Category Archives: Caveat emptor

Caveat emptor, Homeless

RE: Valley neighbours setting an example.

Leave a comment

I sit here shaking my head, dismayed that this piece is what the News considers an opinion worthy of expression on such a complex issue.

Anyone reading your totally misleading “reporting and opinion” on the British success in achieving a 35% reduction in crime, would come away with the thoroughly erroneous impression of what measures the British used in accomplishing this notable reduction. Only those who had seen balanced and fair reports of Mayor Watts’s trip from other sources would know the British had wisely decided to try the unique approach of focusing on addressing the root causes of their crime problem. As with any weed, you can waste all the time and money you want on the symptoms of the problem (the leaves) such as car theft, B & E, prostitution and drug trafficking, and it just grows back. In fact, this approach often permits the weed to flourish and spread. You want to kill off the weed, you better get at the root.

The British, recognizing this reality, chose to focus on Cause rather than the effect. Not that anyone reading your “reporting” of the British experience would learn this. More accurate reporting elsewhere made clear that the British used innovative social programs and approaches to help the people involved, their fellow citizens who were in need of assistance, to address their personal problems and issues in order to permit these marginalized people to begin leading productive lives.

With all the innovation involved in the British approach that achieved these highly desirable results, the News chose to report and focus on the old and trite surveillance camera red herring of a “plan”? Further we are suppose to be amazed that citizens are complaining and upset about the activities in Jubilee Park? I suppose the News would favour using the ”miracle of surveillance” to drive these people out of the Park. Then in a few months the News can “report and opine” the problem some other area of Abbotsford is having with those previously displaced from Jubilee. Then repeat then process over and over and over as is the current policy.

Then blundering onward to the subject of transition housing regulation, you give any of the public depending on the News for informed opinion the entirely wrong impression that this is an easy question to deal with.

You offer a few misleading lines on issues that, to even begin to give the citizens of Abbotsford a basis for thinking about and making decisions on, need as series of articles (for each point/issue) to convey the many complexities of these problems.

The News wagging a finger at the council, no matter that the council fully deserves to be severely chastised for its lack of imagination and action, is the pot calling the kettle black. It is hubris to point a finger at the council for lack of being proactive when the News itself fails to invest the time, space and writing needed to be act in a proactive manner by informing the community of the intricacies of these issues, fermenting debate and involving the community in a situation that can only be addressed and solutions derived with the involvement of the entire community. Enough “drivel”, let us have some “meat and potatoes” from the News.

Caveat emptor

Living up to ones Ideals

Leave a comment

“We are independent and non-partisan. We represent no vested interests nor will we be afraid of reporting on controversial issues or expressing our opinions.”

“By providing insight, perspective and commentary we hope to provide a forum for discussions …”

Both statements made very welcome reading to me and I am sure many others. With our local papers being part of media chains, all to often their ‘reporting’ seems founded on the principle of blandness so as to not upset anyone in order to maximize profits. Having grown up with an independent locally owned newspaper I appreciate how important and how much a local paper can contribute to the issues of a City and the lives of its citizens. With so many important issues and decisions facing our Cities the promise of “ … nor will we be afraid … controversial” and “forum for discussion” seemed an answer to prayers for bring important questions into much needed public attention, focus and discussion.

While “Could media be to blame” was on the rather safe topic of whether medias constant “if it bleeds, it leads” reporting of crime is leading to unreasonable public fears, it was a step in the right direction. You also included a report as to the Times strike and settlement. I suppose one could argue the need to ease both the public and their new paper into examinations of whether media conglomeration has left them ill served in the examining or reporting on important local and national issues. Future editions of The Post will bear witness on this.

However, in order to deliver on your promises as quoted at the outset of this letter, you cannot let statements or issues raised in the stories you report on go unchallenged.

In “Downtown looking up” you failed (miserably) to examine or question the statements: “the idea is to clear out the area where STREET URCHINS lurk…” or “…will drive out the some of the seediness that has plagued these streets in recent years.” Street Urchins? What exactly is that in reference to? Drive out seediness? Again, what does that mean? Now given the actions of the Downtown Business Association I would suspect these statements are veiled references to the continuing campaign to drive the homeless, the poor, the addicts and the hookers out of Downtown into other parts of Abbotsford.

