Posted on 08/17/2004 6:03:06 PM PDT by freeforall
Media must work at getting it right
GEORGE CLARK, London Free Press
Do you think the media generally gets things right? Do you have concerns about the bias of reporters or the media organizations themselves? Do you worry that the concentration of media ownership in this country has an impact on the way the news is gathered and reported?
According to a recent report card on the Canadian media, Canadians have a positive impression of accuracy in the media, responsiveness to their readers, listeners and viewers, and play an important part in society. Interestingly, the figures are almost exactly the opposite in the United States.
The report card was based on a study by the Canadian Media Research Consortium in collaboration with researchers from a handful of Canadian universities. U.S. figures were provided from data gathered by Pew Research.
While taking some comfort from the fact that nearly 60 per cent of the Canadians surveyed thought the media generally got the facts straight -- while 56 per cent of those south of the border think media reports were often inaccurate -- we in the media should pause over the fact Canadians were concerned about balance and fairness, reporter bias, accountability, independence and ownership concentration.
Answers from Canadians polled indicated 31 per cent felt reporter preferences often influenced the news, while another 46 per cent felt that sometimes they did. There is cold comfort that, in the United States, similar data showed 53 per cent felt reporters were politically biased.
Another sobering statistic was the response to a question about accountability, in which 54 per cent of Canadians said they think the media try to cover up their mistakes. In the United States, it's even worse -- at 61 per cent.
When asked about what groups most influence the news in Canada, 42 per cent pointed to various levels of government politicians and bureaucrats. Tied for second -- at 12 per cent each -- were media owners and lobby groups.
While this survey offers food for serious thought by media organizations and journalists, it makes another point to me.
It says that in at least one very important area, we have been lousy communicators.
I think of the weeks and months that were spent a few years ago by the Canadian Radio and Television News Directors Association, painstakingly updating its code of ethics to make sure it spelled out exactly the necessity for accuracy, and the need to quickly and publicly correct mistakes; to guard independence as a fundamental value, resisting any intrusion into content, real or apparent; to respect the dignity and well-being of those they cover and not infringe on their privacy except in the public interest; to try to make sure the presence of the media does not distort the event being covered.
There are a number of other articles in that code of ethics that govern Canadian broadcasters, which was shaped after months of consideration by Steve Andrusiak, now at Fanshawe College in London as dean of communication arts, along with other news managers and executives.
This code of ethics should not just remain posted on newsroom and news bureau walls as reminders to journalists of the rules that govern our business.
It should be communicated far and wide to show that Canadian broadcast media take their responsibilities very seriously, that accuracy and accountability are more than words, they are the pillars on which we stand.
I realize that just by saying we have rules and ideals to shape how and what we do isn't enough. But it would serve to remind news consumers that we consider their trust, and our reputations, as very important.
I must admit that in more than three decades in journalism in London, I can't remember any occasion when an outside source successfully changed or prevented news coverage of a story of consequence. That speaks to good ownership. It also speaks to dedicated journalists who believe in the importance of their craft.
Do me a favour. Don't keep it a secret. We apparently do that well enough by ourselves.
This from a paper with no Bias?
FREE PRESS DEFENDS LACK OF BALANCE
LONDON (December 6, 1996) - The London Free Press, which was both a catalyst and hostile witness in the racism complaint against London landlord Elijah Elieff, reported the Divisional Court's appeal ruling as an event worth celebrating, with the December 6, 1996 headline: 'Tenants rejoice at racism decision.'
The headline reveals the paper's ongoing bias, given that no tenants were present during the two-day appeal hearing before the Ontario Divisional Court, and that the only evidence of 'rejoicing' was on the part of Reverend Susan Eagle, who is not a tenant. Moreover, ALL of the tenants who appeared before the original Board of Inquiry (with the exception of the complainant, who was recruited by Eagle) spoke strongly in favour of the landlord, and chose to testify specifically because they were very upset and disgusted with the unsubstantiated bias of the London Free Press.
"One would think that an outcome worth celebrating would be one where discrimination was found NOT to exist," says Fp president Robert Metz in reaction to the London Free Press coverage. "But instead, some people actually seem happy that discrimination exists! What does that tell you about their motives?" NO BALANCE
Unfortunately, even though Metz introduced himself as a contact for Elieff to Free Press reporter Michelle Shephard, the paper's coverage of the ruling did not include any reaction from Elieff's side of the issue.
This was more than an oversight, since Metz made it a point to inform Shephard that he had represented Elieff before the original Board of Inquiry and that he would be available for background information, reaction, or comment. He made it clear that Elieff's current occupation as a transport truck driver kept him out of town most of the time. In addition to providing his business card containing a phone number, fax number, e-mail and website address, Metz also provided Shephard with copies of Fp's 'Final Argument', as it appeared in Consent 21.
Despite these efforts, the paper reported that Elieff was "not available for comment".
However, with predictable bias and regularity, the Free Press was quick to seek out and print the comments of Reverend Susan Eagle: "This is an acknowledgement of the wrongdoing of the landlord..." Eagle, another hostile witness before the Board of Inquiry against Elieff, was, and still is, the driving force in the campaign against him.
The London Free Press not only failed to make even a minimal effort for balanced coverage, but went so far as to reject a direct offer of balance by Metz in a letter to the editor. ANOTHER 'SPIN'
In his letter, Metz put his own 'spin' on the Divisional Court ruling, by using direct quotes from the ruling to illustrate that there was no victory for the Human Rights Commission, and that the balance of the appeal was dismissed.
"Moreover," wrote Metz, "the judgement acknowledged that 'it seems clear that the complaint and these proceedings resulted from articles published in the London Free Press in November 1989', and that the racially 'poisoned environment' at the former Cheyenne Ave apartments was a direct result of reporting in the London Free Press." OFFENSIVE DEFENCE
"My own reading of the decision is at variance with your interpretation," responded Free Press associate editor Gary May in an unexpected February 3, 1997 letter to Metz. He then went so far as to accuse Elieff of being "the instigator" of the whole affair.
"Surely you would not condone the Free Press ignoring such inflammatory comments made by Mr. Elieff?" he challenged.
May's unexpected personal response to Metz's letter, which was simply intended for publication in the paper's editorial section, would indicate that a raw nerve was struck.
Ironically, the answer to May's question was already made explicitly clear in Metz's original letter:
"As Mr. Elieff's representative before the original Board of Inquiry," wrote Metz, "I can state for the record from my own personal observation that never once did Mr. Elieff utter any reference to anyone's race in his descriptions of conditions at his former Cheyenne Ave apartment buildings. All racial references were added, assumed, and emphasized by London Free Press reporters. According to the testimony of Free Press reporter Greg Van Moorsel at the Board of Inquiry hearings, this practice is called 'putting a spin' on the story.
"From the beginning of the Cheyenne Ave controversy to the most recent Ontario Divisional Court decision, the London Free Press has grossly, consistently, and repeatedly misrepresented Mr. Elieff's case to its readers."
Metz invited Free Press readers to visit Freedom Party's on-line Web Site at "http://www.freedomparty.org/cheyenne.htm" for a complete accounting of Elieff's story, including London Free Press coverage and excerpts from the original Board of Inquiry transcripts.
"In this way," concluded Metz, "Free Press readers may have an opportunity to see both sides of the story and judge for themselves the merits of this case." FREE PRESS READERS DENIED BALANCE
"I thank you for bringing your views to my attention," concluded May, "but after considerable investigation and discussion with those involved, I feel it is not necessary for the Free Press to take further action."
May did not identify "those involved" with whom he conducted a "considerable investigation", but they did not include either Metz or Elieff.
As of this writing, Metz's letter remains unpublished. 'THOUGHT CRIME' A REALITY IN ONTARIO
Contrary to Susan Eagle's interpretation of the court ruling, "therre was no 'wrongDOING' on Elieff's part," stresses Metz, "since the court remained satisfied that he treated all of his tenants the same, regardless of race. It was solely the court's interpretation of Elieff's THOUGHTS (about tenant cleanliness and responsibility, not race, from Elieff's point of view), and his expression of those thoughts to a newspaper reporter, that constituted Elieff's 'crime' of 'unequal treatment'.
"Thought crime has come to Ontario."
None whatsoever. I've seen enough blatant lies, distortions and omissions from the media that it's a given that they are bald-faced liars. Heck, I know a used-car salesman whom I consider infinitely more trustworthy than the media (and this was even before I bought a car from him that I'm quite happy with!).
|
|
||||||
| Public disclosure: Media are finally admitting their biases.
Creator of 'Mr. Sterling' Admits: We TV Writers Are '99% Leftist'
NewsMax.com ^ | 5/27/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
|
||||||
| Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media | ||||||
|
Great Debate#9 Break up Microsoft?...Then how about the media "Big Six"? [ ... -Poll confirms Ivy League liberal tilt--
A poll by the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change in 1992, eighty-three percent of film and television writers, directors and producers voted for Bill Clinton. Eighty-three percent. The vote that Clinton received in the country at large, forty-three percent.
|
||||||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.