The Honourable Bernard Davis, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, will be available to discuss the Federal Government’s carbon pricing decision today (Tuesday, November 22) at 3:00 p.m.
The availability will take place in front of the House of Assembly, East Block, Confederation Building.
Environment and Climate Change
Media shunning transparency law due to worsening delays, journalist says – Terrace Standard
Reporters are abandoning the federal Access to Information Act as a research tool because turnaround times are terrible and getting worse, veteran journalist Dean Beeby told MPs studying the federal law.
Beeby was among the media members and researchers who painted a sorry picture of the state of Canada’s access system Wednesday for a House of Commons committee.
The federal access law allows people who pay a $5 fee to request documents — from internal emails and expense claims to briefing memos and reports — but it has long been criticized as antiquated and poorly administered.
Government agencies are supposed to respond within 30 days or provide valid reasons why they need more time to process a request.
The law has not been significantly updated since its introduction almost 40 years ago, and many users complain of lengthy delays as well as heavily blacked-out documents or full denials in response to their applications.
By Beeby’s count, the Commons committee’s review is at least the 16th broad study of the federal act since it was passed.
Beeby, an independent journalist who spent much of his career at The Canadian Press, said bureaucrats now realize they face a much bigger blowback from releasing information than from withholding it.
In addition, the law provides a rich menu of excuses to keep things buried, he said. “So when stale-dated access documents finally do arrive on a reporter’s desk, they’ve been picked clean of meaningful contents.”
Canada’s access-to-information system is broken, said Brent Jolly, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists.
For decades, the association has devoted an exceptional amount of resources to helping member journalists with training on how to wade through the many layers of opaque rules, exemptions and limitations that have served to unite generations of Canadian journalists “in utter frustration and dizzying dismay,” Jolly said.
“And 40 years is frankly, well, a long time without making any concerted efforts to solve the problem,” he told the MPs.
“So let me put it another way: Don’t put duct tape on a Formula One race car’s broken chassis and expect it to put in competitive lap times, let alone win races or world championships,” Jolly said.
“What I would suggest you do is retire the car, get it fixed properly for the next time out and start over again.”
VIU Media Highlights: December 7, 2022 | News | Vancouver Island University | Canada – Vancouver Island University News
The giving spirit, global learning opportunities & holiday events 🎄
As we enter the winter season, the spirit of giving is strong at VIU, as you can see by our top story below. If you have any questions, please reach out to us.
VIU Foundation’s Giving Tuesday campaign raises more than $500,000
Students at Vancouver Island University will have fewer financial worries this season after a huge outpouring of support through the VIU Foundation’s Giving Tuesday campaign. Learn more.
From climate change to fish kills: innovative chemisty research
Access to clean air, water and food is critical to the quality of life in Canada. Dr. Erik Krogh, a VIU Chemistry Professor, is expanding the frontiers of mass spectrometry to develop real-time measurements of emerging contaminants. His research will help address air quality and climate change as well as monitor pollution in water and soil. Read more.
Student gets prestigious research internship in Germany
Angelina Jaeger worked on research that ultimately aims to create a material with a similar texture and properties to human tissue, that is easy to make and use. She’s also been working for VIU’s Applied Environmental Research Lab – two very unique opportunities for an undergraduate student. Read more.
My semester abroad in Norway
Child and Youth Care student Sarah Osborne is just wrapping up a unique study abroad adventure in Norway, where she took the friluftsliv program (outdoor studies) at the Norwegian School of Sport Studies. Her semester included learning how to harvest seafood, navigate and connect with nature, kayaking and camping. Read more.
Student art sale
Every year, Visual Art students host a sale at the View Gallery to sell/showcase their works for people. Come pick up one-of-a-kind artworks and gifts for the holidays on December 14. Learn more.
Milner Christmas Magic
This annual event hosted by VIU’s Milner Gardens & Woodland offers visitors a dazzling experience walking through thousands of twinkling lights strung along the garden paths, and includes festive window displays within the historic Milner House and charming Gardener’s Cottage. Read more.
VIU in the news
National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women Vigil
Eliza Gardiner, Chair of the Status of Women committee, spoke with Gregor Craigie on CBC’s On the Coast morning show about the vigil held yesterday to honour and remember the 14 young women who were murdered in the 1989 massacre at École Polytechnique. The committee also organized a panel presentation on women in non-traditional occupations. Listen to the interview.
