adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Media

B.C. saw 80% drop in access-to-information requests from media outlets after bringing in fee, report says

Published

 on

B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy says the levy for freedom-of-information requests should be scrapped.DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press

After British Columbia started charging $10 for each request for secret government information, media outlets dropped their applications by 80 per cent while opposition political parties halved their number, according to a new report from the provincial privacy watchdog.

B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy released on Thursday his office’s analysis of the first six months of freedom-of-information requests after the New Democrat government’s controversial levy came into effect in late November, 2021. The report found media applications decreased to 115 from 575 during the same period a year prior.

“Any time there appears to be a barrier to access to records for people whose job it is to hold the government to account that is a matter of concern,” Mr. McEvoy said in an interview Thursday.

Mr. McEvoy’s office said that of 14 jurisdictions in Canada with access-to-information laws, seven of them don’t charge for requests. B.C.’s $10 fee is only surpassed by Alberta and Nunavut charging $25. The federal government, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island all charge $5 to request official information, according to data from last year provided by the commissioner.

300x250x1

Mr. McEvoy made eight recommendations to the province and other public bodies charging this fee, ranging from establishing a policy for when they will refund this levy to ensuring applicants have a range of payment options, and can do so anonymously if they wish.

But, he said, the fees themselves should be scrapped altogether.

“These are the public’s records, so to be asking the public for additional funds for the records that are theirs, in my view, is not appropriate,” said Mr. McEvoy, who has been a vocal opponent of the province’s creation of the fee.

The commissioner’s review focused on the provincial government, as it receives by far the most of these requests in British Columbia. But, the report said, the office also reached out to 109 other public bodies – such as large municipal governments and police departments – to see if they were drafting new application fees. Mr. McEvoy said 24 indicated they were now charging one and another 24 were considering following suit.

“We would encourage those 85 public bodies who are not charging the fee to not do so,” he said.

Brent Jolly, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, said the results of Thursday’s report show the province has thrown a “monkey wrench” into what many experts had considered the best freedom-of-information, or FOI, system in the country. Charging journalists or anyone more money for complicated requests that require staff to retrieve and collate thousands of pages of documents is reasonable, he said. But a blanket fee takes the “free out of the freedom of information” and hinders the media from doing its job of keeping governments accountable for their actions.

“Doing FOI-related stories takes time and it takes resources,” said Mr. Jolly, whose organization gave the B.C. government its annual tongue-in-cheek Code of Silence award in 2021 for the fee. “A lot of journalists now might not have the time to follow the money in the way that they traditionally would in the past, [or] to file a dozen requests using various keywords.”

Lisa Beare, whose Ministry of Citizens’ Services oversees the province’s information access regime, issued a statement saying she will review the report considering the commissioner’s recommendations. Her statement also said B.C. is increasing the amount of information it discloses to the public.

At the time the New Democrats proposed the new fees, former premier John Horgan defended the costs as necessary to deal with the high volume of requests from the BC Liberal opposition, but also from media. Citizens can also use it.

“I believe that thousands and thousands and thousands of requests are not designed to better understand why decisions are being made, but instead they’re acting as surveillance, looking over the shoulder of public officials,” he told reporters at the time.

The commissioner’s report also found the fee had a profound effect on political parties, with their requests dropping from 1,240 in the same period in the year prior to 518 applications in the six months after the fee.

Peter Milobar, finance critic for the BC Liberal Party, said the system has not only become more expensive but also slower. “The whole premise of them doing this doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny, whatsoever, and it’s not too late to reverse course,” he said.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Opinion | The Media Say Crime Is Going Down. Don't Believe It – The Wall Street Journal

Published

 on


[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Opinion | The Media Say Crime Is Going Down. Don’t Believe It  The Wall Street Journal

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

end-of-season media availability

Published

 on

By Justin Vézina At the end of its spectacular 2023-2024 season, the Laval Rocket held its end-of-season media availability to bring the campaign to a close. Ten players, plus head coach Jean-François Houle, appeared before the media.  For those who wish to view all the press conferences, they are presented below. However, for those who […]

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Forget Trump — the American media is on trial in New York – The Hill

Published

 on



300x250x1

Forget Trump — the American media is on trial in New York | The Hill








The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

It was July 2018, and Michael Avenatti was considering a presidential run. Anyone can consider running for president, I suppose. It’s just that when the lawyer for Stormy Daniels and cable news mainstay did it, important people — theoretically important, at least — in the press took it seriously.