If the Post truly wants to “report” it needs to make sure it does not accept vague euphemisms but requires the speaker to clearly spell out what they mean. You also failed to address what effect the “…clear out …” or “…drive out …” would and has had on others. I would suspect the merchants on Sumas Way have little thanks for “street urchins” driven their way. I am sure that homeowners finding these “street urchins” and “seediness” forced into their neighbourhoods, by the actions of the downtown businessmen, would have some words to pass along to Mr. Bos and associates for “what you told us…” Assuming you would care to question the actions of a “vested interest”. Moreover, I would expect that many citizens would like the opportunity to comment on the fallout of the efforts led by Mr. Bos in closing down Street Hope. Losing the source of their evening meal, being human (and thus unwilling to quietly starve) and having been forced to “clear out” into new parts of the City items previously not worth stealing suddenly became the means to food.

Instead we get a puff piece either of the other papers would or could have written. Understand I fully support the right of the Downtown to work for improvement. I just feel they should have addressed their concerns with thought and carefully chosen action. I certainly do not think it is permissible, or acceptable, that their current solution is to “drive out” their problems onto their fellow business people and the citizens in general. Of course puff pieces are far easier to write and sell than asking hard questions and holding perpetrators responsible for the consequences of their actions.

To compound the offence against your stated goals for your new paper you allowed Fiona Brent to misrepresent the upcoming referendum as an “all encompassing facilities upgrade”, when that is clearly what the referendum IS NOT about. Further you have accepted the implied assertion that the plan is a good idea without raising any of the important questions that would clearly demonstrate that this plan is far from a good idea.

You have ignored that this is about only a few facilities; overlooked Councilors Beck’s statement that this is not about IF but only When the facilities will be built; failed to to ask a representative of the Chamber of Commerce if the business people really think it is a good idea to rush to build in an over priced construction market, to build without adequate design and consultation with end users, to build a huge rink after chasing the major tenant out of town (the Chiefs), wasting money on what is in the end a pointless referendum since it is only about timing; you have not questioned what the priorities for City capital projects should be; if we should be building a large sports/entertainment complex for which there is no clear need when the money would permit the building of many needed smaller capital projects; should we be deciding what to build based on what projects are pet projects of City Staff and councilors OR should we base capital plans on the needs of the citizens, the people who pay for all the building.

Yes, it is only your second issue. Perhaps it is that you intend to raise all the questions and issues that others have failed to ask about capital spending plans. Mr. Bos is slick and facile with words, but no more than you should expect form one involved with the legal profession.

Still, as you begin so do you tend to go. If you truly want the public to “find what we (the Post) have to say useful, thought provoking and always interesting” you need to be willing to forego the easy “Puff” pieces and work hard digging into the Who, What, Where, when and Why of stories. In that way you will succeed in offering our communities the “forum” so sadly lacking and desperately needed.

Caveat emptor, Homeless

NO letters to the editor for YOU! -local newspapers tell homeless

Leave a comment

Borrowing from Jerry Seinfeld, this is what the newspapers tell the homeless. Adding insult to the injury their failure to accurately inform the public of the truth and reality of the homeless situation in Abbbotsford by denying them any editorial voice as well.

“letters…include an address and daytime phone number to be used for verification purposes”

Let us consider these requirements. I am homeless, therefore I have no fixed address to give them. I cannot afford shelter or food and certainly have no money to waste on luxuries such as a phone. “Money talks” is an old expression, but seems true in ways I had not thought of before. The truly needy are so poor that newspapers deny them any voice. They will no doubt claim the need to be able to verify letters are not fake, perhaps even citing cases of fake letters in the past. Anyone, including some local journalists, who chose to make the effort required had no problem verifying the existence of, communicating with or meeting Mr. H. Although somehow I doubt they will claim laziness as their excuse for any verification problems.

