Former Reuters journalist Matthew Keys was found guilty of
three counts of hacking: http://bit.ly/1j9Fuuv
-------------
October 7, 2015 love this brilliant kid that has taken Jon's place....
Trevor Noah is global and he's glorious.... WOW......Trevor takes me back to
the brilliant documentary and content days that nuanced incredible dialogue to
fit occasions that even Grade 8 students got.... and the dimples and THAT
GENUINE LAUGH... what a prize Jon Stewart has chosen to give to his fans as a
going away gift- 'The benchmark Trevor Noah set for himself was brilliant'
Local celebrities & media attended a private screening of Noah's 'Daily Show' debut earlier today.
Local celebrities & media attended a private screening of Noah's 'Daily Show' debut earlier today.
'The benchmark Trevor Noah set for himself was brilliant'
Local celebrities
& media attended a private screening of Noah's 'Daily Show' debut earlier
today.
-----------
I BELIEVE IN EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE, EXCEPT FOR REPORTERS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS
- Mahatma Gandhi
----
An unfortunate gap of political knowledge
A Small Drop of Ink
Grimsby Lincoln News
Because we don’t teach political history in
our high schools these days, and because people forget so easily, many
Canadians don’t know or never knew that the Conservative Party of Canada
of today is not the same Progressive Conservative party that many of us
voted for 20 or more years ago.
The old PC party dated back to Sir John A.
Macdonald and the events of 1867. For years, it was either the party in
power or the opposition. It was a “centre” party, or perhaps just a
little to the right of centre. That party was dissolved in December 2003
and was absorbed by the right wing Canadian Alliance in what has always
seemed to me to be a “coup.” The Canadian Alliance was a party with
western Canadian interests at its heart. It, in turn, had grown out of
Preston Manning’s Reform party. Manning was son of longtime Alberta
Premier Ernest Manning. Not surprisingly, he got a lot of support from
the same political constituency as his father’s old party, the Alberta
Social Credit Party. The Canadian Alliance party was formed in 2001,
with Stockwell Day as its leader. Stephen Harper was leader in 2002 and
2003.
In the latter year, Harper made a “Unite the
Right” deal with Peter MacKay, leader of the Progressive Conservatives.
To this day, many regard this as a hostile takeover, because it seems
that the original idea was to rebuild the PC party under MacKay’s
leadership. The party was indeed rebuilt, but with Harper at the helm,
and it emerged as something completely different from what many people
had intended. Although the majority of the old Conservative party
supported the merger, not all agreed by any means. It is interesting to
note that many of the strongest, most widely respected MPs in the “new”
Conservative party, including MacKay, have left the party to go to other
occupations.
This gap in the public knowledge of the
development of political parties in Canada is one of the best reasons
why the Canadian public should be better educated. After all, if a voter
has only the vaguest knowledge of the parties, what they represent,
what they plan to do if elected, he or she cannot possibly make a wise
choice at the polling station. It is sad that uninformed voters often
mark an X for a candidate who has come out in favour of just one issue
that appeals to the voter, but otherwise may be quite the opposite of
what the voter wants.
Some form of politics ought to be taught in
high school and college so that young people can understand how the
democratic system works, and why it is very good when it is operated
properly. I’ve heard lately that the education system has been “dumbed
down” so that no one, not even the laziest pupil, will fail to go on to
the next level. Probably no one wants the hard work required to study
and teach these subjects, let alone sit in the classroom and learn them.
That is too bad, because no one benefits.
An informed public is the best assurance of a
successful democracy. Looking at the chaos in dictatorships and other
governments around the world, it would seem that a successful democracy
should be the hope and dream of every Canadian voter.
---------------
COMMENT:
Canadians are among the highest educated in the world.... smart, savvy, honest, decent and basically just want fair news reporting - that is honest, factual and inclusive of all party politics - on each and all - good, bad and ugly.... stop playing sides - Canadians are NOT the reality shows of the USA.... and we deserve better news reporting and media content... please.... please...
1994 WE REMEMBER RWANDA...... teaching Sunday School.... over 45 Grade V and VI kids.... and mention was made of Rwanda's Gorillas and so many dead..... and then we saw the slaughter that was hidden by world's mainstream media and United Nations and G7..... WE HAD TO FACE THESE KIDS.... and explain to them (parents invited for the rosary).... and letters were sent to the Prime Minister - we wept and cried and mourned.... because our church is so worldwide and inclusive of so many nations..... our beautiful Rwanda....
In closing - MANY OF US ARE CHANGING PARTIES.... WHO CHANGED LAST TIME... BACK TO OLD PARTY... pray to God it's worth it.... because we matter folks.... and mainstream media... u matter and must b better... please. God bless our troops -old momma nova - some good reads and always the links.... imho....
BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS- RWANDA-Canadians Remember Rwanda- April 7, 2014/So few...NO heroes among Global politicans r Global $$$ Media- so many deaths... not a white mans war-UN ignored- as did Africas- RWANDA SCREAMS THAT SYRIA IS 2014's RWANDA- shame United Nations- Shame!
---
Ethics guidelines- JOURNALISTS CANADA -2011
Ethics guidelines
Submitted by the CAJ Ethics Advisory Committee, June 2011Ethics Guidelines PDF version
Preamble
This document – along with the accompanying “Principles for Ethical Journalism” – is intended to help both seasoned professionals and new journalists to hold themselves accountable for professional work. While many specific questions are considered here, it is impossible to capture all potential scenarios in a document such as this. Instead, it seeks to provide examples of the application of our general ethical principles, and to help journalists apply those principles and their best judgment when faced with scenarios not covered here. Updates will be issued periodically as new issues come under consideration by the association’s Ethics Advisory Committee; suggestions for additions or amendments should be directed to the committee chair or the CAJ president.Accuracy
- We are disciplined in our efforts to verify all facts. Accuracy is the moral imperative of journalists and news organizations, and should not be compromised, even by pressing deadlines of the 24-hour news cycle.
- We make every effort to verify the identities and backgrounds of our sources.
- We seek documentation to support the reliability of those sources and their stories, and we are careful to distinguish between assertions and fact. The onus is on us to verify all information, even when it emerges on deadline.
- We make sure to retain the original context of all quotations or clips, striving to convey the original tone. Our reporting and editing will not change the meaning of a statement or exclude important qualifiers.
- There is no copyright on news or ideas once a story is in the public domain, but if we can’t match the story, we credit the originating source.
- While news and ideas are there for the taking, the words used to convey them are not. If we borrow a story or even a paragraph from another source we either credit the source or rewrite it before publication or broadcast. Using another’s analysis or interpretation may constitute plagiarism, even if the words are rewritten, unless it is attributed.
- When we make a mistake, whether in fact or in context, and regardless of the platform, we correct* it promptly and in a transparent manner, acknowledging the nature of the error.
- We publish or broadcast all corrections, clarifications or apologies in a consistent way.
- We generally do not “unpublish” or remove digital content, despite public requests, or “source remorse.” Rare exceptions generally involve matters of public safety, an egregious error or ethical violation, or legal restrictions** such as publication bans.
Fairness
- We respect the rights of people involved in the news.
- We give people, companies or organizations that are publicly accused or criticized opportunity to respond before we publish those criticisms or accusations. We make a genuine and reasonable effort to contact them, and if they decline to comment, we say so.
- We do not refer to a person’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender self-identification orphysical ability unless it is pertinent to the story.
- We avoid stereotypes of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status. And we take particular care in crime stories.
- We take special care when reporting on children or those who are otherwise unable to give consent to be interviewed. While some minors, such as athletes, may be used to being interviewed, others might have little understanding of the implications of talking to the media. So when unsure, or when dealing with particularly sensitive subjects, we err on the side of seeking parental consent. Likewise, we take special care when using any material posted to social media by minors, as they may not understand the public nature of their postings.
- We do not allow our own biases to impede fair and accurate reporting.
- We respect each person’s right to a fair trial.
- We do not pay for information, although we may compensate those who provide material such as photos or videos. We sometimes also employ experts to provide professional expertise, and pay for embedded activities. We are careful to note any such payments in our stories. (See TRANSPARENCY, below).
- It is becoming common to be asked for payments in foreign countries, whether it’s for guides, to make connections, or to help a source travel to meet reporters. But it’s important to question the subject’s motives in such cases, and to be transparent in telling audiences what occurred (See TRANSPARENCY, below).
Right To Privacy
- The public has a right to know about its institutions and the people who are elected or hired to serve its interests. People also have a right to privacy, and those accused of crimes have a right to a fair trial.
- However, there are inevitable conflicts between the right to privacy, and the rights of all citizens to be informed about matters of public interest. Each situation should be judged in light of common sense, humanity and relevance.
- We do not manipulate people who are thrust into the spotlight because they are victims of crime or are associated with a tragedy. Nor to we do voyeuristic stories about them. When we contact them, we are sensitive to their situations, and report only information in which the public has a legitimate interest.
- Journalists are increasingly using social networking sites to access information about people and organizations. When individuals post and publish information about themselves on these sites, this information generally becomes public, and can be used. However, journalists should not use subterfuge to gain access to information intended to be private. In addition, even when such information is public, we must rigorously apply ethical considerations including independent confirmation and transparency in identifying the source of information. (See DIGITAL MEDIA, below.)
Independence
- We serve democracy and the public interest by reporting the truth. This sometimes conflicts with various public and private interests, including those of sources, governments, advertisers and, on occasion, with our duty and obligation to an employer.
- Defending the public’s interest includes promoting the free flow of information, exposing crime or wrongdoing, protecting public health and safety, and preventing the public from being misled.
- We do not give favoured treatment to advertisers and special interests. We resist their efforts to influence the news.
- We pay our own way whenever possible. However, not all journalists or organizations have the means to do so. So if another organization pays our expenses to an event that we are writing about we say so, and this includes when covering industries such as travel, automotive, the military and foreign trade (See TRANSPARENCY, below). (There are some generally understood exceptions; for instance, it is common practice to accept reviewers’ tickets for film previews, concerts, lectures and theatrical performances.)
- We do not solicit gifts or favours for personal use, and should promptly return unsolicited gifts of more than nominal value. If it is impractical to return the gift, we will give it to an appropriate charity.
- We do not accept the free or reduced-rate use of valuable goods or services offered because of our position. However, it may be appropriate to use a product for a short time to test or evaluate it. (A common exception is unsolicited books, music, food, or other new products sent for review.)
- We generally do not accept payment for speaking to groups we report on or comment on.
- We do not report about subjects in which we have financial or other interests, and we do not use our positions to obtain business or other advantages not available to the general public.
- We do not show our completed reports to sources – especially official sources – before they are published or broadcast, unless the practice is intended to verify facts. Doing so might invite prior restraint and challenge our independence as reporters.
- We gather information with the intent of producing stories and images for public consumption. We generally do not share unpublished information – such as notes and audio tapes of interviews, documents, emails, digital files, photos and video – with those outside of the media organizations for which we work. However, sometimes such sharing may be necessary to check facts, gain the confidence of sources or solicit more information.
- Columnists and commentators should be free to express their views, even when those views conflict with those of their organizations, as long as the content meets generally accepted journalistic standards for fairness and accuracy.
Conflict of interest
- As fair and impartial observers, we must be free to comment on the activities of any publicly elected body or special interest group. But we cannot do this without an apparent conflict of interest if we are active members of an organization we are covering, and that includes membership through social media.
- We lose our credibility as fair observers if we write opinion pieces about subjects we also cover as reporters.
- Editorial boards and columnists or commentators endorse political candidates or political causes. Reporters do not.
- We carefully consider our political activities and community involvements – including those online – and refrain from taking part in demonstrations, signing petitions, doing public relations work, fundraising or making financial contributions if there is a chance we will be covering the campaign, activity or group involved.
- If a journalist does choose to engage in outside political activity or espouse a particular political viewpoint, this activity could create a public perception of bias, or favouritism that would reflect on the journalist’s work. Any journalist who engages in such activities – including running for office – should publicly declare any real or potential conflicts.
- Our private lives online present special challenges. For example, the only way to subscribe to some publications or social networking groups is to become a member. Having a non-journalist subscribe on your behalf would be one solution, as would be joining a wide variety of Facebook groups so you would not be seen as favouring one particular constituency. (See DIGITAL MEDIA, below.)
Transparency
- We generally declare ourselves as journalists and do not conceal our identities, including when seeking information through social media. However, journalists may go undercover when it is in the public interest and the information is not obtainable any other way; in such cases, we openly explain this deception to the audience.
- We normally identify sources of information. But we may use unnamed sources when there is a clear and pressing reason to protect anonymity, the material gained from the confidential source is of strong public interest, and there is no other reasonable way to obtain the information. When this happens, we explain the need for anonymity.
- We avoid pseudonyms, but when their use is essential, and we meet the tests above, we tell our readers, listeners or viewers.
- When we do use unnamed sources, we identify them as accurately as possible by affiliation or status. (For example, a “senior military source” must be both senior and in the military.) Any vested interest or potential bias on the part of a source must be revealed.
- We independently corroborate facts if we get them from a source we do not name.
- We do not allow anonymous sources to take cheap shots at individuals or organizations. (See FAIRNESS, above.)
- Ø If we borrow material from another source we are careful to credit the original source. (See ACCURACY, above.)
- We admit openly when we have made a mistake, and we make every effort to correct* our errors immediately.
- Ø We disclose to our audiences any biases that could be perceived to influence our reporting. (See CONFLICT OF INTEREST, above.)
- Ø We openly tell our audiences when another organization pays our expenses, or conversely, when we have made payments for information.
Promises to sources
- We only promise anonymity when the material is of high public interest and it cannot be obtained any other way. (See TRANSPARENCY, above.) And when we make these promises to sources, we keep them.
- Because we may be ordered by a court** or judicial inquiry to divulge confidential sourcesupon
threat of jail, we must understand what we are promising. These
promises – and the lengths we’re willing to go to keep them – should be
clearly spelled out as part of our promise. The following phrases, if
properly explained, may be helpful:
- Not for attribution: We may quote statements directly but the source may not be named, although a general description of his or her position may be given (“a government official,” or “a party insider”). In TV, video or radio, the identity may be shielded by changing the voice or appearance.
- On background: We may use the essence of statements and generally describe the source, but we may not use direct quotes.
- Off the record: We may not report the information, which can be used solely to help our own understanding or perspective. There is not much point in knowing something if it can’t be reported, so this undertaking should be used sparingly, if at all.
- When we are not willing to go to jail to protect a source, we say so before making the promise. And we make it clear that the deal is off if the source lies or misleads us.
Diversity
- News organizations – including newspapers, websites, magazines, radio and television – provide forums for the free interchange of information and opinion. As such, we seek to include views from all segments of the population.
- We also encourage our organizations to make room for the interests of all: minorities and majorities, those with power and those without it, holders of disparate and conflicting views.
- We avoid stereotypes, and don’t refer to a person’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender self-identification orphysical ability unless it is pertinent to the story. (See FAIRNESS, above.)
Accountability
- We are accountable to the public for the fairness and reliability of our reporting.
- We serve the public interest, and put the needs of our audience – readers, listeners or viewers – at the forefront of our newsgathering decisions.
- We clearly identify news and opinion so that the audience knows which is which.
- We don’t mislead the public by suggesting a reporter is some place that he or she isn’t.
- Photojournalists and videographers do not alter images or sound so that they mislead the public. When we do alter or stage images, we label them clearly (as a photo illustration or a staged video, for example).
- We use care when reporting on medical studies, polls and surveys, and we are especially suspect of studies commissioned by those with a vested interest, such as drug companies, special interest groups or politically sponsored think tanks. We make sure we know the context of the results, such as sample size and population, questions asked, and study sponsors, and we include this information in our reports whenever possible.
- When we make a mistake, we correct* it promptly and transparently, acknowledging the nature of the error. (See ACCURACY, above.)
Digital media: Special Issues
- Ethical practice does not change with the medium. We are bound by the above principles no matter where our stories are published or broadcast.
- We consider all online content carefully, including blogging, and content posted to social media. We do not re-post rumours. (See ACCURACY, above.)
- The need for speed should never compromise accuracy, credibility or fairness. Online content should be reported and edited as carefully as print content, and when possible, subjected to full editing.
- We clearly inform sources when stories about them will be published across various media, and we indicate the permanency of digital media.
- When we publish outside links, we make an effort to ensure the sites are credible; in other words, we think before we link.
- When we correct* errors online, we indicate that the content has been altered or updated, and what the original error was. (See ACCURACY, above.)
- So long as the content is accurate, we generally do not “unpublish” or remove digital content, despite public requests to do so, including cases of “source remorse.” Rare exceptions generally involve matters of public safety, an egregious error or ethical violation, or legal restrictions** such as publication bans.
- We try to obtain permission whenever possible to use online photos and videos, and we always credit the source of the material, by naming the author and where the photo or video was previously posted. We use these photos and videos for news and public interest purposes only, and not to serve voyeuristic interests.
- We encourage the use of social networks as it is one way to make connections, which is part of our core work as journalists. However, we keep in mind that any information gathered through online means must be confirmed, verified and properly sourced.
- Personal online activity, including emails and social networking, should generally be regarded as public and not private. Such activity can impact our professional credibility. As such, we think carefully before we post, and we take special caution in declaring our political leanings online. (See CONFLICT OF INTEREST, above.)
**Note: For more information on legal implications on journalism practice see the Canadian Journalism Project’s law page at J-Source.ca.
http://www.caj.ca/ethics-guidelines/
---------------
Fostering an ethical world media
The ethical issues in global journalism are far different than those faced by the stereotypical 'objective' North American newspaper reporter, as illustrated here.
Recent Posts From This Author
- Celebrities can make or break a cause – and their careersPosted on Oct 4, 2015
Fostering an ethical world media:
Canadians worldwide are viewed as impartial and less agenda-driven, giving us an influential voice to help out
{Posting this piece as background to my ethical reflections before the inaugural meeting of the International Association of Religion Journalists.)
Vancouver Sun ARCHIVES
Saturday, Dec 31, 2005
Column: Douglas Todd
So you think you have problems with the North American media?
You’re wondering why there is a continental media obsession with crime. You think your political/ethnic/economic-class opinions aren’t reflected enough in newspapers or on TV and radio.
You’re suspicious about the shortage of hard-hitting consumer reporting. And you’re amazed most media outlets seem convinced you are desperate to know absolutely everything about Todd Bertuzzi and Angelina Jolie.
There are many significant issues in Canadian and U.S. media ethics. But, compared with moral challenges in the global media, they just aren’t in the same league as some of those in the developing world.
In Africa and parts of Asia, the ethics questions can run something like: Should I risk being assassinated by quoting an opposition party candidate? Could I provoke a bloody riot if I refer to an ethnic group with a certain phrase? Is it worth being fired or threatened for failing to refer to a certain insurgent group as “terrorists?”
Greater Vancouver, in part because of immigration but also because of its highly literate and internationally aware population, has an unusually large proportion of people who see issues from a globally inter-connected perspective. Some of them are going far beyond parochialism when it comes to creating better media.
This city has recently become the home to at least four different efforts devoted to exploring the many ways that Canadian approaches to media ethics can help expand pluralism and democracy around the globe, particularly in conflict-ridden countries in Asia and Africa.
Compared to American, British or French organizations, these organizations have found Canadian groups can be more influential in developing countries in fostering an open media — because Canadians are viewed as less arrogant, more impartial and less inclined to ram their agenda down the throats of the world’s disparate citizens.
Vancouver, for instance, is the home base for the adventurous work of former Canadian news reporter Ross Howard. Until recently Howard worked out of the Vancouver office of the non-profit organization, IMPACS (www.impacs.org), which has long had a vibrant arm devoted to building independent Third World media outlets that foster women’s rights and peace.
Howard recently established a new organization, the Media and Democracy Group (www.mediaanddemocracy.ca), which sends off highly experienced, well-travelled Canadian journalists and instructors to some of the world’s hot spots, where they’re ready to do what’s necessary to help set up radio, TV and print outlets.
As well, Stephen Ward, a professor in the University of B.C.’s journalism department, last month launched a program devoted to encouraging ethical debate and strengthening international media values (www.journalismethics.ca), called Journalism Ethics for the Global Citizen.
Among many other things, Ward and his team want to show how responsible journalists can ease tension in formerly ravaged zones. Journalism Ethics for the Global Citizen is also devoted to eventually developing a code of journalistic ethics that could be applied worldwide, in part since news reports (usually Western) now instantly travel the planet, for good and ill.
Showing their willingness to collaborate, Howard wrote one of the pieces for Ward’s new website, in which he argues that incompetent, partisan and misinformed journalism has incited racist, hate-filled violence around the world, particularly in places such as Rwanda, the Balkans and Cambodia.
Accurate and fair journalism could have counteracted such madness, Howard writes. “Reliable reporting, and responsibly written editorials and opinion, do things such as establish communication among disputant parties, correct misperceptions and identify underlying interests. The media provides an emotional outlet. It can offer solutions, and build confidence.”
One of the Vancouver-based people with the deepest roots in global media ethics may be Jon Tinker, who in 1986 in Europe helped found the Panos Institute, which he said has over time had a “powerful effect” in encouraging radio stations, newspapers and TV outlets in the developing world to advance pluralism.
With an annual budget of about $10 million Cdn and 100 staff, Panos now has eight semi-autonomous offices around the planet, including two in Europe, three in Africa, one in South Asia, one for the Caribbean and one in Vancouver, based at UBC’s Liu Institute for Global Issues.
What are some of the burning issues on the often-violent front lines of global media ethics?
Panos is working in dozens of countries in Africa that have been struggling to emerge in the 1990s from autocracy.
Often, Tinker says, the new African “governments view even the mildest media criticism as sedition,” punishable by censorship, dismissal, jail and much worse.
Without trying to impose Western answers on Third World countries, Tinker says Panos has helped journalists in such unstable countries meet with emerging governments to develop a local code of journalistic ethics, which reporters can use to defend themselves against potentially harsh government clampdowns.
Often, however, it’s the media outlets themselves that provoke trouble. Canadian journalists may make readers and viewers angry from time to time, says Tinker. But they rarely incite riots or massacres, like they can in the often-explosive developing world.
Just look, says Tinker, at the mass chaos ignited when a Nigerian journalist referred a few years ago to how Mohammed, the founder of Islam, would have been attracted to contestants in the country’s Miss Universe contest. And that was a relatively innocent remark.
In massacre-ravaged countries preparing to hold elections for the first time, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Panos has brought media outlets and governments together to figure out ways to constrain highly partisan and often hate-mongering newspapers and radio and TV stations.
It’s a balancing act between free expression and censorship. On one hand, diverse opinions have to be aired during election campaigns, says Tinker. But they can’t be expressed so vehemently and inaccurately that they may again incite mass reprisal.
In countries such as Rwanda, emerging from a savage civil war between Tutsis and Hutus, Panos has faced incendiary ethical dilemmas that seem distant from those in Canada.
The Rwandan government, in an attempt to stop ethnic hatred from again causing disaster, has now simply banned media outlets from using the terms, “Tutsi,” and “Hutu.” Given the context, it’s hard to say whether this is absolutely wrong-headed.
In regions such as the Middle East, Russia, China and Colombia, however, Tinker says different words have the power to kill. Panos urges media outlets in such countries to be wary of adopting the influential language of President George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism” — by avoiding labelling every kind of insurgent group as just another “terrorist” organization that must be totally eradicated.
Whether Panos is trying to ease bloody conflict within countries, or between warring nations such as India and Pakistan, Tinker says it’s often been successful at being seen as an “honest broker,” bringing people together to create media that express a range of responsible viewpoints.
Some of the journalistic principles Panos encourages start with ideals considered basic in Canada (though frequently ignored), such as accuracy, balance and fairness.
Panos has also encouraged rival media outlets, including in conflicting countries, to publish the articles and editorials of their opponents. That can ease paranoia and builds understanding.
“A lot of things we take for granted in Canada in our media are still matters of everyday struggle in a lot of countries,” says Tinker.
On that note, Tinker says he believes Canada is missing a big opportunity to take advantage of what he calls its “diaspora communities,” the millions of immigrants from far-flung countries who feel loyalty to both Canada and their home country.
Take, for instance, Haiti’s “appalling” problems with media ethics, he says. Journalists are constantly being murdered and kidnapped on the corruption-filled island. Canadian-Haitians know media freedom is a sick joke in their home country, despite the presence of Canadian peacekeeping forces.
But Tinker believes the Canadian government, which recently appointed Haitian-Canadian Michaelle Jean as its governor-general, hasn’t yet figured out how to use this country’s incredible “asset,” its large and often-professional Haitian population, to pave the way for stability in the Caribbean nation.
Instead of seeing Canada as mainly a country that supplies peacekeeping forces to the world, Tinker maintains not enough energy is put into “using the influence of the diaspora,” including Canadian-Haitian journalists, to help support an independent media in the tormented country.
Tinker is on to a great idea. But the Canadian government, and most Canadians, seem timid about supporting such innovative ways to build a more fair-minded media, in Haiti or around the planet. We have a lot to learn from specialists such as Tinker, Howard and Ward.
They not only have a vision for how the Canadian media could be fine-tuned for greater responsibility, but for how more embattled countries could foster something that for them would be dramatically new; a fair and open media. Without it, real democracy is impossible.
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/03/19/fostering-an-ethical-world-media/
------------------
QUALITY STANDARDS.....
http://mediaratingcouncil.org/History.htm
-----
QUOTE: The United Nations tribunal in Arusha has convicted three former media executives of being key figures in the media campaign to incite ethnic Hutus to kill Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994.
The impact of hate media in Rwanda
By Russell Smith
BBC News Online Africa editor
The United Nations tribunal in Arusha has convicted three former media executives of being key figures in the media campaign to incite ethnic Hutus to kill Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994.
The 'Hate media' trial began in 2000
It is widely believed that so-called hate media had a significant part to play in the genocide, during which some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died.
There is also little doubt that its legacy continues to exert a strong influence on the country.
The most prominent hate media outlet was the private radio station, Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines.
Cockroaches
It was established in 1993 and opposed peace talks between the government of President Juvenal Habyarimana and the Tutsi-led rebels of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which now forms the government.
After President Habyarimana's plane was shot down, the radio called for a "final war" to "exterminate the cockroaches."
About 800,000 people died in Rwanda's 100-day genocide in 1994
During the genocide that followed it broadcast lists of people to be killed and instructed killers on where to find them.
The BBC's Ally Mugenzi worked as a journalist in Rwanda during the genocide and says there was no doubting the influence of the RTLM.
"RTLM acted as if it was giving instructions to the killers. It was giving directions on air as to where people were hiding," he said.
He himself said he had a narrow escape after broadcasting a report on the Rwandan media for the BBC.
They announced on the radio he had lied about them and summoned him to the station to explain himself. He spent three hours there, justifying his report.
General Romeo Dallaire, the commander of the UN peacekeeping operation in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, said: "Simply jamming [the] broadcasts and replacing them with messages of peace and reconciliation would have had a significant impact on the course of events."
As the Tutsi forces advanced through the country during 1994, the broadcasters of Radio Mille Collines fled across the border into what was then Zaire.
Media
Prosecutors in the Tanzanian town of Arusha at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda argued that RTLM played a key role in the genocide during the trial of the radio's top executives Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Ferdinand Nahimana.
Mr Barayagwiza boycotted the trial and was sentenced to 35 years. Mr Nahimana was given life in prison.
Hassan Ngeze, who ran an extremist magazine called Kangura was also sentenced to life.
Their defence relied on the often ambiguous nature of the comments - which they say were aimed at the advancing Tutsi rebels under General Paul Kagame rather than at civilians.
President Kagame's government has used the recent memories of hate media to justify keeping a tight reign on its own media.
Just last week, the country's only independent newspaper, Umeseso, had copies of its newspaper seized and journalists arrested for publishing articles critical of the government.
Rwanda also still lacks a private radio station and the government exerts control over most of the media outlets.
This helped ensure landslide election wins for the RPF during the first post genocide multi-party elections this year.
The government promises to introduce a more open media soon.
There will be many hoping that the hate media verdicts delivered in Arusha on Wednesday will help that process along.
The tribunal has secured just a dozen convictions in a decade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm
-------------
Introductory Pages
The Dilemma of Definitions
Reacting to Hate Radio
Commentary: Defining hate
Commentary: Crossing the line
It turns out that former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign was right: She was doomed by media sexists. Two new scholarly studies that blow the whistle on the industry's lopsided reliance on male reporters find that the media first belittled her effort against Barack Obama, then jumped the gun to push her out of the race earlier than any other recent strong primary challenger.
Among the key findings is that sexism, more than ideology, drove the media's anti-Clinton theme. The biggest offender: MSNBC's liberal and popular host Chris Matthews. "He treated HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] worse than all other newspeople," says one study from University of Utah researchers and published in the prestigious Political Research Quarterly. A related study from the same school found that sexism played a role in the media's push to get Clinton out of the 2008 Democratic primaries even though she was a strong challenger who vowed to stay in until the convention in Denver.
[10 Commentators the Left and Right Love to Hate.]
While examples of sexism were shrugged off at the time, the new study of media sex bias charges that the press used many tricks to swipe at Clinton, the initial front-runner. Some included nasty name-calling. Others were more subtle, like referring to her simply as "Hillary." Some 8 percent of the time, the leading 127 newspeople studied by the scholars called her "Hillary." It was "Barack" just 2 percent of the time. And it wasn't because she marketed her campaign as "Hillary," they add.
The study notes that when men use their first name in their campaign, reporters still refer to them by their last names: Rudy Giuliani was "Giuliani," and Lamar Alexander was "Alexander." Here again, Matthews was tops, calling the candidate "Hillary" twice as often as his nearest TV news competitor, Fox's Sean Hannity, did. [Michele Bachmann's Nuttiness Is No Reason for Sexism.]
The authors say sexism in the media is so bad—men in the survey outnumbered women 60 percent to 40 percent—that owners should start hiring and promoting more women.
Clinton didn't fare any better in the second study, also published in Political Research Quarterly. It found that the media, often using unnamed sources, went overboard very early in the primaries to suggest that Clinton quit the race.
The "exit talk" was far worse than any other recent primary challenger has faced, including Ronald Reagan in 1976, Edward Kennedy in 1980, and Gary Hart in 1984. "Some might suggest sexism was at work," say the authors, who add that reporters having more leeway to speak their own opinions was also to blame.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/12/23/media-sexism-doomed-hillarys-2008-bid
--------------
http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/Politics/pm/kimcampbell.htm
------------
Take a look in the mirror, because it is voters who want politicians to bring the nastiness to elections -- and reward those who do with victory.
That's the unfortunate conclusion of a new United States study that found 38 per cent of both Republicans and Democrat voters believe that any means necessary should be used to win elections.
Those tactics include: "Voter suppression, stealing or cheating in elections, physical violence and threats against the other party, lying, personal attacks on opponents, not allowing the other party to speak and using the filibuster to gridlock Congress."
Patrick Miller, a University of Kansas political science assistant professor and co-author of the study, says voters behave more like sports fans obsessed with their team's victory, rather than show interest in public policy issues.
"For too many of them it's not high-minded, good-government, issue-based goals. It's 'I hate the other party. I'm going to go out, and we're going to beat them.' That's troubling," Miller says.
Miller's study is a clear warning to Canada as the New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals fight a three-way election battle.
"Competitive elections are making you hate the other party more. They're having a 180-degree opposite effect from what we think they should," Miller said.
"Instead of bringing us together to talk and deliberate, they're making us hateful people who are disengaged from our fellow citizens."
Nasty ad season
Canada isn't that different than hyper-partisan America.
Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff found out how rough politics can be when he was targeted by relentless Conservative advertising prior to the 2011 election that said he was "just visiting" Canada after a long, distinguished career as an academic in the U.S.
"I took the attacks personally, which is a great mistake. It's never personal: It's just business. It was ever thus," Ignatieff wrote last November in The New Republic magazine.
"I went into politics thinking that, if I made arguments in good faith, I'd get a hearing. It's a reasonable assumption, but it's wrong," said Ignatieff, who led the Liberals to their worst defeat.
While Ignatieff's failure to counter the Conservative attacks should have been ample warning to current Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, the "just not ready" line repeated in thousands of television and radio ads has damaged his chances.
But there are no choir boys in the church of politics.
The NDP has released a brutally effective attack ad on the Conservatives asking: "Have you had enough?" featuring a parade of MPs, Senators and staff who have been convicted, charged or are under investigation for alleged crimes or rule breaking.
"Corruption... misleading voters, election fraud, breach of trust, illegal lobbying, illegal campaign contributions, bribery, misuse of funds..." the female voice intones as dark photos of Conservatives go by.
The ad ends with a shot of Harper's former parliamentary secretary Dean del Maestro being led away to jail in leg irons by police earlier this year after his conviction for electoral fraud. On YouTube alone, it's had over 604,000 views since July 13.
The Conservatives are now training their guns on NDP leader Tom Mulcair as "another career politician we can't afford" with ads similar to the Trudeau "resume review" approach.
Trudeau says the Liberals won't be launching attack ads like the Tories or NDP.
"Once you attack, you divide people and we need people to be brought together so I'm going to let Mr. Harper continue to make the mistakes he's making by underestimating Canadians..." Trudeau told Global TV in July.
That approach may be brave, but politically foolish.
Here in British Columbia, the New Democrats in 2013's election refused to use attack ads on Liberal Premier Christy Clark's highly tarnished record -- and leader Adrian Dix lost a race that all the polls indicated he should win.
Before that election I wrote a column with research showing that not only did voters dislike negative ads, but that they were also often counterproductive. But I also warned that Dix was taking the biggest political risk of his career.
Unfortunately, the 2013 B.C. election results and the recent University of Kansas study show that shunning attack or "contrast" ads is simply the wrong strategy.
'Words do hurt'
Sadly, it appears that attack ads and over-the-top partisanship are not only on the rise, but the consequences are severe.
It goes well beyond seeing the Donald Trump train-wreck Republican campaign apparently benefitting from the billionaire's trashing of Mexicans, women, fellow Republicans and others -- since he is now leading the contenders.
In Missouri, Tom Schweich -- a leading candidate for the Republican nomination for governor -- shockingly committed suicide in February after becoming the target of negative radio ads and what he called an anti-Semitic "whisper campaign."
"Politics has gone so hideously wrong, and that the death of Tom Schweich is the natural consequence of what politics has become," former U.S. senator Jack Danforth said in a powerful eulogy for the man he mentored.
"As for the radio commercial, making fun of someone's physical appearance, calling him a 'little bug', there is one word to describe it: 'bullying.' And there is one word to describe the person behind it: 'bully,'" Danforth told churchgoers at the funeral.
"Words do hurt. Words can kill. That has been proven right here in our home state," Danforth said.
"There is no mystery as to why politicians conduct themselves this way. It works. They test how well it works in focus groups and opinion polls."
Danforth ended with a plea: "Politics as it now exists must end, and we will end it. And we will get in the face of our politicians, and we will tell them that we are fed up, and that we are not going to take this anymore."
But unless voters truly reject attack ads, negative campaigning and hyper partisanship, elections will continue to get nastier -- because it works.![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.ca/ui/img/ico_fishie.png)
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/25/Nasty-Politics-Starts-With-Us/
--------------
Canadians worldwide are viewed as impartial and less agenda-driven, giving us an influential voice to help out
{Posting this piece as background to my ethical reflections before the inaugural meeting of the International Association of Religion Journalists.)
Vancouver Sun ARCHIVES
Saturday, Dec 31, 2005
Column: Douglas Todd
So you think you have problems with the North American media?
You’re wondering why there is a continental media obsession with crime. You think your political/ethnic/economic-class opinions aren’t reflected enough in newspapers or on TV and radio.
You’re suspicious about the shortage of hard-hitting consumer reporting. And you’re amazed most media outlets seem convinced you are desperate to know absolutely everything about Todd Bertuzzi and Angelina Jolie.
There are many significant issues in Canadian and U.S. media ethics. But, compared with moral challenges in the global media, they just aren’t in the same league as some of those in the developing world.
In Africa and parts of Asia, the ethics questions can run something like: Should I risk being assassinated by quoting an opposition party candidate? Could I provoke a bloody riot if I refer to an ethnic group with a certain phrase? Is it worth being fired or threatened for failing to refer to a certain insurgent group as “terrorists?”
Greater Vancouver, in part because of immigration but also because of its highly literate and internationally aware population, has an unusually large proportion of people who see issues from a globally inter-connected perspective. Some of them are going far beyond parochialism when it comes to creating better media.
This city has recently become the home to at least four different efforts devoted to exploring the many ways that Canadian approaches to media ethics can help expand pluralism and democracy around the globe, particularly in conflict-ridden countries in Asia and Africa.
Compared to American, British or French organizations, these organizations have found Canadian groups can be more influential in developing countries in fostering an open media — because Canadians are viewed as less arrogant, more impartial and less inclined to ram their agenda down the throats of the world’s disparate citizens.
Vancouver, for instance, is the home base for the adventurous work of former Canadian news reporter Ross Howard. Until recently Howard worked out of the Vancouver office of the non-profit organization, IMPACS (www.impacs.org), which has long had a vibrant arm devoted to building independent Third World media outlets that foster women’s rights and peace.
Howard recently established a new organization, the Media and Democracy Group (www.mediaanddemocracy.ca), which sends off highly experienced, well-travelled Canadian journalists and instructors to some of the world’s hot spots, where they’re ready to do what’s necessary to help set up radio, TV and print outlets.
As well, Stephen Ward, a professor in the University of B.C.’s journalism department, last month launched a program devoted to encouraging ethical debate and strengthening international media values (www.journalismethics.ca), called Journalism Ethics for the Global Citizen.
Among many other things, Ward and his team want to show how responsible journalists can ease tension in formerly ravaged zones. Journalism Ethics for the Global Citizen is also devoted to eventually developing a code of journalistic ethics that could be applied worldwide, in part since news reports (usually Western) now instantly travel the planet, for good and ill.
Showing their willingness to collaborate, Howard wrote one of the pieces for Ward’s new website, in which he argues that incompetent, partisan and misinformed journalism has incited racist, hate-filled violence around the world, particularly in places such as Rwanda, the Balkans and Cambodia.
Accurate and fair journalism could have counteracted such madness, Howard writes. “Reliable reporting, and responsibly written editorials and opinion, do things such as establish communication among disputant parties, correct misperceptions and identify underlying interests. The media provides an emotional outlet. It can offer solutions, and build confidence.”
One of the Vancouver-based people with the deepest roots in global media ethics may be Jon Tinker, who in 1986 in Europe helped found the Panos Institute, which he said has over time had a “powerful effect” in encouraging radio stations, newspapers and TV outlets in the developing world to advance pluralism.
With an annual budget of about $10 million Cdn and 100 staff, Panos now has eight semi-autonomous offices around the planet, including two in Europe, three in Africa, one in South Asia, one for the Caribbean and one in Vancouver, based at UBC’s Liu Institute for Global Issues.
What are some of the burning issues on the often-violent front lines of global media ethics?
Panos is working in dozens of countries in Africa that have been struggling to emerge in the 1990s from autocracy.
Often, Tinker says, the new African “governments view even the mildest media criticism as sedition,” punishable by censorship, dismissal, jail and much worse.
Without trying to impose Western answers on Third World countries, Tinker says Panos has helped journalists in such unstable countries meet with emerging governments to develop a local code of journalistic ethics, which reporters can use to defend themselves against potentially harsh government clampdowns.
Often, however, it’s the media outlets themselves that provoke trouble. Canadian journalists may make readers and viewers angry from time to time, says Tinker. But they rarely incite riots or massacres, like they can in the often-explosive developing world.
Just look, says Tinker, at the mass chaos ignited when a Nigerian journalist referred a few years ago to how Mohammed, the founder of Islam, would have been attracted to contestants in the country’s Miss Universe contest. And that was a relatively innocent remark.
In massacre-ravaged countries preparing to hold elections for the first time, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Panos has brought media outlets and governments together to figure out ways to constrain highly partisan and often hate-mongering newspapers and radio and TV stations.
It’s a balancing act between free expression and censorship. On one hand, diverse opinions have to be aired during election campaigns, says Tinker. But they can’t be expressed so vehemently and inaccurately that they may again incite mass reprisal.
In countries such as Rwanda, emerging from a savage civil war between Tutsis and Hutus, Panos has faced incendiary ethical dilemmas that seem distant from those in Canada.
The Rwandan government, in an attempt to stop ethnic hatred from again causing disaster, has now simply banned media outlets from using the terms, “Tutsi,” and “Hutu.” Given the context, it’s hard to say whether this is absolutely wrong-headed.
In regions such as the Middle East, Russia, China and Colombia, however, Tinker says different words have the power to kill. Panos urges media outlets in such countries to be wary of adopting the influential language of President George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism” — by avoiding labelling every kind of insurgent group as just another “terrorist” organization that must be totally eradicated.
Whether Panos is trying to ease bloody conflict within countries, or between warring nations such as India and Pakistan, Tinker says it’s often been successful at being seen as an “honest broker,” bringing people together to create media that express a range of responsible viewpoints.
Some of the journalistic principles Panos encourages start with ideals considered basic in Canada (though frequently ignored), such as accuracy, balance and fairness.
Panos has also encouraged rival media outlets, including in conflicting countries, to publish the articles and editorials of their opponents. That can ease paranoia and builds understanding.
“A lot of things we take for granted in Canada in our media are still matters of everyday struggle in a lot of countries,” says Tinker.
On that note, Tinker says he believes Canada is missing a big opportunity to take advantage of what he calls its “diaspora communities,” the millions of immigrants from far-flung countries who feel loyalty to both Canada and their home country.
Take, for instance, Haiti’s “appalling” problems with media ethics, he says. Journalists are constantly being murdered and kidnapped on the corruption-filled island. Canadian-Haitians know media freedom is a sick joke in their home country, despite the presence of Canadian peacekeeping forces.
But Tinker believes the Canadian government, which recently appointed Haitian-Canadian Michaelle Jean as its governor-general, hasn’t yet figured out how to use this country’s incredible “asset,” its large and often-professional Haitian population, to pave the way for stability in the Caribbean nation.
Instead of seeing Canada as mainly a country that supplies peacekeeping forces to the world, Tinker maintains not enough energy is put into “using the influence of the diaspora,” including Canadian-Haitian journalists, to help support an independent media in the tormented country.
Tinker is on to a great idea. But the Canadian government, and most Canadians, seem timid about supporting such innovative ways to build a more fair-minded media, in Haiti or around the planet. We have a lot to learn from specialists such as Tinker, Howard and Ward.
They not only have a vision for how the Canadian media could be fine-tuned for greater responsibility, but for how more embattled countries could foster something that for them would be dramatically new; a fair and open media. Without it, real democracy is impossible.
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/03/19/fostering-an-ethical-world-media/
------------------
QUALITY STANDARDS.....
Media Rating Council
|
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif) |
History and Mission of the MRC
In the early 1960’s a U.S. Congressional Committee held
hearings on the purpose and accuracy of audience research and considered
regulation related to the TV and Radio industries. These public hearings are
commonly referred to as the “Harris Committee Hearings on Broadcast Ratings.”
After investigation and extensive testimony the Committee determined that
Industry self-regulation, including independent audits of rating services was
preferable to government intervention. The Harris Committee hearings resulted
in the formation of an Industry-funded organization to review and accredit
audience rating services called the Broadcast Rating Council (now referred to as
the MRC).
Aligned with the actions deemed necessary by the House
Committee, the activities of the MRC include:
The Council seeks to improve the quality of audience
measurement by rating services and to provide a better understanding of the
applications (and limitations) of rating information. The Bylaws of the MRC
document the organization’s mission as: “to secure for the media industry and
related users audience measurement services that are valid, reliable and
effective; to evolve and determine minimum disclosure and ethical criteria for
media audience measurement services; and to provide and administer an audit
system designed to inform users as to whether such audience measurements are
conducted in conformance with the criteria and procedures developed.” This
mission was established with the support of the House Committee.
MRC Membership
Membership is open to any media organization that relies on
or uses media research, and each member company is entitled to a seat on the MRC
Board of Directors. Organizations such as Nielsen or Arbitron that provide
media ratings are not allowed to be members. Currently there are approximately
145 Board members in total representing TV and Radio Broadcasting, Cable, Print,
Internet and Advertising Agency organizations as well as Advertisers and Trade
Associations. The MRC also maintains a formal liaison relationship with the
Advertising Research Foundation (ARF).
The MRC Audit and Accreditation Process
The central element in the monitoring activity of the MRC
is its system of annual external audits of rating service operations performed
by a specialized team of independent CPA auditors. MRC audits serve these
important functions:
Syndicated Measurement Services that submit to MRC Accreditation must agree to:
Resulting audit reports are very detailed containing many
methodological and proprietary details of the rating service and illumination of
the primary strengths and weaknesses of its operations. The reports are
confidential among the MRC members, independent CPA firm, and the rating
service. Audit reports include detailed testing and findings for:
Pursuant to the last bullet above, the MRC mandates rating
services to disclose many methodology and performance measures, which would be
otherwise unknown, for example:
Rating services awarded MRC Accreditation are given
permission to display the MRC’s logo on the audited research product indicating
compliance with our Standards. MRC Standards are publicly available; more
importantly, the extensive methodological and survey performance disclosures
mandated by the MRC are required to be available to all rating service
customers.
|
-----
QUOTE: The United Nations tribunal in Arusha has convicted three former media executives of being key figures in the media campaign to incite ethnic Hutus to kill Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994.
The impact of hate media in Rwanda
By Russell Smith
BBC News Online Africa editor
The United Nations tribunal in Arusha has convicted three former media executives of being key figures in the media campaign to incite ethnic Hutus to kill Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994.
The 'Hate media' trial began in 2000
It is widely believed that so-called hate media had a significant part to play in the genocide, during which some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died.
There is also little doubt that its legacy continues to exert a strong influence on the country.
The most prominent hate media outlet was the private radio station, Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines.
Cockroaches
It was established in 1993 and opposed peace talks between the government of President Juvenal Habyarimana and the Tutsi-led rebels of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which now forms the government.
After President Habyarimana's plane was shot down, the radio called for a "final war" to "exterminate the cockroaches."
About 800,000 people died in Rwanda's 100-day genocide in 1994
During the genocide that followed it broadcast lists of people to be killed and instructed killers on where to find them.
The BBC's Ally Mugenzi worked as a journalist in Rwanda during the genocide and says there was no doubting the influence of the RTLM.
"RTLM acted as if it was giving instructions to the killers. It was giving directions on air as to where people were hiding," he said.
He himself said he had a narrow escape after broadcasting a report on the Rwandan media for the BBC.
They announced on the radio he had lied about them and summoned him to the station to explain himself. He spent three hours there, justifying his report.
General Romeo Dallaire, the commander of the UN peacekeeping operation in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, said: "Simply jamming [the] broadcasts and replacing them with messages of peace and reconciliation would have had a significant impact on the course of events."
As the Tutsi forces advanced through the country during 1994, the broadcasters of Radio Mille Collines fled across the border into what was then Zaire.
Media
Prosecutors in the Tanzanian town of Arusha at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda argued that RTLM played a key role in the genocide during the trial of the radio's top executives Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Ferdinand Nahimana.
Mr Barayagwiza boycotted the trial and was sentenced to 35 years. Mr Nahimana was given life in prison.
Hassan Ngeze, who ran an extremist magazine called Kangura was also sentenced to life.
Their defence relied on the often ambiguous nature of the comments - which they say were aimed at the advancing Tutsi rebels under General Paul Kagame rather than at civilians.
President Kagame's government has used the recent memories of hate media to justify keeping a tight reign on its own media.
Just last week, the country's only independent newspaper, Umeseso, had copies of its newspaper seized and journalists arrested for publishing articles critical of the government.
Rwanda also still lacks a private radio station and the government exerts control over most of the media outlets.
This helped ensure landslide election wins for the RPF during the first post genocide multi-party elections this year.
The government promises to introduce a more open media soon.
There will be many hoping that the hate media verdicts delivered in Arusha on Wednesday will help that process along.
The tribunal has secured just a dozen convictions in a decade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm
-------------
BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: Canada's son- Mohamed Fahmy- FREE AT LAST- thank u Egypt Sept. 2015/ ALJAZEERA-August 3-again we wait 4 our Canadian son 2 b able 2 come home 2 Canada, come on Egypt pls- u pay Canadian taxes right?/- Fahmy hijacked by Al-Jazeera and Egypt -#FreeMohamedFahmy / June 24 -Lesson 101 for everyday folks on the aggressive often blurring of the truth – if there is any truth/Religious interference … along with the MISCONCEPTION by USA/UNITED NATIONS that Western Democracy is the be all end all FORCED upon a global peoples of different, beautiful cultures and values- ALJAZEERA and 4-12 Journalists were doing and acting in the wrong way at the changing of the tides – and they are the tokens…. it seems…. /DIFFERENCES IN MUSLIM/ISLAM FAITHS AND HOLY WARS- QATAR/IRAN/SAUDIS- it’s all about them- QATAR WITH MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD- TROUNCING ON EGYPT AND HIJACKING YOUTH FREEDOM WITH THEIR JOURNALISTS IS A HARD PRICE- NOW A FORMER EGYPTIAN (PRETEND CANADIAN...WHO HAS NOT HONOURED CANADA OR OUR NATION 4 YEARS WANTS 2 COME HOME...EVEN FM JOHN BAIRD INTERVENED).... journalists need 2 do their jobs... period. That’s the lesson here. QATAR AL-JAZEERA (who refused 2 step up 4 je suis Charlie....) totally interfered in Egypt’s business.... totally... and everyday folk know it...updates APRIL 8- What is the problem- of course u won't get your Canada passport back/renewed whilst on trial- proving your Canadian shd be easy though imho- here's how /April 21/15 Canadian son, Mohamed Fahmy getting Canadian passport
-------------
Hate Radio: Rwanda
RNW archive
This article is part of the RNW archive. RNW is the
former Radio Netherlands Worldwide or Wereldomroep, which was founded as the
Dutch international public broadcaster in 1947. In 2011, the Dutch government
decided to cut funding and shift RNW from the ministry of Education, Culture
and Science to the ministry of Foreign Affairs. More information about RNW
Media’s current activities can be found at https://www.rnw.org/about-rnw-media.
On December 3, 2003, he was sentenced to 35 years in
prison in a trial that lasted slightly over three years. He boycotted the
entire proceedings in protest over what he termed "partiality" of the
judges. He even refused to recognise lawyers assigned to defend him. When
Barayagwiza was convicted, he decided to appeal. He said that he had only
boycotted his trial session because he did not trust judges in the lower
chamber.
During a status conference held on Friday 1 April
2005, Barayagwiza requested more time to prepare his appeal arguing that his
case was "complicated". He had been given three and a half months to
file his pre-appeal briefs but he considered the time given to be too short and
wanted it to be pushed to 12 months. "I find myself in a very unusual
position. I do not have to be limited or be discriminated against. My
co-accused were given more time."
Barayagwiza was jointly accused with the other
partner in RTLM, Ferdinand Nahimana and Hassan Ngeze, former editor of the
radical anti-Tutsi newspaper, Kangura. He blames the Registrar for dragging his
feet in appointing a new defence counsel. Mr. Donald Herbert was assigned to
Barayagwiza November 30, 2004.
"I am the one prejudiced and you expect me to
pay for the Registrar's delay?" the accused asked Judge Ines de Roca from
Argentina who was chairing the hearing via video link from The Hague. Judge
Roca informed Barayagwiza that the interests of his co-accused should be taken
into account as well as they had requested for a hearing without delay. The
Argentinean judge advised the accused that if he was not satisfied with the
arrangements, he could appeal to the complete five-person chamber and not a
sole judge.
(Source: Hirondelle News Agency)
Fire broke out on Friday 2 April 2004 at the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) based in Arusha Tanzania,
destroying documents used in the trials of people accused of taking part in the
1994 genocide in Rwanda.
The fire was quickly brought under control by the
Arusha fire brigade who responded within ten minutes. UN and Tanzanian security
officers were busy sifting through the charred-out remains as UN employees were
gathered in groups outside looking in disbelief. There were no casualties.
Audio recordings destroyed
Remains of burnt-out files and audio cassettes lay scattered outside an entrance that leads to prisoners' holding cells and the evidence unit. The evidence unit is where all gathered evidence of the more than fifty detainees is kept. Among the partly destroyed evidence in view was a folder with the name 'Barayagwiza' written on it and audio cassettes of Radio Télévision Libre de Mille Collines (RTLM). Jean Bosco Barayagwiza is one of the three accused in the so-called 'hate media' trial who were sentenced to life imprisonment December 3, 2003.
Remains of burnt-out files and audio cassettes lay scattered outside an entrance that leads to prisoners' holding cells and the evidence unit. The evidence unit is where all gathered evidence of the more than fifty detainees is kept. Among the partly destroyed evidence in view was a folder with the name 'Barayagwiza' written on it and audio cassettes of Radio Télévision Libre de Mille Collines (RTLM). Jean Bosco Barayagwiza is one of the three accused in the so-called 'hate media' trial who were sentenced to life imprisonment December 3, 2003.
RTLM is the most widely reported symbol of "hate
radio" throughout the world. Its broadcasts, disseminating hate propaganda
and inciting to murder Tutsis and opponents to the regime, began on 8 July
1993, and greatly contributed to the 1994 genocide of hundreds of thousands.
RTLM, aided by the staff and facilities of Radio
Rwanda, the government-owned station, called on the Hutu majority to destroy
the Tutsi minority. The programmes were relayed to all parts of the country via
a network of transmitters owned and operated by Radio Rwanda. After Rwandan
Patriotic Front troops drove the government forces out of Kigali in July 1994,
RTLM used mobile FM transmitters to broadcast disinformation from inside the
French-controlled zone on the border between Rwanda and Zaire, causing millions
of Hutus to flee toward refugee camps where they could be regrouped and
recruited as future fighters.
It is widely believed that RTLM was set up to
circumvent the ban imposed on "harmful radio propaganda" to which the
Rwandan government had formally committed itself to in the March 1993
Dar-Es-Salaam joint communiqué.
The West Fails to Act
Initially, RTLM was not taken seriously by western governments and diplomats. Although RTLM clearly qualified as harmful and attacked even members of the diplomatic corps in Kigali, there was no decision to take forceful measures to silence it. The western donors limited themselves to making representations to President Habyarimana who responded by promising to look into it, but not taking any action. Both the French and the American ambassadors opposed any action against RTLM. The US Ambassador at the time claimed that it was the best radio for information and that its euphemisms were subject to many interpretations.
The West Fails to Act
Initially, RTLM was not taken seriously by western governments and diplomats. Although RTLM clearly qualified as harmful and attacked even members of the diplomatic corps in Kigali, there was no decision to take forceful measures to silence it. The western donors limited themselves to making representations to President Habyarimana who responded by promising to look into it, but not taking any action. Both the French and the American ambassadors opposed any action against RTLM. The US Ambassador at the time claimed that it was the best radio for information and that its euphemisms were subject to many interpretations.
As the then Canadian ambassador, Lucie Edwards, later
said: "The question of Radio Mille Collines propaganda is a difficult one.
There were so many genuinely silly things being said on the station, so many
obvious lies, that it was hard to take it seriously... Nevertheless, everyone
listened to it - I was told by Tutsis (sic) - in a spirit of morbid fascination
and because it had the best music selection."
Bringing the Guilty to Justice
The process of bringing to justice those responsible for the broadcasts of RTLM is now well under way, though some are still at large. On 22 July, 1996 journalist Ferdinand Nahimana, described as the director of RTLM, was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. He was charged with genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. The initial court appearance was made on 19 February 1997 and he pleaded not guilty. The trial of Nahimana and two others began on 21 Oct 2001.
Bringing the Guilty to Justice
The process of bringing to justice those responsible for the broadcasts of RTLM is now well under way, though some are still at large. On 22 July, 1996 journalist Ferdinand Nahimana, described as the director of RTLM, was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. He was charged with genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. The initial court appearance was made on 19 February 1997 and he pleaded not guilty. The trial of Nahimana and two others began on 21 Oct 2001.
The indictment alleged that:
* In or around 1993, Ferdinand
Nahimana and others planned and created RTLM S.A. RTLM was an integral part of
RTLM S.A. RTLM operated within the territory of Rwanda during the time of the
events alleged in the indictment. In addition to being involved in the creation
of RTLM S.A, Ferdinand Nahimana was instrumental in the establishment of RTLM.
* Between 1 January 1994 and approximately 31 July 1994, RTLM was used to broadcast messages designed to achieve interethnic hatred and encourage the population to kill, commits acts of violence and persecutions against Tutsi population and others on political grounds.
* During this period, Tutsis and others were killed and suffered serious bodily or mental harm as the result of the RTLM broadcasts.
* From a date unknown to the prosecutor through the period alleged in the indictment, Ferdinand Nahimana, by himself and with others planned, directed and defended the broadcasts made by RTLM.
* He knew or had reason to know of the broadcasts and the effects of the broadcasts on the population. He could have taken reasonable measures to change or prevent the broadcasts, but failed to do so. He failed to take the necessary measures to punish the subordinates.
Nahimana’s Defence
The prosecution completed its evidence on 12 July 2002. Nahimana began testifying in his own defence in September 2002. He said that RTLM was set up to counter the propaganda of Radio Muhabura, operated by the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF). "We felt that there was need for more voices in the discussion of the Arusha accords, to counteract the RPF radio and to explain to the people the effects of the war."
* Between 1 January 1994 and approximately 31 July 1994, RTLM was used to broadcast messages designed to achieve interethnic hatred and encourage the population to kill, commits acts of violence and persecutions against Tutsi population and others on political grounds.
* During this period, Tutsis and others were killed and suffered serious bodily or mental harm as the result of the RTLM broadcasts.
* From a date unknown to the prosecutor through the period alleged in the indictment, Ferdinand Nahimana, by himself and with others planned, directed and defended the broadcasts made by RTLM.
* He knew or had reason to know of the broadcasts and the effects of the broadcasts on the population. He could have taken reasonable measures to change or prevent the broadcasts, but failed to do so. He failed to take the necessary measures to punish the subordinates.
Nahimana’s Defence
The prosecution completed its evidence on 12 July 2002. Nahimana began testifying in his own defence in September 2002. He said that RTLM was set up to counter the propaganda of Radio Muhabura, operated by the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF). "We felt that there was need for more voices in the discussion of the Arusha accords, to counteract the RPF radio and to explain to the people the effects of the war."
"There is a sense in which when one says we were
criticising the RPF, it is understood to mean that the person was against
Tutsi. I think this is terrible and I must ask you not to approach matters this
way. We felt it was important to have a discussion on the issues that were
obtaining at the time and this is what we did," said Nahimana.
According to Nahimana, the Movement for the
Democratic Republic (MDR) controlled the Ministry of Information, and had
signed a memorandum of agreement with the RPF that resulted in unbalanced
coverage of the 'war' in the national media. "If the RPF had not set up
its own station and proceeded to broadcast propaganda on which basis the
government was to blame for the war, RTLM would probably not have been set up.
A lot of people were unhappy with the coverage of Radio Rwanda," Nahimana
said.
Nahimana said that while he was involved in the
radio's initial formation, he was not involved in its day-to-day running. He
added that a manager named Phocas Hahimana was in charge of RTLM's daily
activities. Nahimana maintained that, contrary to prosecution allegations, he
did not have editorial control over RTLM broadcasts, and claimed that only
Gaspard Gahigi, the editor in chief, held such powers.
Haimana went on to claim that a radical section of
the founding members of RTLM hijacked the radio station and used it for a
killing campaign. "What happened in Rwanda is revolting, thousand, hundreds
of thousands of Tutsi were killed for no other reason than they were Tutsi and
this happened largely in areas controlled by the transitional government. In
areas controlled by the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) in eastern Rwanda,
thousands of Hutu were killed because they were Hutu, it is truly
revolting," Nahimana told the court.
Prosecuting attorney Simone Monasebian produced
excerpts of various documents, including portions of the Kangura Newspaper
published between 1990-1994. She noted that Kangura had published a photograph
of Nahimana, together with RTLM editor Gaspard Gahigi with the caption
"RTLM, no chance for the Tutsi" and challenged Nahimana to show if he
had ever contested this portrayal of the station. Nahimana admitted that he had
not protested, but said that Kangura had published a lot of other things that
he did not agree with, and which he found unacceptable.
Monasebian noted that RTLM officials attended
meetings in which they were criticised by the Ministry of Information and the
Ministry of Justice in Rwanda and accused of inciting ethnic hatred. She played
a videotape of former Minister of Information Faustin Rucogoza, who stated that
RTLM had turned into a political party and a mouthpiece of the extremist
Council for the Defense of Democracy (CDR) party. She noted that during this
time Nahimana "acted as the director of the RTLM or at least held himself
up as such."
Nahimana said that he had never at any time been the
director of RTLM, and that this was a post held by Phocas Habimana. Nahimana
added that some prosecution witnesses designated him as an RTLM founder rather
than its director.
"Trauma and Drugs Were to Blame"
On 18th October, Nahimana turned to another line of defence, and started claiming that trauma and drug use explained the extremist conduct of the RTLM journalists. "Some journalists started drugging themselves and this only started happening after 6 April," said Nahimana. He lamented the fact that the editor-in-chief and director of the station did not spot this and put a stop to it. Nahimana also named individual journalists whom he said had suffered personal trauma, which "explained" some of the things they said on the air.
"Trauma and Drugs Were to Blame"
On 18th October, Nahimana turned to another line of defence, and started claiming that trauma and drug use explained the extremist conduct of the RTLM journalists. "Some journalists started drugging themselves and this only started happening after 6 April," said Nahimana. He lamented the fact that the editor-in-chief and director of the station did not spot this and put a stop to it. Nahimana also named individual journalists whom he said had suffered personal trauma, which "explained" some of the things they said on the air.
After three years of testimony, the trial reached its
climax in August 2003 when the tribunal retired to consider its verdict. The
prosecutor demanded the maximum sentence, life imprisonment for all the
accused. Their lawyers, on the other hand insisted that the prosecutor had not
proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt and demanded an acquittal.
The verdict
In early December the court announced its verdict. RTLM Director Ferdinand Nahimana was sentenced to life imprisonment, and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza to 35 years, reduced to 27 years because of the time he has already spent in jail.
In early December the court announced its verdict. RTLM Director Ferdinand Nahimana was sentenced to life imprisonment, and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza to 35 years, reduced to 27 years because of the time he has already spent in jail.
Reporters sans Frontières (RSF) welcomed the life
sentence passed against Nahimana. "We are pleased that this case has
finally reached a conclusion despite countless procedural delays and
obstacles," RSF Secretary-General Robert Ménard said. "This is the
first time that journalists have been sentenced to life imprisonment for
incitement to murder and violence in their reports," he added.
"We hope these sentences are seen as a warning
to the many journalists in Africa and elsewhere who also stir up hate in their
writing," Ménard said. "Even if no country today is in a situation
comparable to Rwanda's at the time of the genocide, these sentences should
serve as a call to order to all the publications that constantly flout the most
elementary rules of professional ethics and conduct."
Related cases
In April 1998, Giorgio Ruggiu, an Italian-Belgian accused of incitement to genocide and of crimes against humanity, in connection with the massacre that occurred in Rwanda between April and June 1994, went on trial in Arusha. According to the charges, he broadcast on RTLM an appeal to the Hutus to destroy as many Tutsis as possible. "What are you waiting for? The tombs are empty. Take up your machetes and hack your enemies to pieces", he was reported as having said at the time.
Related cases
In April 1998, Giorgio Ruggiu, an Italian-Belgian accused of incitement to genocide and of crimes against humanity, in connection with the massacre that occurred in Rwanda between April and June 1994, went on trial in Arusha. According to the charges, he broadcast on RTLM an appeal to the Hutus to destroy as many Tutsis as possible. "What are you waiting for? The tombs are empty. Take up your machetes and hack your enemies to pieces", he was reported as having said at the time.
In May 2000, Mr Ruggiu was given two concurrent
sentences of 12 years each, after admitting to direct and public incitement to
commit genocide and persecution as a crime against humanity. He admitted that
he "incited murders and caused serious attacks on the physical and/or
mental well-being of members of the Tutsi population with the intention of
destroying, in whole or in part, an ethnic or racial group".
"These are events which I regret, but they are
the reality and I decided to admit them," Mr Ruggiu told the court.
"I admit that it was indeed a genocide and that unfortunately I took part
in it," he said.
The Rwandan government has protested at the sentence,
saying that it “did not measure up to the crimes for which Ruggiu had
confessed”.
In June 2002, the US State Department announced the
Campaign to Capture Fugitives Indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda. The campaign started by offering a reward of up to US$5 million for
the capture of former RTLM President Félicien Kabuga. Mr Kabuga is a wealthy
businessman who is accused of using his vast assets to propel the Rwandan
massacres, firstly, by affording a platform to disseminate the message of
ethnic hatred through the radio station, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille
Collines (RTLM), and secondly, by providing logistic support such as weapons,
uniforms, and transportation to the Interahamwe militia group of the Mouvement
Républicain National pour le Démocratie et le Développement (MRND) and the
militia of Coalition pour la Défense de la République (CDR).
Read More
Introductory Pages
The Dilemma of Definitions
Reacting to Hate Radio
Commentary: Defining hate
Commentary: Crossing the line
Hate Radio Survey
Burundi
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ivory Coast
Other Parts of Africa & Middle East
North America and the Caribbean
Europe
UK
Asia
Burundi
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ivory Coast
Other Parts of Africa & Middle East
North America and the Caribbean
Europe
UK
Asia
"Peace" Radio Survey
Burundi
Central African Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Liberia
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
Elsewhere in Africa
Independent "Peace" Radio Other Parts of the World
UN agencies & International Broadcasters supporting peace-keeping operations
Recent Initiatives by International Broadcasters
Burundi
Central African Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Liberia
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
Elsewhere in Africa
Independent "Peace" Radio Other Parts of the World
UN agencies & International Broadcasters supporting peace-keeping operations
Recent Initiatives by International Broadcasters
-----------------
Media Sexism Doomed Hillary's 2008 Bid
MSNBC's Chris Matthews treated Clinton the worst.
It turns out that former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign was right: She was doomed by media sexists. Two new scholarly studies that blow the whistle on the industry's lopsided reliance on male reporters find that the media first belittled her effort against Barack Obama, then jumped the gun to push her out of the race earlier than any other recent strong primary challenger.
Among the key findings is that sexism, more than ideology, drove the media's anti-Clinton theme. The biggest offender: MSNBC's liberal and popular host Chris Matthews. "He treated HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] worse than all other newspeople," says one study from University of Utah researchers and published in the prestigious Political Research Quarterly. A related study from the same school found that sexism played a role in the media's push to get Clinton out of the 2008 Democratic primaries even though she was a strong challenger who vowed to stay in until the convention in Denver.
[10 Commentators the Left and Right Love to Hate.]
While examples of sexism were shrugged off at the time, the new study of media sex bias charges that the press used many tricks to swipe at Clinton, the initial front-runner. Some included nasty name-calling. Others were more subtle, like referring to her simply as "Hillary." Some 8 percent of the time, the leading 127 newspeople studied by the scholars called her "Hillary." It was "Barack" just 2 percent of the time. And it wasn't because she marketed her campaign as "Hillary," they add.
The study notes that when men use their first name in their campaign, reporters still refer to them by their last names: Rudy Giuliani was "Giuliani," and Lamar Alexander was "Alexander." Here again, Matthews was tops, calling the candidate "Hillary" twice as often as his nearest TV news competitor, Fox's Sean Hannity, did. [Michele Bachmann's Nuttiness Is No Reason for Sexism.]
The authors say sexism in the media is so bad—men in the survey outnumbered women 60 percent to 40 percent—that owners should start hiring and promoting more women.
Clinton didn't fare any better in the second study, also published in Political Research Quarterly. It found that the media, often using unnamed sources, went overboard very early in the primaries to suggest that Clinton quit the race.
The "exit talk" was far worse than any other recent primary challenger has faced, including Ronald Reagan in 1976, Edward Kennedy in 1980, and Gary Hart in 1984. "Some might suggest sexism was at work," say the authors, who add that reporters having more leeway to speak their own opinions was also to blame.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/12/23/media-sexism-doomed-hillarys-2008-bid
--------------
|
|
|||||||||
Elections | Governor General | Supreme Courts | Parliament | Political Parties | Prime Ministers | Provinces | Symbols
John A Macdonald
| Alexander Mackenzie
| John Abbott
| John Thompson
|
Mackenzie Bowell
| Charles Tupper |
Wilfred Laurier
|
Robert Borden
| Arthur Meighen
| William Lyon Mackenzie
King
| RB Bennett
|
Louis St Laurent
| John Diefenbaker |
Lester Pearson |
Pierre Trudeau
| Joe Clark
| John Turner
| Brian Mulroney
|
Kim Campbell
| Jean Chretien |
Paul
Martin
|
Stephen Harper
The rise of Kim Campbell in
Federal Canadian politics was relatively fast as was her ultimate
demise. Canada's 19th Prime Minister was also it's first female PM.
Campbell was born Avril Phaedra
Douglas Campbell on March 10th, 1947 in Port Alberni,
British Columbia. Her family moved to Vancouver soon after she was
born and at age 12 her mother left her home and she decided that
Avril would not continue to be her name and from there on in she
would be called Kim. She attended Prince of Wales High School where
she was elected the first ever female class President which was not
t be the first male only barrier she would bring down
She attended the University of
British Columbia where she earned her BA in 1969 in Political
Science. She then went to the London School of Economics where she
worked on her PhD in Soviet Studies. She left early when she decided
to marry and move back to Vancouver in 1972 and began teaching at
UBC and Vancouver Community College. By 1980 she was back at UBC as
a student studying for her Law Degree.
Her interest in politics began to
take on more of a utilitarian shade when she decided to run for the
school board in Vancouver and served in that position from 1980 to
1984. Her first taste of the political life had stimulated her
ambition and her next step was into provincial politics when she ran
as a Social Credit candidate in 1984. She lost but became a policy
advisor to Premier Bill Bennett and in 1987 she ran for the Socreds
again and won. Once in the Provincial Legislature she unabashedly
opposed the Premier's position on abortion by supporting more access
for women to abortion services.
Seeing no long term future in
provincial politics she switched to the Progressive Conservatives
and ran in the 1988 Federal election and won in Vancouver Centre.
Prime Minister Mulroney brought her into the Cabinet in 1989 when
she was made Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. She worked hard in that ministry and was rewarded in
1990 when she was promoted to Minister of Justice and Attorney
General. Facing stiff opposition from members of her own party she
brought in tougher control of guns, and then took on the issue of
sexual assault by reaffirming the rights of the victims.
In 1993 as an election drew near,
she was moved to the Department of Defense and had to deal with the
controversial questions of buying new helicopters for the military.
She also had to deal with actions by Canadian Airborne units in
Somalia which while on peacekeeping duties had tortured and killed
some Somalis.
By 1993 the Progressive
Conservatives and Brian Mulroney had fallen to very low levels in
the polls and Mulroney realizing that he could not possibly win
another mandate, decided to step down. Many in the party were
looking for an edge in their next leader which might help
resuscitate their fortunes and help win the election. Campbell was
viewed as a dynamic, charismatic leader who might recreate the
momentum of Trudeaumania and capture the nations support as the
first female Prime Minister.
|
As the results began to
come in on election night, the vote for the Liberals became
a landslide. The final results were Liberals - 177 seats,
Bloc = 54 seats, Reform Party 52 seats, NDP 9 seats,
Progressive Conservatives 2 seats and others - 1.
Several dynamics took hold
during the election including the separation of French
Canadian nationalist support from the Conservatives with the
Bloc benefitting. The weakness of the NDP also helped boost
the Liberal numbers as they consolidated the centre and left
vote. The resurgence of reform during the election also hurt
the Conservatives in the west. Campbell even lost her seat
in Vancouver Centre to the Liberals.
|
|
||
| |||
------------
Nasty, Outrageous Politics Starts with Us
Voters want it, and it works, experience and studies show. But consequences can be severe.
Cartoon by Greg Perry.
Whew, What a Turn Off!
How polarizing tactics can tranquilize voters, and win elections.Negative Advertising Fails
That's what research and British Columbia's experience shows.- Read more: Politics, Election 2015, Media,
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Walt Kelly in Pogo comic strip
If you are tired of the increasingly nasty approach to politics, and hate attack ads that disparage opponents rather than offer solutions -- there's someone you can blame.Take a look in the mirror, because it is voters who want politicians to bring the nastiness to elections -- and reward those who do with victory.
That's the unfortunate conclusion of a new United States study that found 38 per cent of both Republicans and Democrat voters believe that any means necessary should be used to win elections.
Those tactics include: "Voter suppression, stealing or cheating in elections, physical violence and threats against the other party, lying, personal attacks on opponents, not allowing the other party to speak and using the filibuster to gridlock Congress."
Patrick Miller, a University of Kansas political science assistant professor and co-author of the study, says voters behave more like sports fans obsessed with their team's victory, rather than show interest in public policy issues.
Miller's study is a clear warning to Canada as the New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals fight a three-way election battle.
"Competitive elections are making you hate the other party more. They're having a 180-degree opposite effect from what we think they should," Miller said.
"Instead of bringing us together to talk and deliberate, they're making us hateful people who are disengaged from our fellow citizens."
Nasty ad season
Canada isn't that different than hyper-partisan America.
Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff found out how rough politics can be when he was targeted by relentless Conservative advertising prior to the 2011 election that said he was "just visiting" Canada after a long, distinguished career as an academic in the U.S.
"I took the attacks personally, which is a great mistake. It's never personal: It's just business. It was ever thus," Ignatieff wrote last November in The New Republic magazine.
"I went into politics thinking that, if I made arguments in good faith, I'd get a hearing. It's a reasonable assumption, but it's wrong," said Ignatieff, who led the Liberals to their worst defeat.
While Ignatieff's failure to counter the Conservative attacks should have been ample warning to current Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, the "just not ready" line repeated in thousands of television and radio ads has damaged his chances.
But there are no choir boys in the church of politics.
The NDP has released a brutally effective attack ad on the Conservatives asking: "Have you had enough?" featuring a parade of MPs, Senators and staff who have been convicted, charged or are under investigation for alleged crimes or rule breaking.
"Corruption... misleading voters, election fraud, breach of trust, illegal lobbying, illegal campaign contributions, bribery, misuse of funds..." the female voice intones as dark photos of Conservatives go by.
The ad ends with a shot of Harper's former parliamentary secretary Dean del Maestro being led away to jail in leg irons by police earlier this year after his conviction for electoral fraud. On YouTube alone, it's had over 604,000 views since July 13.
The Conservatives are now training their guns on NDP leader Tom Mulcair as "another career politician we can't afford" with ads similar to the Trudeau "resume review" approach.
Trudeau says the Liberals won't be launching attack ads like the Tories or NDP.
"Once you attack, you divide people and we need people to be brought together so I'm going to let Mr. Harper continue to make the mistakes he's making by underestimating Canadians..." Trudeau told Global TV in July.
That approach may be brave, but politically foolish.
Here in British Columbia, the New Democrats in 2013's election refused to use attack ads on Liberal Premier Christy Clark's highly tarnished record -- and leader Adrian Dix lost a race that all the polls indicated he should win.
Before that election I wrote a column with research showing that not only did voters dislike negative ads, but that they were also often counterproductive. But I also warned that Dix was taking the biggest political risk of his career.
Unfortunately, the 2013 B.C. election results and the recent University of Kansas study show that shunning attack or "contrast" ads is simply the wrong strategy.
'Words do hurt'
Sadly, it appears that attack ads and over-the-top partisanship are not only on the rise, but the consequences are severe.
It goes well beyond seeing the Donald Trump train-wreck Republican campaign apparently benefitting from the billionaire's trashing of Mexicans, women, fellow Republicans and others -- since he is now leading the contenders.
In Missouri, Tom Schweich -- a leading candidate for the Republican nomination for governor -- shockingly committed suicide in February after becoming the target of negative radio ads and what he called an anti-Semitic "whisper campaign."
"Politics has gone so hideously wrong, and that the death of Tom Schweich is the natural consequence of what politics has become," former U.S. senator Jack Danforth said in a powerful eulogy for the man he mentored.
"As for the radio commercial, making fun of someone's physical appearance, calling him a 'little bug', there is one word to describe it: 'bullying.' And there is one word to describe the person behind it: 'bully,'" Danforth told churchgoers at the funeral.
"Words do hurt. Words can kill. That has been proven right here in our home state," Danforth said.
"There is no mystery as to why politicians conduct themselves this way. It works. They test how well it works in focus groups and opinion polls."
Danforth ended with a plea: "Politics as it now exists must end, and we will end it. And we will get in the face of our politicians, and we will tell them that we are fed up, and that we are not going to take this anymore."
But unless voters truly reject attack ads, negative campaigning and hyper partisanship, elections will continue to get nastier -- because it works.
--------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.