CBC Nova Scotia promotes food banks as hunger continues to grow

Print Friendly

cover

I could hardly believe my ears as I listened to a CBC Radio interview with Nick Saul on May 14th. He’s co-author of a book that argues traditional food banks may be doing more harm than good.

Yet here he was in Halifax on Information Morning, a program that relentlessly promotes Feed Nova Scotia, the charity that collects and distributes food to food banks across the province.

“I think you have to ask some very basic questions about food banks,” Saul told InfoMorn host, Don Connolly. “Do they reduce hunger? Do they improve health? Do they create pathways out of poverty? The answer to all of those things is no.”

Saul himself ran The Stop, a food bank in Toronto that he turned into a centre where people get together to grow and cook their own food. Now, as president of Community Food Centres Canada, he’s promoting that concept across the country. He sees it as an alternative to the “corporate bad food” packed full of salt, sugar and fat, which existing food banks hand out.

Saul told Connolly that we need to be more honest about traditional food banks. “Do they divide us as citizens between the haves and the have nots and do they create a moral release valve for government that collectively takes us all off the hook? I would say yeah.”

Connolly himself acknowledged that the food bank in Halifax was not supposed to be permanent; that there were plans to shut it down in the mid 1990s so that governments would be forced to shoulder their responsibility for helping the poor. But, the shut down never happened as politicians continued to cut welfare rates and housing programs in the name of fighting government deficits and debt. Nor did the politicians increase minimum wages enough so that the working poor could earn enough money to live on.

Now, nearly two decades later, poor people still depend on food banks. The most recent figures from Food Banks Canada show that in March 2012, more than 880,000 people received help from a food bank across the country, an increase of more than 30 per cent since 2008.

Bridging the gap

When Connolly suggested that without food banks “some people aren’t going to eat” and that food banks are still needed to bridge “a big gap,” Saul answered:

“There is a big gap, but you know I would argue sometimes that the food bank actually makes it worse. I mean if you look at say health, for example, if you look at any low-income neighbourhood and you overlay that with health indices, you’re going to see obesity, cancer, a whole raft of diet-related illnesses. You know we spend 50 cents of every dollar in probably every province in this country on health care, a big chunk of that is on diet-related illness, so you know, I just think we can do better.”

Saul’s comments came in the midst of Information Morning’s 4th annual campaign to raise money for Feed Nova Scotia by asking artists to submit paintings for a calendar and art auction. Last year, sales of the calendar and the auction of the paintings raised $106,000 for provincial food banks. Information Morning also takes part in the CBC’s annual Christmas food bank drive on behalf of Feed Nova Scotia.

Yet, in spite of these efforts, the number of hungry people continues to rise. In March 2012, for example, 23,561 Nova Scotians received food from a food bank, an increase of nearly 40 per cent since 2008 when the current economic slump began. But Food Banks Canada says the causes of hunger go much deeper than this latest recession.

“The key factor at the root of the need for food banks is low income,” Food Banks Canada writes. “People asking for help are working in low-paying jobs, receiving meagre social assistance benefits, managing on inadequate pensions.” The organization goes on to warn: “Hunger is toxic for those living through it and it is harmful to Canada as a whole. It reduces the economic contributions of individuals, and increases costs related to health care and social services.”

Or as Nick Saul told Don Connolly, “Being a passive recipient of food charity isn’t the answer in any way.  Hunger isn’t out there because we don’t have food. Hunger’s out there because of low minimum wage and inadequate social assistance rates. We don’t have a national housing strategy or child care programs.”

So why is Information Morning devoting so much effort and airtime to raising money for a food bank system that may only be making things worse? To be fair, the program does broadcast stories about such issues as the lack of affordable housing and inadequate welfare rates. But its coverage of poverty is episodic and nowhere near the intensity, for example, that it focussed on the misuse of expense accounts by provincial politicians.

The intense media coverage of the so-called “MLA expenses scandal” forced the politicians to bring in tighter spending rules. But the lack of sustained media focus on the scandal of poverty lets them off the hook. It also perpetuates a system in which food banks and media programs such as Information Morning collaborate on raising more and more money to feed the poor even as the toxic problem of hunger continues to grow.

Posted in CBC, CBC Radio | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Whitewashing Israeli crimes: Derek Stoffel’s Middle East reporting

Print Friendly

Article submitted by Brooks Kind

StoffelThe great Israeli journalist Amira Hass once said the role of journalists is “to monitor the centres of power.” Based on his reporting, it would appear that CBC’s Middle East correspondent Derek Stoffel has a very different conception of a journalist’s role, one more in line with Henry Kissinger’s definition of an expert, i.e. “someone who articulates the consensus of power.”

Not only does Stoffel consistently fail to monitor the centres of power in Tel Aviv and Washington, he also regularly reports from their perspective, whitewashing or censoring their abuses in the Occupied Territories, attributing responsibility for the failure of the “peace process” to the Palestinians, and generally adopting all the standard conventions of western propaganda. Stoffel’s reports on US President Obama’s recent visit to Israel and the West Bank provide a case in point. Referring to Israel’s ongoing settlement building on Palestinian land, Stoffel said:

Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem on land the Palestinians say is rightfully part of their own future state. (World Report, March 20, 2013)

Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem on land the Palestinians want for a future state. (World Report, March 21, 2013)

[Obama] met with the Palestinian president who once again called on Israel to stop building settlements. The Palestinians say that land is rightfully theirs. (World at Six, March 21, 2013)

Asking Stoffel for answers

Following these reports, I e-mailed Stoffel to ask whether he considers it accurate journalism to describe the Occupied Territories as land the Palestinians simply “want”, or “say is rightfully part of their own future state” when there’s an overwhelming international consensus that Israel’s occupation is illegal and that it violates numerous UN resolutions and the Geneva Conventions, the treaties that regulate the conduct of war and that protect civilians from its effects. I also asked why he consistently refused to mention the legal status of Israel’s settlement policies under international law and the treaties just referred to, when this is so obviously critical in assessing Israeli policy and Palestinian resistance. As usual, my e-mail received no response.

Disclaimers of the type Stoffel uses are a standard method of whitewashing the flagrant illegality of Israel’s behaviour in the Occupied Territories and spinning matters of universally accepted international law as matters of mere opinion.  In an earlier report on the relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Stoffel varied the formula slightly:

You have to remember that just last month the US did criticize Israel for its decision to press ahead with new settlement construction in a controversial area of East Jerusalem. (The World this Weekend, January 20, 2013)

In the past Stoffel has also referred to “disputed East Jerusalem.”

Controversial. Disputed. Land the Palestinians say is theirs. These are all deliberately misleading and obfuscatory terms when applied to the illegally occupied Palestinian territories and they are used over and over by the CBC despite the fact that this usage has been repeatedly challenged, leading to their acknowledgement of “error” on several occasions.

For example, on March 18, 2010, Lynda Shorten, then executive producer of As It Happens, responded to my e-mail asking if it was CBC policy to refer to occupied territory as disputed.

“No, it is not,” she wrote. “We regret the error. Israel annexed East Jerusalem and some 30 square miles of surrounding land to West Jerusalem after the 1967 war. Although Israel regards Jerusalem as an integral part of its territory and subject to Israeli law, that view is not widely shared. The international community, including Canada, the United States, Britain and the European Union, do not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem and considered it to be occupied territory like the West Bank.”

Nevertheless, as we see in Stoffel’s reports, the same obfuscation continues. Apparently the need to whitewash a favoured state’s crimes outweighs the responsibility to tell the truth or even to observe one’s own organization’s policies.

Israel portrayed as peace seeker

Another standard media trope involves portraying the US and Israel as genuinely seeking peace, but not finding reciprocal good will among the Palestinians, particularly Hamas, whose occasional retaliation against Israeli repression is invariably portrayed as unprovoked violence which then elicits a harsh (but implicitly justified) Israeli response. In the same World at Six report of March 21, Stoffel gives us a striking example of this, speaking about Obama’s visit to the West Bank:

The difficulties of finding peace here all too visible. (sound of angry crowd chanting in Arabic.) In Ramallah, protesters burned an effigy of Obama, accusing the president of choosing sides, choosing Israel. Earlier today, two rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel: a clear message not everyone wants peace. Obama described Mahmoud Abbas as a true partner for peace. He met with the Palestinian president who once again called on Israel to stop building settlements. The Palestinians say that land is rightfully theirs.

In the same e-mail in which I challenged Stoffel on his misleading description of the Occupied Territories, I posed the following questions relating to the passage from his report quoted above:

“Why are the rockets and effigy and the stock audio clips – so beloved by Western reporters – of enraged Arabs chanting, ‘a clear message that not everyone wants peace’, while the continued ethnic cleansing of illegally occupied land and all the horrific repression that this entails and, that you regularly ignore, does not constitute such a ‘clear message’? And why do you report on this Palestinian violation of the cease-fire while suppressing – there is no other word for it – the over 100 Israeli violations, including at least four killings, dozens of wounded, and numerous administrative detentions (i.e. kidnappings) that have undoubtedly provoked the rocket attack, but that your audience is prevented from knowing anything about? I have sent you UNICEF reports on the criminal abuse of Palestinian children that you have also refused to report on. In the midst of such ongoing, criminal abuses by the Israeli state, how is it credible journalism to describe the victims of these atrocities as the side that does ‘not… want peace’?”

Stoffel’s refusal to answer these questions is understandable. As he and his producers are aware, this is not credible journalism but pure spin, a widely disseminated media fairy tale that portrays Israel and the US as pursuing peace and diplomacy, while in reality they are systematically, and with great violence and lawlessness, undermining any possibility of it. The US-backed settlements and ongoing land-theft alone are sufficient to establish this.

Responding to CBC propaganda

Concealing the illegality and extent of the settlements and Israel’s daily human rights abuses – such as the violations of the November 2012 ceasefire, the treatment of Palestinian children documented in the recent UNICEF report, or the misery inflicted by the ongoing blockade of Gaza – is what makes such fraudulent narratives possible. The routine suppression of the most salient and damning facts about Israel’s occupation – the modus operandi of CBC Middle East reporters past and present – is therefore the foundation of the whole propaganda framework. To quote Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko, “when truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.”

It’s long past time to end this silence, these lies of omission.

An organized Israeli lobby responds very effectively whenever a piece critical of Israel appears in the mainstream media, creating flak – complaints, condemnations, criticisms, etc. – to intimidate journalists and producers (it probably doesn’t take much). Unless they get more flak from the other side, i.e. from those of us who are appalled by the ongoing violations of Palestinians’ basic rights, this bias will continue to frame its Middle East reporting.

Please write to the CBC challenging its coverage, and demanding that Canada’s public broadcaster begin reporting on the daily human rights abuses committed against the Palestinians and on the illegality of the occupation, settlements and land confiscations in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. In order to promote constructive dialogue and debate, please use polite, non-aggressive language.

  1. Derek Stoffel, CBC Middle East correspondent: derek.stoffel@cbc.ca
  2. Don Spandier, executive producer, World at Six: don.spandier@cbc.ca
  3. Esther Enkin, senior news editor: Esther.Enkin@cbc.ca
  4. Jennifer McGuire, news editor in chief: Jennifer.McGuire@cbc.ca
  5. David Michael Lamb, senior producer, World Report david.michael.lamb@cbc.ca

For further information see:

For further analysis of CBC Middle East reporting:

Brooks Kind is an artist, activist and media critic who lives in Canmore, Alberta

Posted in CBC, CBC Radio | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

How should we remember Ralph Klein?

Print Friendly

Article submitted by Nick Fillmore

King KleinCondolences and praise poured in for former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, who died on Friday, March 29, at the age of 70.”We remember what a force of personality he was, how driven he was, how motivated he was, how straightforward he was, and that we trusted him implicitly.”

………………………………………………– Alberta  Premier Alison Redford

“While Ralph’s beliefs about the role of government and fiscal responsibility were once considered radical, it is perhaps his greatest legacy that these ideas are now widely embraced across the political spectrum.” — Stephen Harper.

Yes, as the compliments poured in, it must be remembered that Klein was one of Canada’s most aggressive neo-liberals. “King Ralph”, as he was widely known, served as premier of Alberta from 1992 to 2006.

A blustering problem-drinker, Klein was forgiven for many of his personal blunders and drunken escapades by frontier-mentality Albertans who believed in rugged individualism and small government.

No matter how rude Klein became, he also was a darling of the mainstream media. When a drunken Premier berated poor unemployed men at midnight at a homeless shelter, telling them to get jobs and throwing money at them, he was forgiven by media and right-wingers because, well, it was Ralph and that’s just the way he was.

However, the homeless shelter incident is a clear sign of how the establishment and its media viewed the plight of the poor with indifference.

