Media Bias - from objective to plain objectionable.

My personal view of Canadian Media bias.

 In August 2020, CBC Newsworld covered the Pandemic versions of the Democratic then Republican National Conventions (DNC & RNC) each evening during their run.

I watched bits of both occasionally. One evening (August 26th) I watched part of the RNC coverage. After one of the speeches the host and the CBC Washington correspondent introduced two American commentators. One was a Democratic strategist, the other a Republican strategist. I thought, good we were going to be offered two different viewpoints on the speech just presented. Boy was I wrong. Turned out, both commentators were very much anti-Trump as were the host and the Washington correspondent. There was not even the pretence of objective analysis. Not surprised, I thought how typical of CBC.

 

As a youngster I had an obsession with the NEWS, learned from my father probably because of his peacetime and wartime experiences in Poland. He was an avid NEWS watcher and listener.

 

Growing up in Toronto, with just a few TV and radio stations, it never crossed my mind that the NEWS would be biased based on the station reporting it. That was probably true of most of my generation in the 1950’s and most of the ‘60’s. For me the NEWS was the truth, why would I doubt it? I was also fortunate, like all my neighbours, to get NEWS from American and Canadian sources because of our proximity to the USA. 

 

In reality, I was growing up during a rare blip in journalism and media. Commercial sponsors that wanted the broadest media appeal possible to market their products funded print journalism as well as TV and radio broadcasting. Journalists and their editors were encouraged to aim at the mushy political middle in their reporting to attract the largest possible audience. But throughout the history of media, that was not always the case.

 

Before radio and TV, political parties often funded Canadian and American print media. So what appeared in their stories and reports were typically very partisan, and not that different from today. 

 

Eventually the expense of publishing newspapers became difficult for political parties to finance, and sponsorships moved to business and industry. Those folks wanted broad appeal and NEWS reporting became more objective and less partisan by necessity. We were in a Cold War with the Soviets and political parties themselves were also ideologically similar back then, as were the readers and later listeners and watchers. 

 

Of course the media do not officially support political parties these days, print media will endorse parties and candidates prior to elections. However, in practice day-to-day most mainstream media outlets have adopted the prevailing cultural norms and today have a definite leftish tone (see above graphic). Certainly that’s true across Canada. Many Canadians lament the bias of mainstream media, but history shows bias was the normal condition.

 

As the culture continues to shift left, so has much of the mainstream media.

In Canada, smaller NEWS outlets (mostly online) are funded by donations. Many of these are on the right end of the political spectrum. Since the culture is largely left-wing, the larger privately funded media sources (the print media, CTV, etc.) have attempted the pretence of objectivity just to keep a broad based audience but actually most lean left because it is politically acceptable. Publicly funded (government) media sources like the CBC and TVO, have moved hard core left, because they do not depend as much on broad private sponsorship. They get government funding regardless of the crap they produce.

 

The graphic at the top (adapted from here) is my non-scientific impression of some selected Canadian media outlets. Most of the mainstream media are on the left. The right side is populated by small \, relatively new organizations.

Here is an American version of my graphic thats available online:

American media bias.

 Of course, just like in Canada, American media is owned by just a few companies, all of which come with their own biases.

 

The only way to avoid media bias these days is to read, listen to, and watch a variety of legitimate media outlets. The key is how to discern what is legitimate. My graphic (above) makes an attempt at demonstrating this. Thats according to my opinion at least. We may disagree.

 

While dispassionate objectivity is still taught in journalism schools, most practicing journalists shed that constraint, very quickly as they settle in with a like-minded employer.

 

Today the cultural shift left has gone so far as to invite gross censorship and censure-ship of journalists who stray from supposed cultural norms. Publishers and other media owners do not want to risk offending anyone because they fear losing sponsorships. Maybe they don't realize it but that fear is itself very offensive. Diverse opinions are scorned by editors and publishers to the point where today, many journalists are in revolt. (See The new Mcarthyism - Cancel Culture) That's a good sign, in my opinion, push back even from the lefty journalists who realize that diverse opinions are what makes our Western civilization work.

 

Anti-mask mania...yes it is!

Really, its a question? Mask UP!

During the first few months of the COVID Pandemic lockdown, politicians, health officials, and hospitals agonized over the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for front line health care workers. It was headline news.


PPE consists of masks, face shields, gowns and gloves - all disposable, and all essential in protecting doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc. from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID19. 

Think about that, the PPE protects the healthcare worker and is essential for them to do their job. That was clearly understood by virtually everyone at the start. At the same time, the general population was told by experts and idiot politicians that masks are ineffective and should not be used and anyway masks do not protect you, they protect others from you. Of course, that contradicts the “personal” part of PPE. Worse still, the idiot politicians supported that or in the American case denied what seemed obvious, and the issue of masks became a political football.
 Eventually the idiot politicians and public health officials changed their collective little minds and suggested that masks be worn to protect “others.” That ‘suggestion’ became a legal requirement in many jurisdictions locally and regionally, ordered by governments and backed by public health officials around the world.

So apparently front line healthcare workers and public health officials almost everywhere are convinced that masks provide some degree of protection if used properly. Sure, there are a few exceptions, and I choose to ignore them, because the front line workers are the real experts. They wear masks and there is nothing theoretical about it. 

Is there any evidence that wearing masks can reduce virus transmission in the general population? Fortunately there is. Hong Kong has experienced several epidemic outbreaks over the years because of its location. There, its a cultural norm to wear masks in public. During an outbreak its almost universal as this quote suggests:

 

“Not wearing masks in Hong Kong is like not wearing pants nowadays,” Alex Lam, a Hong Kong lawyer, told the Wall Street Journal in April.”

 

This article makes the point of comparing Hong Kong to New York City:
 “New York City, with a population of about 8.4 million, has had over 28,000 coronavirus deaths as of May 18. Meanwhile, Hong Kong has officially recorded only four Covid-19 deaths, despite having 7.5 million residents.”

Masks are just part of Hong Kong’s story, but there is little doubt they play a role. 

I am, of course opposed to the official mandates that require masks to be worn. Certainly property owners and businesses have the right to demand masks be worn inside their building. Why would anyone refuse? (Only CovIDIOTS would) My view is simple, if wearing a mask can protect against virus transmission, even partially, then everyone should, as a matter of courtesy and self defence.


But of course courtesy is not a universally accepted trait and I’m constantly reminded of the number of stupid people that somehow exist. An anti-mask backlash ensued in social media, on the street, and in the news. Much of it was against mandates, I get that. But a good chunk of the online protests were just against the very idea of wearing masks. People trotted out “experts,” “peer-reviewed studies,” wacky YouTube videos, all sorts protestations exhorting people not to wear masks. I was frankly dismayed and annoyed. What motive could these people have? Why are they so determined to deny what reality seems to confirm every time a health care worker steps into a room with a COVID patient?

 

Its common for libertarian thinkers to be contrarian, so I’m not totally surprised at the social media reaction to masks. I just have trouble with their motive.

Maybe the official science does not totally support masks, but neither does it totally deny their effectiveness. The practice of wearing masks seems to have an effect. If nothing else it reminds people to take care. Enough people have died to prove this is a nasty, nasty and unpredictable bug. For me ALL LIVES MATTER! 

 

We’re going to have a second wave of COVID soon, I expect it to be worse, maybe far worse than the first. Most professional healthcare workers and virologists believe droplet and aerosol transmission is the main method the virus is transmitted. If wearing masks in any way lessens the impact of a second wave, then why not mask up? 

 

 

The new McCarthyism

In early July of 2020, in the midst of the COVID19 Pandemic, a letter appeared in Harper’s Magazine dealing with what was called “Justice and Open Debate.” Over 150 people signed the letter, most with ties to the literary world, writers, editors, commentators etc. Without mentioning the term, it complained about the creeping “cancel culture” in the press and media. Something I have written about before. I’m happy to see others consider it a danger too.

 

Later on in July, Bari Weiss, a writer, editor and former columnist for the New York Times, resigned with this letter to her employer. Both letters dealt with the “chill” that writers face when they write something that strays from the common consensus. This quote from the Weiss letter:

“..... standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.” BW 

What is this new McCarthyism, this cancel culture?

According to Dictionary.com, “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (cancelling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. [It's] generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.” Similar terms are “doxxing” and “deplatforming” Deplatforming conservative and right wing speakers at universities have been a common occurrence for a number of years now. One just has to listen and look at the drivel that comes out of most universities to understand why.

 

Of course it goes beyond just shaming for those shamed and one does not need to be famous to be affected. It damages careers, jobs, and ultimately its character assassination often unjustly and inappropriately delivered.

 

There is nothing wrong with publicly castigating the comments and the commentator for something said or written. But harmful comments need to be evaluated on their harm and degree of offence. Some comments do not rise to the level of public shaming, some do. Some are not offensive at all, but simply innocuous opinions that don’t really require a response. Of course there are evil people with evil and dangerous intent that need to be outed and ultimately marginalized. That makes it important to discover intent. Trying to be objective when evaluating speech and written work is all-important. But in many cases intent is ignored and the response of the evaluators is excessively harsh. Why?

 

In late July, while being grilled at a ridiculous anti-trust hearing, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, (Bezos testimony - this is great) commented that social media is a 'nuance-destruction machine' when asked about his views on 'cancel culture.' In other words, comments on Facebook, Twitter and the like, can be easily misinterpreted. Nuance disappears in the new world of triggering and micro-aggression. 

 

That’s part of the problem and the rest almost entirely involves identity politics. With that, civil discourse is stifled on all sides of the spectrum and that further polarizes individuals and groups.

 

Here is a troubling example. A former colleague and friend, who worked as a teacher for the largest school board in Canada, made what I consider an innocent post on Facebook. He commented that there was a “distinction between peaceful protestors in a just cause and violent rioters who undermine that cause.” This was related to the violent anti-racism protests occurring in the States at the time. After reading this, some irate and unknown to him, social justice warriors lodged a formal complaint against my friend to his employer. The employer instantly suspended him for possible “human rights violations,” banned him from school property, accused him of “discrediting the teaching profession,” put a formal reprimand on his record, and even threatened further investigation including possible termination of his contract. Naturally he was pissed to say the least, and fortunate to be close to retirement. And that’s exactly what he did, thankful to distance himself from those idiots.

I have studied and taught biology for over 40 years and have never encountered such low level life forms as those bits of slime that forced a career to end so undeservedly. Of course the idiot Board admins were no shining example of fairness and good judgment. These are the folks responsible for the education of our children and grandchildren, and that is what is most distressing.

This video puts forth a libertarian view of cancel culture:

 This is also a good link: https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-cancel-culture-checklist-c63