Canadian COVID-19 News

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

All police forces that I'm aware of in Canada now have mandatory vaccine mandates, or mandatory testing. And all the numbers I can find indicate a higher uptake.

I did note that this does not seem to be the case for our southern neighbours. In the USA the references I found do indicate a lower rate of vaccination down there.

Lower rates than for us? Or lower rates than their national averages?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

Rex is a case in point. I used to appreciate and trust his editorials but these days... not so much. I think he realized he was getting lost in the noise and had to start pushing the envelope. Pity.

I gave up on Rex many, many years ago. I come from a long line of Newfoundland babblers . I knows one when I hears one.

Again though, the problem is that too many people can no longer differentiate between opinion and news. Too many think it's the same thing -- it is not. But I do understand why this is increasingly the case.

In the not-so-distant past opinion was clearly and cleanly differentiated in the media. You had the editorial pages and the commentary section of the broadcast. These were separated from the news sections. But today it's rare NOT to see an opinion piece share the front page with the news of the day. On some so-called news networks, the majority of air time is filled with babblers, not news reporters.

There's a whole historical development we could go through, starting with talk radio, the tabloids and the advent of "24-hr news" channels. Problem is, there isn't 24 hrs worth of news every day, so it's gotta be filled with something. As one of my old radio producers use to say: "We gotta feed the beast."

Mixed with the fact that everyone loves a car crash (or sex, or kittens), plus opinion is cheap to produce while news is expensive, and we end up with today's media landscape where opinion passes for news.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

Lower rates than for us? Or lower rates than their national averages?

The references that fell out of my DuckDucking indicated a rate lower than their national average. But I wasn't looking for that stat -- not relevant to this thread, after all . I just included it in case that was the source of Dan's perspective.

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

Rex is a case in point. I used to appreciate and trust his editorials but these days... not so much. I think he realized he was getting lost in the noise and had to start pushing the envelope. Pity.

I agree with that, he starting to sound a little shrill, the last year in The NP.
Oh well.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The references that fell out of my DuckDucking indicated a rate lower than their national average. But I wasn't looking for that stat -- not relevant to this thread, after all . I just included it in case that was the source of Dan's perspective.

Interesting. Thanks. It supports a long-held opinion of mine (an opinion I've discussed at length with my son-in-law) about the differences between US and Canadian policing philosophies, policies, and operational procedures. (He's on the BC ERT team as a negotiator and is a national instructor for negotiating).

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's amusing, but as usual, our contrarians miss their understanding of Consent that is Manufactured by half. Perhaps he should re-read Chomsky.

Perhaps our resident media expert/independent medical writer should review his own knowledge of Chomsky.

"A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public."

https://chomsky.info/consent01/

[TrentePieds]

Scorpius said "... My son-in-law is an RCMP Staff Sergeant, responsible for the safety of North Vancouver..."

Hullo-o-o! You've probably have already read it, but FWIW I found Jane Hall's The Red Wall REALLY interesting! Tho she's a good deal younger, she's as old-fashioned as I am ;-)!

Cheers

TP

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Scorpius said "... My son-in-law is an RCMP Staff Sergeant, responsible for the safety of North Vancouver..."

Hullo-o-o! You've probably have already read it, but FWIW I found Jane Hall's The Red Wall REALLY interesting! Tho she's a good deal younger, she's as old-fashioned as I am ;-)!

Cheers

TP

I will have a look. Thanks. And don't get me wrong: I share the concerns of many Canadians about the internal culture of the RCMP. So does my son-in-law.

[TrentePieds]

Don't think I got you wrong at all. I was struck by your making a comment that is also made by Jane Hall, viz that the military inheritance of the RCMP has become much more muted than once it was.

Part of my being stuck it is that when I first came to these shores, they were, unmistakably, an outpost of the Empah. I was in England from '60 to '65. When I came back here, Canada was QUITE something else :-)

And then Trudeau happened!

Jane Hall discusses that transition form the vantage point of a retired RCMP officer. NV was her first posting after Depot :-)

TP

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... Of course, the problem we face here is two-fold. One is that news and opinion have been so blended in print, and most especially on screens, that some people can't tell the difference any more. The second is the dominance of opinion journalism, which is a complete oxymoron. But in some areas, opinion journalism has nearly completely squeezed out the actual news reporting.

Indeed.
“News” used to be a required ‘loss leader’.
Then, came the discovery of “Infotainment”, newslike programming, that was entertaining, and profitable. Goodby straight news.
Mike explores more on the evolution of 'news', in #4291.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.
“News” used to be a required ‘loss leader’.
Then, came the discovery of “Infotainment”, newslike programming, that was entertaining, and profitable. Goodby straight news.
Mike explores more on the evolution of 'news', in #4291.

The biggest problem isn't that opinion shares space with the news, but that the news is presented from a particular perspective. Mostly in the selection of which news to print, which ones to place "above the fold", and how stories are presented. The chosen stories over time support a continuous narrative. Stories are emphasized or de-emphasized accordingly.

News broadcasts are just video representations of what is printed in a few key newspapers. So newpapers continue to have a tremendous influence over what gets reported internationally, and how it gets reported. It's pretty amazing how far-reaching the New York Times and Washington Post are. By the next day, their reporting hits most international publications and broadcasts. Repackaged, but more than just the facts makes it all the way to the final presentation.

Is it all a big conspiracy? Perhaps on the part of some, but I think it's also in hiring folks who share an organizations' political ideology.

Canada broadcasts are better than most. This is a decent article about Canadian media bias: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....bias-in-canada. It's pretty basic, but hits the highlights.

It is unlikely that bias can be completely removed from media-owning corporations or individual journalists. But a public that is media literate can better detect and object to those biases. Journalists who are aware of their own biases and issues around privilege can monitor their own reporting to ensure it relies on facts and balances multiple sides of issues.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Can you give us your reference for this Dan? I've heard that the numbers of vaccinated police, and indeed all protective service workers, are somewhat higher than the average.

When I search, all I can find are references like this:

Winnipeg Police Service reaches 92% vaccination rate

Ottawa police vaccination rate increases after vaccine mandate announcement

Etc...

All police forces that I'm aware of in Canada now have mandatory vaccine mandates, or mandatory testing. And all the numbers I can find indicate a higher uptake.

I did note that this does not seem to be the case for our southern neighbours. In the USA the references I found do indicate a lower rate of vaccination down there.

No reference, purely anecdotal reports.

[GordMay]

Supply chain misinformation follows ‘Freedom Convoy’ headed to Ottawa
The so-called ‘Freedom Convoy’ heading to Ottawa and its supporters claim vaccine mandates on Canadian truckers are straining the country’s supply chain, creating a food shortage crisis.
But are those restrictions really causing empty shelves in grocery stores? [no]
David Akin breaks down what’s fact and fiction over the convoy’s grievances.
Video [2:16] ➥ https://globalnews.ca/video/8541479/...aded-to-ottawa

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

No reference, purely anecdotal reports.

Thanks Dan.

Lets: The issue of bias is different than opinion passing as news. We are all biased; to be human is to be biased. We all approach the world from our own perspective, and we have no choice but to bring that to the job. But part of being a professional journalist is recognizing this fact. There are lots of techniques professional journalists employ to counter their own bias. That doesn't mean everyone gets it perfect all the time -- again, being human means being biased and flawed -- but journalists' intent is to present the facts as best they can ascertain.

Opinion makers approach questions and issues from a different direction. The better ones build their opinion and analysis from credible facts, but they are purposely presenting a personal perspective. They are not trying to be unbiased -- quite the opposite.

There has always been space for commentary. From editorial to columnists, there's always been space for opinion. Indeed, the letters pages, or call-ins, or more recently the comments sections online, have always played a key role in any news source. But these sections used to be clearly, and purposely, separate from the news sections.