King Klein as deficit slayer

Klein’s true legacy is a string of anti-social policies and programs. He was possessed by the unnecessary goal of eliminating Alberta’s debt in what was becoming the country’s richest province. In just over a decade, he paid down the debt of $23-billion, cutting in critical areas such as health care, education and social services, killing the government pension plan and privatizing liquor stores.

Klein slashed thousands of job, and showed nothing but contempt for the tens-of-thousands of protestors who fought against his ideological-driven fanaticism.
Klein believed strongly that health care services should be provided by the private sector. His government paved the way to allow provincial health authorities to buy medical services from privately-owned medical companies. The federal government, committed to national health care, reminded Klein of his government’s commitments to deliver public health care. However, Klein cheated and allowed some questionable services to be privitized.

While Klein was “sold” as a man of the people, he clearly favoured the rich. In 2001, he made Alberta the first jurisdiction in North America to replace a progressive income tax with a “flat tax” – the dream of extreme right-wing ideologues in the U.S. The flat tax gave huge tax breaks to the rich. In 2009, the University of Alberta’s Parkland Institute said that the it was costing the province more than $5-billion a year in tax revenues.

 King Klein the ‘academic’

A key incident raises questions about Klein’s honesty. In 2004 – when he was premier – Klein was accused of plagiarizing a paper for his degree in communications from the University of Athabasca. The Edmonton Journal reported that about five pages of a 13-page report on Chilean politics and media were lifted directly from various Internet sites. Surprisingly, Klein was not failed, but instead was given a grade of 77 per cent on the paper.

After eliminating the deficit, Klein basically flunked out of politics because he had no idea what else to do in government.

When the tired and worn out Premier needed a soft “retirement” gig, it’s believed that about 20 of his wealthy oil and business friends chipped in to provide a $2.5-million anonymous gift to set up the Ralph Klein Chair in Media Studies at Mount Royal. Normally, endowed chairs are limited to academics of considerable distinction.

Students saw the Klein appointment as a sick joke. He got off to a bad start. The former premier – who couldn’t make it to his office before 10 a.m. – said journalists were lazy. They gasped when the man who ran the province for so many years admitted he didn’t read newspapers or watch TV news.

Klein can be praised – or blamed – for the early development of the tar sands. In the mid-1990s, it was unclear whether the tar sands would become viable. When Ottawa introduced a tax write-off (i.e. a give away) for oil sands investment, Alberta allowed oil companies to pay a royalty of one per cent (i.e. a give away) until developers recovered all project costs.  Talk about theft! The two tax ‘adjustments’ launched the massive ramp-up of tar sands production, helping the tar sands become today’s multi-billion dollar industry.

According to environmentalists, nearly every tar sands project was approved without any consideration given to the impact on the environment or greenhouse gas emissions.

In many ways, Klein was a tragic figure. A drunkard, a buffoon, unreasonably stubborn, and the sad victim of Alzheimer’s in his late 60s, he never had a vision for what should have been done in Alberta. He was a one-issue populist who got elected to eliminate the deficit dragon – a calling that damaged health care, education and social services so seriously critics say they still have not fully recovered.

Political leaders and journalists provided the usual hyperbole to describe a fallen man. Hopefully, history will do a better job of providing the true story of Ralph Klein.

Nick Fillmore is a freelance Toronto journalist and social activist who covered Canadian politics through the Klein era. Comments welcome: fillmore0274@rogers.com

Posted in All media | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

CBC melts down the news

Print Friendly

Book coverYes folks there is such a thing as journalism ethics. Even textbooks on the subject such as Deadlines and Diversity published in 1996. It contains an essay by veteran journalist Pierre Mignault that begins:

Public confidence in journalists is based on a simple premise: “Trust me, I was there, I saw what happened, I heard it from the horse’s mouth.”

Except that, as Mignault pointed out, journalists increasingly cover stories hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away using a technique known as a “melt-down.”

When Mignault was writing nearly two decades ago, the term applied to television news where pictures and interview clips from a variety of sources were “melted down” into a single report narrated by a reporter who did not need to leave the office. The technique saved money while conveying the impression that a news outfit was on top of the story when, in fact, it was actually far away from it. And the reporter who told the story was not actually reporting, but using wordsmithery and production techniques to package the work of others.

