While I share Mr. Evans disdain for what traditional, mainstream media has become and the unacceptable way it purports to report the news as well as his disdain for what politics and politicians have become, I believe he has failed to address the root cause of the problems and challenges we as a country, a society, as Canadians and as individual human beings are facing.\
Indeed, I would assert that not only did Mr. Evans fail to address the root cause but that this root runs throughout his letters (1, 2) from first paragraph to last. Without getting to the root issue all the tinkering you do with media or politics is pointless.
I would argue that the root, the core of our problems lies not in our democracy but in ourselves. There is nothing wrong with our democracy except it involves people – us.
Mr. Evans is clearly upset with what is taking place with Mission Hospital, changes that are clearly being driven by budget considerations and limitations. Yet Mr. Evans wants to cut the extra $300 million that the province will collect from the HST this year and next and that the government has (for reasons of politics) pledged to spend on health care.
How does Mr. Evans propose the provincial government raise $300 million to replace this shortfall? Or what budget cuts does Mr. Evans suggest to offset the lost $300 million – closing Mission Hospital entirely? Or is it someone else’s Hospital Mr. Evans proposes to close?
Citing the same mythical ‘savings’ to be obtained by better management etc as the politicians do is not acceptable. What specific action(s) does Mr. Evans propose to offset the $300 million in forgone HST revenue for the provincial government?
Further if Mr. Evans and other anti-HST supporters have their way they will force the province to repay $1.124 billion to Ottawa from this year’s budget and forgo the final payment from Ottawa of $475 million in 2011’s budget.
How do Mr. Evans, Mr. Vander Zalm, the NDP and the other HST opponents want to offset this $1.6 billion? What taxes and fees will they raise and what programs will they cut? You might also want to consider that most of this 1.6 billion came out of the pockets of non-BC Canadians but the full $1.6 billion cost that results from not implementing the HST as agreed with Ottawa, will come out of BC taxpayers pockets or from reduced funding for health care, education etc in BC.
This, typical, behaviour is why I say that there is nothing wrong with democracy and that until we, people, are willing to change our behaviour all the tinkering with systems in the world will accomplish nothing because the true cause, citizens behaviour, will remain unchanged.
We demand more services at the same time we refuse to pay for them or even demand we pay less than we did for a lesser level of services.
If you cut back the days you worked from 5 days to 3 days would you expect, or could you reasonably demand, to receive the same level of pay? Of course not, it would be irrational to expect to work 40% less and not receive 40% less pay.
Yet people are constantly seen on the news demanding school boards bear the expense of keeping open underutilized schools, as thought there was no cost associated with keeping all those schools open.
Have you ever heard those demanding that schools be kept open to say ‘we want our school kept open; we know it costs money and we will pay the extra costs associated with keeping the schools open’?
Similarly Mr. Evans praised Mr. Vander Zalm for leading the anti-HST campaign, an action which Mr. Evans approves of; ignoring the facts that Mr. Vander Zalm’s actions are clearly political and that Mr. Vander Zalm is practicing the age old political technique of lying by omission.
If this were truly about what is best for the province Mr. Vander Zalm would be addressing the question(s) of where the money to repay or offset the $1.6 billion Ottawa paid BC to implement the HST will come from or where the $300 million to offset the extra funding for health care the HST would have put in the provincial coffers will be found. What fees or taxes do Mr. Vander Zalm, the NDP and the anti-HST campaign propose to raise or programs/funding will they cut to offset the nearly $2 billion dollars they want to rip out of the provincial budget this year and next?
As long as people will embrace a politician because they like or agree with what he/she says, forgetting that Mr. Vander Zalm was such a good Premier that under his leadership the Social Credit party ceased to exist and ignore such ‘minor’ points of reality as the cost and effects not implementing the HST will have on the BC budget, programs and the citizens of BC, things will not change no matter what tinkering is done with the system.
Examine Mr. Evans suggestion of term limits in support of which Mr. Evans states “If good enough for a U.S. President to be limited to two terms, I believe the same logic applies to Canada”. Ignoring, overlooking or not knowing that the two term limit set for presidents of the USA had nothing to do with logic or reason but was entirely a political decision in 1951 designed to prevent control of the White House by one party through another 4 term president like FDR.
“Enlightened and effective political reforms are needed …” Enlightened and effective in whose judgment? As Ralph Waldo Emerson said “One man’s justice is another’s injustice; one man’s beauty another’s ugliness; one man’s wisdom another’s folly.” What Mr. Evans regards as “Enlightened and effective” will be seen as censorship, unfair or oppression by others.
How differently humans can view the same things, seeing things as they interpret them, is underscored by Mr. Evans assertion that the fact the papers did not print all his letters is proof the papers are censoring him.
I am a prolific letter to the editor writer as is my friend Regina Dalton. Not all of our letters are printed but neither of us feels that, just because a letter is not printed we are being censored as neither of us has any expectation of having all our letters published in our local print media. It is unreasonable, given the space limitations and number of letters to the editor the papers receive, to expect all the letters one submits to be printed, particularly those letters that run over 250 words.
I am not arguing that the local papers never practice censorship, observation of their coverage of local issues evidences that they have biases and that those biases affect their reporting and the letters they choose to publish. What I am saying is that the failure to print every letter a person sends to the editor is not proof of censorship.
The fact that an unreasonable expectation, all someone’s letters get printed, is not met may simply be proof of a need to examine the assumptions one has made.
Mr. Evans calls for an “impartial, unbiased and completely factual media approach “ then proceeds to editorialize about the “unwise and harmful” HST failing to provide any facts to support his claim that the HST is “unwise and harmful”. He advocates holding the press to a standard he fails to hold himself to.
Mr. Evans calls for “Freedom of the Press” yet is upset that business exercised its right to freedom of the press to support the HST which Mr. Evans opposes. In order for it to be a truly free press it must be open to everyone, even those who disagree with us.
Mr. Evans needs to remember that Media is a business that needs to make a profit to continue its existence and that its ability to make a profit is tied to supplying a product there is a demand for.
Keep in the forefront of your mind the fact that news programs are now a major source of revenue for broadcasters in Canada and elsewhere.
In calling for changes in Canadian Media Mr. Evans has failed to take into consideration that ‘the media’ in Canada is currently in a state of massive change as a result of the market forces that resulted in the end of CanWest Global’s existence. The Media that existed just a few short months ago is not the Media that currently exists.
Media depends upon a market for its product to be able to finance its operations and ultimately its existence. People are the market and thus ultimately are responsible for the product delivered by Media. People heavily watched the first ‘reality television’ shows and the airwaves became saturated with ‘reality TV’ because the lower production costs of producing ‘reality television’ meant a higher contribution to Media’s bottom line.
FOX news in the US can be as blatantly biased to the ultra right because there is a market that will support that skewed a viewpoint because it wants to hear exactly what FOX is saying. This audience is not looking for what the facts are or reality is but to hear what they want to hear and have what they believe confirmed,
As in politics the ultimate responsibility for the state of the Media lies in the hands of the people. People get the Media they will accept.
What you get when you let the state start to dictate to the Media how, what, when, were or why they report is PRAVDA. Only by keeping the government as far away from the Media as possible can you have a free Media.
Allow the state to dictate to the media and you end up with FOX type news that reflects your views but has nothing to do with being an “impartial, unbiased and completely factual media approach”.
CanWest Global failed to offer a product that there was a lucrative enough market for, that people were interested in watching, to allow CanWest Global to survive. As a result of CanWest Global’s business plan its newspaper assets went to the unsecured creditors and the broadcast assets were purchased by Shaw.
The new owners of the newspapers must provide a product that people consider relevant to their needs or they too will fail.
Government interference via the CRTC is going to shield not only the television broadcasting assets acquired by Shaw from CanWest Global but the entire Canadian over the air broadcast industry from the market, forcing Canadians to subsidize this obsolete (as currently constituted) sunset industry until such time as a government with an understanding of the changes taking place in the field of information delivery is elected to Ottawa.
Aside: The author considers the Canadian over-the-air broadcast industry as it is currently a sunset industry since it came into being to rebroadcast foreign television signals to Canadians who had no other means to view these signals. Cable, then satellite and the phone system have all become alternatives for the delivery of television signals to Canadian households. Indeed most Canadians now receive their Canadian television signals together with foreign television signals by cable, satellite or the phone system.
Had the government not chosen to interfere the over the air television broadcast industry would have been forced to both rationalize and reinvent itself as was radio with the advent of television. In order to survive broadcasters would have been required to both innovate and provide material that attracted viewers.
The assets and broadcast licenses of the broadcasters who failed to adapt to these new market realities would provide the opportunity for local ownership as change driven by the failure of current broadcasters would enable new players to enter the broadcast arena.
It is tragically ironic that a Conservative government unwilling to invest in a national housing strategy or invest in reducing the increasing numbers of Canadian children living in poverty, is prepared not only to fund billion dollar bailouts for corporations but is willing and eager to not only shield a broadcast industry that is financially unviable (as a result of technological change) from the market but also happy to provide an unending stream of corporate welfare to broadcast corporations.
As a result of this artificial skewing of the market the information technology delivery industry in Canada will fall even further behind the rapid technological changes occurring in the field of information delivery and the generation of content for delivery to consumers taking place in other countries around the world.
The point being that the traditional media that Mr. Evans wants to impose rules to ensure an “impartial, unbiased and completely factual approach“ is in a state of flux and change as a result of changes in the market.
Newspapers will have to become relevant to readers or cease to exist. In order to do this they will need to provide information of use and interest to readers – or cease to exist.
Indeed it is the very type of government interference that Mr. Evans calls for that will protect broadcast television from being forced to become relevant to viewers or fall to the side and so provide for the entrance of new players into the Canadian television broadcast industry.
Driven by technology there is a new industry (industries?) of information and content generation and delivery emerging. Abbotsford Today, The Tyee, homelessinabbotsford.com are among the emerging ‘new media’ that provide news, alternative views and examination of issues to the public.
This commentary would not be printed by traditional media, not because of censorship but due to its length and the space constraints imposed upon traditional print media. Homelessinabbotsford.com or Abbotsford Today however, can expand as much as they need into cyberspace in order to publish what they considers of interest to their readers. This emerging new media will force the old media to become more relevant to readers/watchers – or cease to exist – with no interference required.
Like politics the problem of information comes down to people. The information is out there and available to those who want to know.
If you are unhappy with the quality of our local papers let the editors know and let advertisers know you will not be using their services or purchasing from them if they continue to support the status quo at our local papers.
The power to know and to encourage change in local papers, both lie in the hands of people. The question is are people willing to make the effort to acquire useful knowledge, differing viewpoints and to bring about change?
Whether media or politics the fault lies not in the systems but in ourselves. Tinkering with the political system or media will accomplish nothing – the information is available; we can vote for whom we choose – that people fail to do so is not a fault in our stars but in ourselves.
In the final analysis one does not ‘improve’ democracy or freedom of the press by decreasing democracy or freedom by imposing limitations.