Watch: The “Invasive Species Guy” on protecting BC’s biodiversity
VIU Natural Resource Protection student Hunter Jarratt is passionate about raising awareness about invasive species. He has TikTok and Instagram channels devoted to raising awareness about how people can help protect BC’s native plants and animals.Read more in the Times Colonist.
David Berlin: As trust in the media falls, there may be no moral high ground left to take – The Hub
During a visit to the newly renovated New York Times offices some years ago, I asked the editor, Dean Baquet, why he thought it fit to publish all of President Donald Trump’s tweets, in spite of the fact that many seemed only about Trump’s insatiable need to remain cock of the walk, talk of the town.
Baquet, who was in a rush, did not cite journalistic integrity or executive privilege or the public’s right to know, but retaining the competitive edge: “If we don’t publish them, someone else will,” Baquet said.
The implication was that the Times needed to hold down its position as the paper of record and, even as the whale that it is, needed to swat off a hundred toothy minnows whittling away at a diminishing market. Editorial decisions, it seemed to me, were not necessarily aligned with responsible journalism but with business concerns.
Such reasoning, plus charges of niche marketing and unabashed partisan reporting, go to the heart of the issues raised in the 28th Munk Debate earlier this month which went forward on a resolution that people should not trust the mainstream media.
Matt Taibbi, a veteran journalist, former feature writer for Rolling Stone, Substack contributor, and author of several books including Insane Clown President, teamed up with British author and associate editor for the Spectator, Douglas Murray, to argue in favour of the resolution. Canadian journalist and New Yorker staff writer Malcolm Gladwell and New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg argued against the resolution and in favour of continued trust in the mainstream media.
Goldberg is not an ideologue. On the contrary. Her opening remarks conceded grounds when she said that journalists “like the rest of us” sometimes miss things, get things wrong, and are overwhelmed by events that exceed expectations and perhaps their capacity to imagine the future in a whirlwind of events. After all, nobody, or hardly anybody, predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire. Nobody, or hardly anybody, imagined the 2008 financial crash. Nobody or hardly anybody predicted that Donald Trump would win the Republican Party primary, and even seasoned reporters such as David Frum were certain that Hillary Clinton would break the glass ceiling, leaving Trump locked out of office.
“We may screw up,” Goldberg said, “but when we do, we try to figure out what we did wrong and fix it.”
Gladwell expanded Goldberg’s argument, suggesting that “trust” is not about substance, which every journalist sometimes gets wrong, but about hardwired newsroom processes.
“When I worked at the Washington Post, which is the definition of mainstream media,” Gladwell said, “there were two things that were drilled into me. One was the importance of fairness. If you quoted someone denouncing someone else, you had to call up the person denounced and get a response. The second was accuracy.”
Gladwell went on to emphasize that processes including forensic analysis, cross-checking, oversight, and so forth have not changed. “If anything, many organizations like the New Yorker, spend more money on fact-checking than ever before, in part because there is so much more scrutiny and oversight.
Matt Taibbi was having none of this. Not because he was privy to shoddy practices, but because his issue was not the process but the “ethos” which justified niche journalism: preaching to the converted, killing stories, or burying them alive when they are not the kind of thing that your audience wishes to hear.
Being mainstream, according to Taibbi, means sitting comfortably on one side of the fence or the other. It means distrusting the people to reach their own conclusions. It means campaigning rather than reporting. Fox News and the legacy broadsheets are equally part of the problem. Rather than resist hyper-partisanship, they capitalize on and exploit a dangerous situation.
Taibbi quoted a Pew Center survey to wit: 93 percent of Fox’s audience vote Republican, while 95 percent of the MSNBC audience votes Democrat, and New York Times readers are 91 percent Democrats.
Reporters and journalists no longer bother to distance themselves from their own biases and political agendas, Taibbi claimed, adding that his journalist father had a saying “the story is the boss” which meant that you don’t lead but follow the story wherever it goes. Sadly, as he outlined, the story is no longer the boss. Taibbi left himself open to charges of sentimentalism when he looked back to the days when the CBS anchor, Walter Cronkite, was the most trusted person in the country.
“Who did Cronkite represent?” Gladwell fired back. Certainly not black people or women or immigrants or gay people or people with a mildly left-wing view. Gladwell could have added that Cronkite’s America was very different than America today. Not only were there so many more blue suits in the street back then, but the CBS anchor had hardly any competition, and none like Fox.
Douglas Murray came to Taibbi’s defense. Addressing Gladwell he said: “You did a little nasty jab at Matt…trying to pretend that he is desperate for an era of white men broadcasting.” Turning to Taibbi, he continued. “We’ve only just met, but you didn’t give off that vibe to me.” Taibbi motioned that he did not harbour such feelings.
More than the other three debaters, Murray stretched the truth and deployed ad hominem arguments (which Gladwell did as well). He quipped that “you really know that the world is in trouble when Canada becomes very interesting.” He claimed that in Canada “the government can tell the media what to do and the media does the bidding of the Canadian government.” This has not been my experience.
Murray claimed that the New York Times vilified the trucker protests, a charge which Goldberg proved entirely exaggerated. But when he raised the Hunter Biden laptop story, things heated up. Why didn’t the Washington Post and the Times follow up on the story published in the New York Post prior to Biden’s election?
“Why didn’t they call up people? Why didn’t they check whether the emails were accurate? Because they didn’t want Biden to lose the election. He was their guy, and they didn’t want to screw that up,” said Murray.
The moderator, Rudyard Griffiths, underscored Murray’s charge, pointing out that this was an important allegation. Everyone felt certain that the gloves were about to come off.
Goldberg took up the challenge: “The person who wrote the New York Post story asked to have their name taken off it because they thought the story was unreliable. The people who had the hard drive would not give it to the Washington Post and the New York Times. The media has covered this, but they have also been careful, given the fact that this stuff still cannot be authenticated.”
The crux of her argument, it seemed to me, was just what she had stated earlier—that process trumped perception and though she and others were sorry that some readers believed that the Times had withheld the laptop business for scurrilous reasons, the truth is that the story was not ready for prime time.
Goldberg went on to cite many instances where the New York Times opted for counter-intuitional stories over reader-pleasing narratives. But she sounded defensive in part because she was reacting to a charge that she did not get in front of. She said that readers of the mainstream media were safer and better protected if they stuck with the mainstream and avoided the contrarians. Murray agreed that one should read the mainstream media, but “you just shouldn’t trust them.”
If I understood Murray’s point correctly (which I may not have) he meant that readers cannot and should not stop thinking for themselves. There is no way to coast, take in the news as if it were breakfast cereal (in the manner that was maybe possible in the 1950s). To me, it seems not at all clear that any of the news media can do anything to rectify the situation. To take the moral high ground does not seem possible. It is not even clear that such grounds exist any longer.
Taibbi, whose critique hinged on the possibility that journalists could do a whole lot better, closed with little hope. Regardless of how the chips fell in this debate, he said, the question as to whether to trust or not to trust the media has already been settled. Taibbi quoted from a recent Gallup poll, which found that just 7 percent of Americans have a great deal of trust in the media; 27 percent have a fair amount; 28 percent do not have much confidence; a full 38 percent have none at all in newspapers, TV, and radio.
According to a Reuters Institute 2022 report, trust in the Canadian news has dropped 13 percentage points since 2016. Only 42 percent of Canadian respondents trust most news, most of the time. But as low as the number is, it is significantly higher than the post-debate figure.
Murray and Taibbi managed to swing some 19 percent to their side, leaving only 33 percent trusting souls shuffling nervously out of Roy Thomson Hall.
Hades 2 By Supergiant Games Announced At The Game Awards – GameSpot
Doctors say flu starting to hit adults as hospitalization rates of seniors climb – Fort Frances Times
The Fed's Balance Sheet Shows What's Happening To The Economy – Forbes
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Search for life on Mars accelerates as new bodies of water found below planet’s surface
Tech22 hours ago
Fortnite Chapter 4 Season 1: Every Battle Pass Skin Ranked
Health21 hours ago
Breakthrough Infections More Likely in Infliximab Treated IBD Patients Than Those Treated With Vedolizumab
Media22 hours ago
US Sides Against Google in Consequential Social Media Case
Media21 hours ago
Who should be teaching kids what not to do on social media? Coaches, teachers, parents
Politics23 hours ago
Kyiv mayor brushes off Zelenskiy’s criticism as ‘politics’
Economy22 hours ago
Japan’s Economy Shrank Less Over Summer Than First Thought
Sports23 hours ago
Palestinian flag waved on pitch as Morocco celebrates historic World Cup win
Health22 hours ago
Flu shot uptake in children ‘too low,’ P.E.I. CPHO says