CBC Radio’s melt-down mania

Years ago,  CBC Radio news programs like World at Six prided themselves on what were called “direct reports” from on-scene reporters, correspondents or freelancers. Poor-cousin current affairs shows such as As It Happens, on the other hand, had to make do with cheap, phone-out interviews conducted by studio-bound hosts.

Today, at the cash-strapped CBC, melt-downs are flourishing, even in radio, the blind medium where listeners depend on reporters to be both their eyes and ears. Yeah, trust me, I was there. Well, not quite.

On tonight’s World at Sixfor example, listeners heard a two-minute report on the the Oscar Pistorius bail hearing in Pretoria, South Africa voiced by Peter Armstrong. His report began with sounds from outside the courthouse that ran underneath his opening script: “Oscar Pistorius arrived at court this morning locked in the back of a police van.”

Later, Armstrong took listeners to “the other side of the country” to the funeral of Pistorius’s girl friend, Reeva Steenkamp. He reported that her  uncle had said she should be remembered “as an activist fighting to prevent violence against women” followed by a seven-second clip of an incoherent and distraught Mike Steenkamp. Where Armstrong gathered his sounds, clips and information, he did not say though none of it could have been based on his own reporting. His final words: “Peter Armstrong, CBC News, Toronto.”

Loneliness of long-distance reporting

A few minutes after the Armstrong report, CBC Radio’s National Reporter for the Maritime Provinces, Stephen Puddicombe, told the story of the grim search for five missing fishermen from Woods Harbour, Nova Scotia, nearly 300 kilometres south of Halifax.

Puddicombe’s report included clips of George Hopkins, father of one of the young fishermen who “sits at his kitchen table, tapping, trying to stem the tears.” The report also had sounds from the wharf where a friend remembered he had coached most of the missing fishermen in hockey, adding that they were “just hard-workin young men, trying to make a livin.”

In the best CBC Radio tradition, Puddicombe’s reporting took World at Six listeners to an isolated community where they could share intense feelings of grief and loss. Yes, CBC listeners may have been taken to Woods Harbour, but, judging by his signoff, Puddicombe himself never ventured outside the CBC studios in Halifax where he “melted down” the work of his provincial CBC colleagues.

“Trust me, I wasn’t there and these are the facts I didn’t hear from the horse’s mouth!”

Posted in CBC, CBC Radio, CBC TV, Foolery | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Lies, damned lies and public relations

Print Friendly

Marilyn More

If there’s any justice, the hottest places in Hell will be reserved for PR flacks — especially those who earn their pay by spinning half-truths and outright lies to the citizens who pay their salaries.

Case in point: Yesterday’s news release distributed by the government-run Communications Nova Scotia on behalf of Marilyn More, the provincial cabinet minister who oversees universities. More and her NDP colleagues had decided to reduce university funding by another three per cent on top of last year’s four per cent cut. But you’d never guess that from the news release which opened with this poorly constructed but positive-sounding paragraph:

A three-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the province and Nova Scotia’s 11 universities will ensure tuition remains at, or below, the national average, increases research and development opportunities, and invests $25 million in universities to help them become more sustainable.

Compare that with the Halifax Chronicle-Herald’s headline — “Province slashes university funding” — backed up by this lead paragraph:

The province will cut university funding by three per cent in the coming year and again allow tuitions to rise by up to three per cent, Advanced Education Minister Marilyn More announced Thursday.

The Herald also reported that a government-mandated review of tuition fees could result in increases of more than three per cent in coming years. (The minister herself said she “couldn’t commit” to the three per cent tuition cap after 2012-13.) The government news release papered over that politically awkward news with vague generalities and fashionable buzzwords:

The memorandum also outlines areas where new approaches are needed to ensure excellence and sustainability. They include: …– A review of tuition-related policies to ensure fair and competitive tuition that remains at, or below, the national average.

The government’s claim that the Memorandum of Understanding “invests $25 million in universities to help them become more sustainable” is a noteworthy example of Orwellian doublespeak. Over the next three years, Nova Scotia universities will be expected to compete for a slice of that $25 million — money that will supposedly help them find ways of cutting costs. The news release, however, magically links cost reductions to “excellence” and “innovation”:

A key element of the MOU is a $25-million investment by the province in a new University Excellence and Innovation Program. That program will operate over the life of the MOU to help support efforts to reduce costs and foster innovation.

Nova Scotia’s NDP politicians are taking flak for implementing hacking and slashing policies they condemned when they were in opposition. But, it’s unlikely the politicians themselves came up with the deceptive, positive-sounding language they try to use to sell those policies. For that they depend on wordsmiths or PR professionals many of whom are members of the Canadian Public Relations Society governed by a code of ethics which states:

A member shall practice the highest standards of honesty, accuracy, integrity and truth, and shall not knowingly disseminate false or misleading information.

In other words, if the member sees through the buzzwords she generates, she’s headed straight for the hottest places in Hell.

For doublespeak connoisseurs, here is the full text of that NDP news release dated January 5, 2012. Note how artfully it buries the news of that three per cent funding cut:

LABOUR/ADVANCED EDUCATION–Province, Universities, Build Sustainable, Innovative Post-secondary Education
—————————————————————–
A three-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the province and Nova Scotia’s 11 universities will ensure tuition remains at, or below, the national average, increases research and development opportunities, and invests $25 million in universities to help them become more sustainable.

A key element of the MOU is a $25-million investment by the province in a new University Excellence and Innovation Program. That program will operate over the life of the MOU to help support efforts to reduce costs and foster innovation.

“Nova Scotia’s economic future depends upon a strong university and college system and we’re committed to working with our partners so they can continue to provide a first-rate education,” said Marilyn More, Minister of Labour and Advanced Education. “The new agreement will keep university education affordable for Nova Scotian students while making sure we all live within our means in order that Nova Scotia can continue to deliver key services like health and post-secondary education.”

The memorandum also outlines areas where new approaches are needed to ensure excellence and sustainability. They include:
– An updated formula to allocate the provincial operating grant among universities that better reflects program cost variations and enrolments
– More collaboration by universities to reduce costs while maintaining or enhancing program quality. This could include things such as shared data services
– A review of tuition-related policies to ensure fair and competitive tuition that remains at, or below, the national average
– Improving credit transfer to make it easier for students to have completed courses recognized at other universities
– Enhancing research and development, and contributions to economic development. For example, the Halifax Marine Institute links academic and public sector research with ocean industries and works to generate long-term economic benefits for the province and region

A partnership will also be established to monitor the progress of the new approach to sustainability and ensure it continues to support goals of the agreement.

The memorandum caps possible annual tuition increases at three per cent. This, along with the province’s investment of $42.5 million in student assistance as part of the 2011 budget, will keep tuition for Nova Scotia students at, or below, the national average. Students enrolled in dentistry, law and medicine, and international students, are excluded from the cap.

Ms. More also announced the provincial operating grant for 2012-13, which will be $324 million for the universities.

“We advised the university presidents and the MOU negotiating committee last fall that the operating grant for 2012-13 would be reduced by a further three per cent, so they would have enough time to plan their respective budgets,” said Ms. More. “I want to thank the presidents and student leaders for respecting the confidentiality agreement these past few months and for their diligence in reaching this agreement.”

The universities must also absorb any possible inflation costs without additional funding.

An memorandum of understanding is a commitment to work together on an agreed objective. It often lays out terms of a co-operative agreement.

For a full copy of the memorandum, visit www.gov.ns.ca/lae/ .

—————————————————————–
FOR BROADCAST USE:

A new memorandum of understanding between the province and

Nova Scotia’s 11 universities will ensure tuition will remain at,

or below, the national average, and increases research and

development.

The MOU also establishes a 25-million-dollar fund to help

universities to reduce costs and foster innovation.

Labour and Advanced Education Minister Marilyn More says the

province’s economic future depends upon a strong university and

college system. She says the new agreement will keep university

education affordable for Nova Scotian students while making sure

we all live within our means.

-30-

Media Contact: Pam Menchenton
Labour and Advanced Education
902-424-0011
Cell: 902-719-4950
E-mail: menchepm@gov.ns.ca

 

Posted in Chronicle Herald | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

Persistent media bias against public spending

Print Friendly

Media critic Brooks Kind swung into action last week after hearing an on-air comment by a CBC Radio news reader in Halifax. During a news update with Information Morning host Don Connolly, newscaster Sandy Smith mentioned the Nova Scotia NDP government’s decision to get into the road paving business.

Kind fired off this e-mail to Smith:

Yesterday on the lead-in to Infomorning you described the Dexter government as “extending its tentacles” into the road paving business. Doesn’t the use of such a dramatic and tendentious metaphor to inculcate a bias against government involvement in road paving violate CBC Standards and Practices? Wouldn’t your audience be better served by reporting on why the government got into the paving business in the first place, and by taking a critical look at the practices of Dexter Construction in keeping rates uncompetitively high?

The next day, an e-mail from Smith acknowledged that he shouldn’t have used the words “extending its tentacles.” Smith added that the rest of the CBC coverage was not only fair and balanced, but also provided context for the paving story.

Media bias and political power

In the overall scheme of things, Kind’s complaint may seem minor, but it does point to a persistent media bias against public institutions. Yes, the mainstream media do have a role to play in calling attention to abuses of power and the wasting of taxpayers’ money on the part of politicians and bureaucrats. But, over the last three decades, relentless news media propaganda against public institutions has coincided with the steadily rising power of big, multinational corporations.

As social critic Ursula Franklin points out, corporations have transformed their struggle for commercial and economic dominance into a new form of warfare called globalization. The Wikipedia entry on Franklin summarizes her ideas this way:

This economic warfare defines the enemy as all those who care about the values of community. “Whatever cannot be merely bought and sold,” Franklin writes, “whatever cannot be expressed in terms of money and gain-loss transactions stands in the way of the ‘market’ as enemy territory to be occupied, transformed and conquered.” A main strategy in this kind of warfare is the privatization of formerly public domains such as culture, health care, prisons and education to generate private profit. Franklin contends that the new economic warlords or “marketeers” aim, for example, to transform “the ill health or misery of our neighbours into investment opportunities for the next round of capitalism.” She argues that marketeers have become occupying forces served by “puppet governments who run the country for the benefit of the occupiers.”

Mainstream media reporting does not seem to have noticed this fundamental shift in political power. The obsessive media focus, for example, on deficit spending and public debt is one of the main pillars of pro-corporate propaganda against the welfare state. Unfortunately, most journalists seem unaware that they are spreading propaganda. For them, government deficits and public spending itself have become political evils even if they are sometimes necessary ones. See my earlier post Media cheerlead for government cuts.

The media bias is everywhere — a constant drumbeat against politicians and political institutions. Last Sunday, for example, a Halifax Chronicle-Herald headline informed readers that “Bluenose MPs beat national average on expenses.” In his regular political column, reporter David Jackson summed things up this way: “In total, Canadians paid out a whopping $133 million to cover our federal representatives’ parliamentary and constituency duties.”

Yes, $133 million is a big figure. But the adjective whopping grossly overstates its significance. This year, total federal spending will be about $276 billion. So, the expenses for members of Parliament represent a minuscule .05 per cent of federal spending.

Besides, the real question — a question that Jackson does not ask — is whether constituents and taxpayers are receiving good value for that $133 million. The default position for mainstream journalists and the right-wing, pro-corporate think tanks they like to quote is that politicians are profligate and so, if they’re spending a “whopping” $133 million on their expenses, a lot of it must be wasted.

Jackson begins his commentary with these telling paragraphs:

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was raked over the coals last week for staying at a couple of pricey European hotels last year, but the MP’s office expenses compare favourably to those of his Bluenose colleagues.

MacKay ranked ninth among the 11 Nova Scotia MPs ringing up $394,334 in 2010-2011 expenses for staff, travel to Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada, office expenses, advertising, mailouts and hospitality, according to a report all MPs file.

Jackson clearly believes that the less MPs spend, the better. Thus, MacKay compares “favourably” to his Nova Scotia colleagues. But how well did MacKay serve his constituents? And, does that even matter?

Today’s Herald editorial pounds away at what has become a favourite journalistic theme (again in line with the message from pro-corporate think tanks). In bemoaning the size of the Nova Scotia deficit, the Herald concludes: “Fundamentally, Nova Scotia needs a more dynamic and competitive economy that is better at generating jobs. And that will require more than some budget fine-tuning. We have to finally tackle the unsustainable cost of having too many layers of government for our size.”

Translation: We can no longer afford all those politicians draining the treasury while stifling private-sector dynamism and competition. The fewer political representatives we have, the better!

Posted in CBC, CBC Radio, CBC TV, Chronicle Herald | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off