on both sides of the chamber made a very serious error when they decided poor taste was more important.

CanWest, Canada’s largest media company, filed for bankruptcy protection for its assets which include all of CanWest’s newspaper publishing and associated digital media, online and mobile operations, with the exception of National Post.

This becomes interesting because of the conversation that is not taking place.  Forty years ago there was a real concern in Canada about growing media concentration.  This resulted in the 1970 three volume report of the Special Senate Committee on the Mass Media (the Davey Commission) that still makes interesting reading.  The Committee report worried that:

Of the 103 survey communities, there are 61 where groups or independents own two or more of the community’s media outlets.  There are 34 communities where groups own two or more radio stations.

The two biggest newspaper chains at the time, Southam and F.P. controlled 18.2% and 18.0% respectively of the Canadian market.  The Committee concluded:

This country should no longer tolerate a situation where the public interest in so vital a field as information is dependent on the greed or goodwill of an extremely privileged group of businessmen.

Nothing much changed to encourage competition in the media following the report.  Ten years later there was another study on the media, this time a Royal Commission chaired by Tom Kent.  As the forward to the Royal Commission on Newspapers explains:

This commission was born out of shock and trauma.  Simultaneously, in Ottawa and Winnipeg, two old and respected newspapers died…Thoughtful people throughout the country became seriously concerned, for the demise of the Journal and the Tribune was merely the culmination of a series of takeovers and “rationalizations” that have changed the face and nature of the press in Canada.

The Committee reported that Southam’s control of newspaper circulation had risen to nearly 33% in the previous ten years.  In the previous 12 years market domination by chains had grown from 58% to 77%.

Since then the domination of Canada’s media has only become more pronounced.  Southam continued buying up local newspapers, then Conrad Black bought Southam, then, in turn, CanWest bought the Conrad Black newspapers.  As the online Canadian Encyclopedia expresses it:

Ever since tycoon Conrad Black gained control of the Southam chain of papers in 1996, there’s been so much deal-making that almost all major newspapers and most minor ones have gone through at least one new set of owners. Ontario’s Guelph Mercury, to cite an extreme example, changed hands five times in four years.

In 2006 yet another Senate report on the media complained once more about concentration.

Here in Vancouver CanWest owns the Vancouver Sun and Province, as well as the “Now” group, the Delta Optimist, the North Shore and the Richmond News, the Vancouver Courier and Global TV.  Other than increased media concentration there has been one more change since the 1970s.  Back then chain owners told the inquiries that they never interfered with local control of the papers.  In 2001 CanWest announced a new policy to run uniform national editorials and preventing local newspapers from taking local positions on those issues. 

In 2002 the International Federation of Journalists condemned CanWest saying:

CanWest has suspended journalists for talking to outside media and disciplined others for protesting over internal censorship. Journalists throughout the group – which includes newspapers and television outlets across Canada – have also been angered by the imposition of corporate editorials that destroy local editorial independence.

So now that CanWest is in bankruptcy and its papers for sale, let’s go back to some of the recommendations of those reports from 30 and 40 years ago.

The Davey Commission called for a press ownership review board that would have the power to accept or reject media mergers and acquisitions.  Its major guideline was to be that:

all transactions that increase concentration of ownership in the mass media are undesirable and contrary to the public interest – unless shown to be otherwise.

The Kent Commission made a number of recommendations to reduce media concentration including a call to prevent the expansion of existing chains owning five or more newspapers.  The report suggested the breakup of regional monopolies and limits on cross ownership of different medias.  They also called for chains to have contracts with their editors guranteeing editorial independence.

So how is it that now, when Canada’s largest media organization is in trouble, there is no discussion at all of taking this opportunity to reduce media concentration? 

It is an interesting example of how gradually, over the last 40 years, the range of public policy options has been narrowed.  It is now hard for most people to even imagine that government would consider taking steps to reduce the concentration of the media.

But we need to be thinking about the issue now.  Although there appears to be a bid today for part of the chain, CanWest is seeking a buyer for its entire newspaper publishing unit.  Who has those kinds of deep pockets?  Surely it would be someone already deeply in the media business.  Perhaps it will be a Canadian company and we will see even more concentration.  On the other hand, how likely is the Conservative government, closely linked to CanWest, to stop an offer by a foreign media conglomerate that would put a very large percentage of the Canadian media in foreign hands?

You see, as an economist and public interest researcher at the CCPA, I occasionally get invitations from talk radio to discuss or debate the economic and social policy questions of the day. And since our minimum wages in BC have been frozen for eight full years now, the debate around whether we should increase the minimum wage comes up every so often. Usually, it’s around some auspicious date, such as the day that we took the rock-bottom place in Canada (that was September 1st, 2009) or the anniversary of our embarrassingly low $8 minimum wage (November 1st).

But I just can’t get airtime to discuss the minimum wage on talk radio. Typically, I get bumped off the list in favour of another guest, usually Jim Sinclair from the BC Fed. Ok, I get it: I’m a policy wonk somewhat removed from the proverbial real world while he’s right in there representing the workers, and listeners are more interested to hear from the people directly involved, not just from analysts. Fair enough.

This time around, however, something different happened. My Monday morning TALK 1410 live radio debate on the minimum wage was canceled, period. The reality is that, as of today, Vancouver has one fewer talk radio stations, as TALK 1410 rebranded itself as an all-sports station and became TEAM 1410.

The global recession has not been kind to traditional media. Sadly, this has impacts that go beyond direct job losses and reduced consumer spending to the much more important issues of media democracy as more and more voices are excluded from the mainstream media.

So this coming Monday at 7am, you won’t hear me discuss what we should do about our low minimum wages. But you can stay tuned for extensive coverage of the latest most-crucial-must-win game.

As if you needed one more reason to go to Media Democracy Day at the Vancouver Public Library this Saturday.

The culprit this time is the Housing and Social Development Ministry, which typically provides welfare caseload statistics at the end of each month, but has so far failed to release its April report.

Indeed, when visiting the Ministry’s website today (March 12, 10:30am), it’s quite curious to see the regularity with which reports were posted on the last day of each month as this screenshot demonstrates:

According to this pattern, the welfare statistics for March 2009 should have been released on April 30 or shortly thereafter. MacLeod reports that his emails and calls to the Ministry inquiring about the apparent delay in the welfare data have not been returned.

Welfare data were showing large increases in previous months (as Marc pointed out here and the Tyee reported here) and political commentator David Schreck speculates that delaying the release of the latest welfare statistics may be a deliberate move to contain likely negative information before the election (as quoted in MacLeod’s article).

For reference, the previous provincial election was on May 17, 2005 and the welfare statistics release for March 2005 is dated May 11 (bottom right-hand-side of each page in the report). This was later than the usual last-day-of-the-month pattern, but it came a whole six days before the election date.

Whether or not this delay is deliberate or the result of oversight, it is nevertheless an affront on the democratic process. Transparency, which includes data being made publicly available promptly, is an essential mechanism that allows citizens to keep their government accountable. This is particularly important in the wake of a general election, which is our main tool to keep governments accountable in democratic societies.

Statistics Canada and the Bank of Canada, both of whom release information that can be politically sensitive, have processes to formally schedule and announce release dates well in advance to prevent any possibility that data be withheld for political purposes. The provincial government should be held to similar standards.

–

2009 release dates for all of Statistics Canada’s data products can be found here. The 2009 schedule of interest rates announcements from the Bank of Canada is here.