The BC Press code states “newspapers first duty is to provide the public with accurate information”. Hmmm. It also calls on newspapers to “defend the right of expressing opinions no matter how controversial”. Hmmm. I suppose that neither actually requires newspapers to provide the with accurate information about major social issues. One could argue that an important part of defending a right of expression is to occasionally use that right. Homelessness is a major social issue. Newspapers claim to cover important issues so that people can make intelligent, informed decisions. HA! This is not a nice, neat, easy or simple issue to cover. It is not a popular issue, especially with the advertisers (whether businesses, local officials or government) and the powers that be. This has apparently led to news providers (newspapers, television, magazines) avoiding the issue and its assorted difficulties. Denying the homeless a voice and denying the public any true and accurate information for making decisions about addressing homelessness.

For the homeless such as myself, (who would like to begin to address the issue of the homeless and start to deal with the underlying problems that give rise to these social problems, rather than wasting money chasing the homeless from neighbourhood to neighbourhood around the city and all the other such wastes) it is far easier to tell about the reality of homelessness and make editorial comments to the entire world on the world wide web, than it is to reach our fellow citizens of Abbotsford through the local papers. Through the Internet I can speak to the world using www.geocities.com/homelessinabbotsford to share the arduous life lessons I have learned. Any citizen of Abbotsford interested in actually accomplishing something on this issue can join the rest of the world there to read my writings and get a view of what is really happening on the streets and within the current social assistance system with regards to this important issue. And hopefully, at some point, our local (news)papers.

Caveat emptor, Consider

Media

Leave a comment

Several months ago I read an ad for Global Television seeking an assignment manager. The ad was full of all the right buzzwords you would expect but hidden away among all those nice buzzwords was a chilling prospect. Part of the job was coordination of editorial content among various elements of the Global/Can West media empire, seeking to maximize the bottom line. Or is that to toe the party line?

I grew up in an era of newspaper competition and contrasting editorial viewpoints. It is disturbing to think about how we have lost all these differing views to media conglomeration, to consider the stifling effect that media conglomeration has on the debate and reporting of issues both large and small. While coordinating editorial content may be advantageous to the bottom line, what is the cost to the public in reporting of stories and presentation of diverse and opposing viewpoints? Where once we were presented with opposing views, ideas and thoughts on important issues we now get one (‘the company’) point of view. Important issues often are no longer examined from many angles and we are no longer exposed to all views, thoughts of considerations needed to make important choices/decisions. Making decisions may appear easier since we are given far less to think about. But, is it a good idea to be seeking or more accurately to be accepting this easy way out? Is it reasonable to be seeking easy, simple answers in an increasingly complex world? Does/has not this approach just lead/resulted in making BAD decisions?

How much does the corporate drive for bottom line results affect what appears in the paper/magazine/television news? I grew up with our ‘local’ paper being owned and published by a resident of the town. I knew the family who were members of the local community. On occasion things got a little lean when the paper took a position on important local issues that some advertisers disagreed with. As a citizen the owner/publisher took these positions and accepted the (temporary) revenue downturns because some important issues need to be addressed and someone will disagree with the papers position. Now the Herald is part of a chain, as are the Abbotsford papers, and focused on the bottom line. To avoid offending advertisers and decreasing revenue, the public ends up with sanitized, do not offend anybody stories.

Another major effect is that of the drive to reduce costs. To address a complex issue such as homelessness is going to require time for research, investigation and thought – perhaps a series of articles. This approach represents a far higher cost than just banging out simple stories. This addressing of complex events carries a significant chance of offending some vested interest, with the potential for a negative effect on the bottom-line.

Doubt this? Think back a few months to the picture of the woman in the hat with the large flower and her dog in her arms. Nice easy story about the closing of the Fraser Inn. The harder part, the most costly part would be a story about: where is she now? What effect did the closing of the Fraser Inn have on her? On other displaced residents? What has the welfare system done for – or to – her? Does she need help now? Do the other ex-residents? What actions did the city take (not take) in accepting (denying) responsibility for the effect of its actions on the innocent bystanders (the residents) of its feud with the owners of the Fraser Inn? Not very likely to be written since it could discomfort readers and advertisers, it would take time and effort and it would/could have a negative effect on bottom line maximization.

The problem with having to rely on media providing the information to make decisions on complex issues, in this current age of media conglomerates, lies in the old computer programmers’ adage:

GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT