Category Archives: Caveat emptor

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

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.

Media

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