There are so few traditional news reportings today - just op-ed and opinion pieces. Nothing is available to thinking readers because the expectation is that we will read, accept and, especially, not think. - 24-03-07

Today I learned about defamation and the misuse of the airwaves for "political" purposes. I learned about editing interviews, not to improve the presentation and communication of facts but rather to improve the "look" and sound of a storyline. I learned today, that news is not necessarily about facts but rather the "theater of presentation", BBM (Bureau of Broadcast Measurement) ratings and journalistic ego.  I woke up to a lot this AM. . .

When a network edits information to tell a “truth” more suitable to the intention of a "storyline” than to fact, this is not "news" - it is a lie. But then. . . Better a twisted presentation which gets attention (even if damaged reputations occur in the process) than the actual truth obtained by an interviewer but left on the cutting-room floor because it doesn't suit the purpose of the "intended" story. . .

It is no wonder that Canada will soon be as litiginous as the United States. It is time that media professionals review what defamation is and what consequences it can bring about.

Defamation: In the most general terms, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Defamation has four elements: 1) a false or defamatory statement was made against you; 2) the statement was made to a third party (anyone other than you, either verbally or in written form); 3) if the defamation was of public concern, then the publisher of the defamation had to be negligent; and 4) you suffered damage, such as an injury to your reputation or, in some cases, mental anguish. Furthermore, there are several instances that result in defamation “per se,” i.e., the damages are presumed. These instances include attacks on a person’s character or standing, allegations that a person has committed a crime or moral turpitude. - 04-10-06

There is something truly pathetic about a once revered media conglomerate prostituting itself for ratings and, despite this, still perceiving itself as righteous and professional. - 04-10-06

I was taken aback, recently, by a newspaper article which touted the virtues of the press. It praised the media as one of the most important sources of information in our modern era. It took me awhile to analyze the discomfort I felt reading this seemingly ordinary article. Then it hit me. It was the blanket statement - the self-congratulatory tone that should not exist in any profession which had struck a dissonant chord. The following reflections are the results of my musing on this subject.

Now, I do consider the role of the press - especially as it relates to informing the public, a sacred trust worthy of national and international protection. But I also think that the contemporary press should not rely completely on a traditional perception of itself without taking a good look in the mirror once in awhile.

Sensationalism, subjectivity and manipulation of "what is" are far too often components of the modern idiom known as "the press". Creating news and titillating have become too common to be acceptable as professional objective tools of information transmission.

As bad parenting more often than not relates to giving-in to the spoiled child, the press seems too infatuated with reader consumption demands than with information transmission. Communicating information also seems to have more to do with attracting readership than being enlightning - have more to do with entertaining than news gathering and sharing "what is". And these are most disturbing qualities to have in the profession of the “press”.

A truly modern press - to remain viable and respected - cannot depend on antiquated perceptions of itself. Sometimes the only way to check if the shirt your wearing is fresh and crisp and clean, is to look in the mirror. - 27-04-05

Whether fifty or a million people turn out en masse to support or protest a political or social hot-button issue, the low end portion of the media always has a knack of covering the item in such a way as to give both activites an equal amount of credibility. It's simply a matter of choosing a long shot or close-up - strategically positioning a microphone to get impact out of iffy sound-bites. It's not the tactics which are tacky but rather that most of us believe in the resulting product. -10-04-05