The problem is that commentary and opinion has completely bled into the news sections. I just pulled up the front page of the Globe & Mail. Five stories are "above the fold." Two of these are "opinion" pieces. But at least the Globe labels them as such. Many newspapers and broadcasters no longer bother to do even this. Online, in the world of Social Media (which is another oxymoron), separation and identification doesn't exist at all. And beyond this is the explicitly biased media outlets that more dominate the USA landscape -- much more than in Canada. Of course, like most things, we feel the effects here as well.

The problem, as I phrase it, is not so much that opinion journalism exists within the media landscape. The problem is that readers, listeners and viewers have a decreasing ability to identify news from opinion. This is no accident. The owners of media have spent the last few decades blurring the line, and diminishing the resources devoted to actual news. It's far cheaper and easier to put up a couple of talking heads representing "both side," than to do hard work of actually reporting on the issue.

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The biggest problem isn't that opinion shares space with the news, but that the news is presented from a particular perspective. Mostly in the selection of which news to print, which ones to place "above the fold", and how stories are presented. The chosen stories over time support a continuous narrative. Stories are emphasized or de-emphasized accordingly.

News broadcasts are just video representations of what is printed in a few key newspapers. So newpapers continue to have a tremendous influence over what gets reported internationally, and how it gets reported. It's pretty amazing how far-reaching the New York Times and Washington Post are. By the next day, their reporting hits most international publications and broadcasts. Repackaged, but more than just the facts makes it all the way to the final presentation.

Is it all a big conspiracy? Perhaps on the part of some, but I think it's also in hiring folks who share an organizations' political ideology.

It is unlikely that bias can be completely removed from media-owning corporations or individual journalists. But a public that is media literate can better detect and object to those biases. Journalists who are aware of their own biases and issues around privilege can monitor their own reporting to ensure it relies on facts and balances multiple sides of issues.

I do agree with the sense of this, but would add:

1. Re: "...the selection of which news to print". While that may have been true decades ago, when what was "news" was generally agreed, and such selections were indeed made. But today there is no general agreement. What is printed is no longer a "selection" but more an invention.

2. Re: "...News broadcasts are just video representations of what is printed in a few key newspapers". See number one. The far right media literally takes a subject, and makes up/invents their broadcast, largely from whole cloth, eg space lasers that affected the elections. Many outlets are part of huge networks, who actually create the positions and order the outlets to broadcast these, sometimes word for word.

The newspapers quoted, eg the NYT, present a corporate viewpoint - somewhat different from the far right networks. They certainly break stories - but the subsequent re-interpretation and invention by others then proceeds as now common. Corporate outlets reflect corporate views, far right and other outlets do not. The most likely to be accurate are neither.

3. Re: "...hiring folks who share an organizations' political ideology". I can tell you this from personal experience. Anyone who applies to an organization knows their favored position and presentation. Successful applicants will have already demonstrated their agreement - but in any case - know upfront that they will have to parrot the chosen positions. In this case the dog does wag the tail.

Last I'd agree that a "media literate" member of the public can perhaps detect biases - with the proviso that such literate people are not many, and it is very hard work. In general people who use the usual media and select say a partially biased article, will then be led increasingly toward an ever more narrower point of view. Click on one point - and soon you are inundated and become unable to reach outside the algorithms that entrap you in a particular bubble.

The ideas that journalists who are "aware of their own biases" can then somehow decide to make sure they don't express them is truly pie in the sky. Might sound good in J-class, but the real world is different. Broadcasters and journalists who don't toe the employer's line won't get, or keep the job.

In the world of media - the dog (the employer or algorithm) absolutely wags the public tail. Truly independent (non-corporate, or well-funded extremist) media are very small in number, and in public impact.

It's a new world and in the words of George Carlin: they have a club, and you ain't in it...