CNN’s Jim Scuitto had Avenatti on to talk about it, and make a bit of a campaign pitch for himself, on July 4. The next day, CNN’s editor-at-large Chris Cillizza, one of the more prominent writers for the website back then, published a piece of analysis with the headline “President Michael Avenatti? Never say never!”

And sure, why not. Avenatti was riding high at the time. A couple months earlier, he was being pitched, according to the New York Times, for a “Crossfire”-like show with Anthony Scaramucci, the rapidly-defenestrated former Trump communications director, by mega-agent Jay Sures, who represents top CNN talent like Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper. Maybe that’s why Avenatti became so ubiquitous on the network to begin with — embarrassingly so, in retrospect.

But if we look back to April, almost exactly six years ago, that’s when Avenatti truly burst onto the national scene. On April 9, 2018, the FBI raided the office of Michael Cohen, the long-time “fixer” and business associate of then-President Donald Trump. The next day, Avenatti was on Cooper’s CNN show to break it all down — from Stormy Daniels, his porn actress client, to Karen McDougal, the former Playboy playmate, to Cohen himself. It was Avenatti’s chance to craft the narrative for the media, and the media was happy to oblige.

The whole ordeal was portrayed a couple weeks later in a cringe-inducing “Saturday Night Live” cold open, with Ben Stiller playing Cohen, Jimmy Fallon playing Jared Kushner, and Stormy Daniels playing herself. (She struggled to nail the “Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!” line at the end.)

It’s worth reflecting this week on this bizarre 2018 moment, as it serves as the prelude to the first (and possibly only) trial of Trump in 2024. The trial that officially began on Monday isn’t about “insurrection” or “espionage” or classified documents or RICO. Oh no. It’s this reality TV, trashy tabloid junk about porn stars and Playmates — stuff that belongs more in the National Enquirer than the National Broadcasting Company.

Which is ironic, of course, because the first witness in the case was David Pecker, the former executive in charge of the National Enquirer. (It’s also ironic that Avenatti is now firmly on Team Trump, saying he’d be happy to testify for the defense, although of course he’s also currently in federal prison for wire fraud and tax fraud, so…)

It’s been more than six years since that initial FBI raid, and the original Avenatti media sin. But buckle up, here we go. We’re getting to hear about the way Trump teamed up with the National Enquirer in an effort to boost his 2016 campaign. A bit like how most of the establishment press today is teaming up with the Biden campaign to stop Trump in this cycle.

You know that story about Ted Cruz’s father potentially being involved in the murder of JFK? Totally made up, to help Trump in the primary! None of this is surprising, to any discerning news consumer. But it does allow the media to get on their proverbial high horse over “checkbook journalism” — as if the crusty old legacy press hasn’t been doing a version of it for decades, when ABC or NBC wants to secure a big “get” on their morning show. But the journalistic ethics of the National Enquirer are a red herring — a distraction from the substance of the trial.

After Pecker, we’ll get Cohen, and Daniels, and McDougal as witnesses. Avenatti, at least it seems for now, will stay in prison, and not get to return to the limelight.

This trial is a circus. But the media made their choice way back in 2018. And now they too are on trial.

To get meta for a minute, when I decide to devote my weekly column to a topic, I’m not only deciding the topic to cover, but making a decision about what not to cover as well. On a far larger and more consequential scale, every single news organization makes choices every day about what to focus on, how to cover it and what gets left on the cutting room floor.

Back during the Trump years, the media spent an inordinate amount of time dissecting every last detail of this tabloid journalism fodder we’re now seeing play out in a New York City courtroom — which is meaningless to the lives of nearly every American. The trial is the culmination of the inconsequential work that ate up so many hours of cable news, and occupied so much space in the most powerful media outlets in America. So much time and energy and resources that could have been devoted to literally any other story, including many that directly relate to Donald Trump. And yet now, here we are.

This trial has to matter for the American press. If it doesn’t, it invalidates their entire existence during 2018. But if the public tunes out — and, can you even imagine if a jury in New York City actually finds Trump not guilty at the end of this thing — well, it’s as much an indictment of the Trump-obsessed Acela media as it is of the system that brought these bizarre charges and salacious case in the first place.

Steve Krakauer, a NewsNation contributor, is the author of “Uncovered: How the Media Got Cozy with Power, Abandoned Its Principles, and Lost the People” and editor and host of the Fourth Watch newsletter and podcast.

Tags

Anthony Scaramucci


Chris Cillizza


CNN


David Pecker


David Pecker


Donald Trump


Jay Sures


media


Michael Avenatti


Michael Avenatti


National Enquirer


Stormy Daniels


Stormy Daniels


Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending