Vol #2, Col #17: No News is Good News

I’m a sucker for a good biopic. Though I can’t quite put my finger on why it’s the case, there’s something just more appealing to me about watching a film that’s based on true events and real life people that once existed.

While it was no grade A cinematic experience (ie: it was a “made-for-tv” movie), the other day I bore witness to “The True Story of Bonnie & Clyde”. Compiled from documents and narratives from those who knew them personally, the aforementioned screenplay detailed the borderline abusive and extremely manipulative relationship that existed between the couple. 

Now, if it weren’t for my chance viewing of this film, I still would very much be under the misconception I’m sure many of you shared with me that both Bonnie and Clyde were equally matched renegades who happened to find each other and spiral madly into a romantic affair based on their shared love of violence and crime. Well my friends, I hate to burst your bubble, but this media spun sensationalistic version of their tale couldn’t be further from the truth. All of this led me to question: “what has the role of the media (moreover “the news media”) become in modern society if recounting stories from purely objective factual stances is clearly no longer their strong suit?”

Now, it’s no new “a-ha moment” that the media (in all of its forms) sadly need to first and foremost appease their corporate sponsors and advertisers as said companies allow them to continue to exist. However, not so long ago I do recall the expression, “freedom of the press” being heralded when a controversial story broke, and investigative journalism being something one aspired to.

These days, on the contrary, the vast majority of Canada’s mainstream media is owned by only a handful of corporate conglomerates that regurgitate the same news items among themselves. Not only does this lead to a skewed perception of reality, but further it censors dissenting thoughts because it’d be “bad business practice” to out the conglomerate(s) responsible for keeping you employed no matter what their other business dealings may reveal.

With the upsurge of citizen journalism (ie: newstelling by the people) because of the blogosphere, camera cell phones, and sites like Youtube, despite its obvious flaw in that it lacks any sense of established “standard”, there was a growing sense of hope that the “news” would revert back to the reporting of factual events and happenings about which the public has a right to know as opposed to sheer propaganda for corporate sponsors. But, it would seem that nothing is sacred as marketers are now locking jaws onto any opportunity they can to promote their products and services on free-to-use social networking and citizen journalism sites.

While one could argue that what I’ve outlined above captures the very rationale behind and need for public government-funded broadcasters, in my experience, I hate to say it, but they typically aren’t much better in terms of business practises. With restrictive broadcasting guidelines and a similar bureaucratic all-seeing eye, the news that passes through filter upon filter upon filter before reaching the public is very much a “whitewashed version”; hardly what we should expect, moreover demand from those who are supposedly the “watchdogs of our nation.” This, of course, makes sense though given that many governments, in recent years, have allowed big businesses to bypass legislation (including laws associated with universal human rights, no joke!) purely to keep their economies a-booming. But I digress…

The point is this: as dictated by several associations, including the Society of Professional Journalists, there exists a code of ethics, akin to the Hippocratic Oath that physicians are to abide by, in order to protect the public and “professionalize” the field. “Truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability” are values that are supposed to be held paramount to all others if one chooses to undertake this line of work.

People make decisions based on the information with which they are provided. Said decisions lead to actions which have real-life consequences. While information is accessible through many outlets in the modern age, many of us still rely heavily on the news media in order to remain informed. If we are supposed to act intelligently as informed citizens, I don’t think it’s too much to ask of our news media to do just that (ie: inform us, NOT selectively and NOT with bias).

Vol 2, Col 9: “Exper-tease”

I swear, everyone thinks they’re a bloody expert. Well, let me let you in on something folks – just ‘cause you read a single Wikipedia entry, watch a documentary, or peruse a National Geographic article on a given subject does NOT entitle you to a valid opinion. True, when it comes to abstract ideals like love, much of one’s perspective is formulated based on his/her feelings. Therefore, I nor the next person can justifiably tell you that your feelings are wrong as they are governed by the laws of subjectivity. Further, there is NO logic in emotion (ie: oftentimes the way you feel is not rational given the circumstances; something which I’m sure we can all attest is a “truth”). With that said, the problem I have is NOT with peoples’ feelings (who am I to judge that?). No, the issue I seem to keep encountering pertains to the breeding of ignorance and misinformation. Worse, the persons who are doing said “breeding” somehow have convinced themselves that they are worthy spokespeople on subjects in which they have little to no formal training.

Par exemple: just the other day I was watching a news broadcast about the obesity epidemic in the US. No word of a lie, the so-called “expert” they brought in claimed that a good majority of this problem could be attributed to the fact that the foods we are consuming are being cooked in plastic containers.

According to this “expert”, the plastics in which foods are packaged contain chemical compounds he has coined “obesogens” which interfere with the body’s natural homeostasis, therefore detrimentally affecting our metabolic rates (ie: the amount of calories we burn, the amount of food we need to consume to be satiated, and the amount of fat that is stored versus burned off per meal). Now, I would never discount that wrapping our foods (or anything else for that matter) in plastics is highly problematic as yes they do contain many toxins that should NOT be ingested in any capacity. HOWEVER,

 

1) this “expert”’s argument allows obese individuals to entirely skirt the blame for their situation by failing to acknowledge that it may be the ACTUAL QUALITY OF FOOD they are consuming that is at least partly to blame (not the mention their lack of exercising).

 

2) this so-called “expert” (from my reading of his bio) has NO actual qualifications in the domain of health and nutrition. In fact, he is a Professor of Surgery and holds a Masters in Business.

While medical doctors do receive some health and lifestyle training, I have it on good authority that this is a very LIMITED aspect of their seven year foray at school (as the old adage goes, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”), not to mention there is a growing proportion of doctors/clinics that have direct ties to pharmaceutical companies (for research funding purposes) making their “health advice”, I should think, at least a little bit partisan.      

If you think that I’m just picking on the media and what they choose to disseminate as “fact” however, you’re wrong. According to a seminar I attended last year put on by accredited mental health care professionals, there is a growing proportion of “average joes” engaging in self-diagnosis practices and diagnoses of their close friends and family. Christ, if we went by what everyone “claims”, we’d all be labeled as suffering from manic depression and/or obsessive compulsive disorder. But I should point out that this phenomenon is NOT exclusive to health concerns – it’s everywhere and in regards to everything, and strangely even manages to make unquestioned leaps of faith (ie: like kids who claim to be proficient and skilled musicians simply because they can rock GuitarHero or businessmen questioning their mechanics because so and so at their work, who works in a completely unrelated field I might add, said that they didn’t need to have their car’s oil changed every 5000 clicks to ensure optimal functioning….right)

Although in some ways, as a lifelong D.I.Y.-er, I find it empowering that “knowledge” is no longer relegated to the rich, super-educated or the clergy, and that we now have collaborative forms of collective experiences being shared globally, this newfound accessibility of knowledge requires the development of new abilities: namely superior b.s.-detecting skills (checking people’s credentials before taking what they say as “fact” might be a good starting place), and the learning of the differences between information, entertainment, and infotainment, especially given that “citizen journalism” has gotten such a grasp over the mainstream, and the mainstream has become corporate controlled.

Now, if you’re thinking, “Hey, wait a minute Ms. RCP, with all of this knowledge talk, you yourself are being a hypocrite,” I’d like to point out that

 

1: I’ve been hired by this fine newspaper of yours to share my OPINIONS based purely on my own observations and experiences

 

2: you are welcome to disagree with me or IGNORE me anytime, and

 

3 MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have NEVER once stated that what I’m saying is “fact” (unless it’s an observation, of course) or that I’m an expert (yes, I have knowledge in an assortment of domains, but I humbly admit there is always far more I can learn). Therefore, in conclusion, what you are reading is MY TRUTH and a truth to which I feel others may be able to relate to; hence why these articles are published in the “editorial” section.

*Little known fact about Wikipedia*: a few years back, there was a young man verging on adolescence who felt entitled to have an opinion. Claiming falsely that he was a post-graduate of several of the most prestigious academic institutes worldwide, he successfully had his incorrect “edits” on a multitude of important subjects accepted by “the free encyclopedia” and averted detection for quite some time. One has to wonder, how many people first off read his information? Worse, how many people accepted his information as “truth”, and then committed actions based on it?  Scary ain’t it?!