NewsRoomWatch: ANDRE: Should the Media Have Asked Questions

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

ANDRE: Should the Media Have Asked Questions

=======

Should the media have asked questions? Surely. But should not people now ask questions too?

Can the media help?

All media have ethics. Many have ethics that extend as far as their lawyers are able to keep them out of trouble, which means: they make their money being a billboard for tragedies and frivolity. And for too many yet, tragedies are but news. Now, most serious media also have moral ethics.

Many of those media fail at times to contain their excitement that there is a "story." If they smell a good lead that will help their reputation and the media sales, then the temptation (read: the practice) is very strong of bringing an "exploitable angle" to the public to create and maintain interest (read: the dynamics of the bottom-line).

Thankfully, some media believe in their medium so much, that they will go the extra mile to make sure that not only was the story “news” for them, but that they also covered it with integrity, looking at both sides of the issue. However, it is hoped that it's not just to cover their butt and be able to say: "Oh but we presented both sides of the issue..." when in fact they simple asked questions from both sides. Some really do not present the issues of either sides, but present both sides saying something about their issue, sound bytes statements that were then edited before publishing.

And it is then shared with their readers ansd viewers. And by keeping the story present and giving it visibility, they silently tell people that this particular story is worthy of their attention. Or so they might assume to some degree, otherwise they might not run it at all.

This can be one of the best services they render to the families and individuals who are involved in a tragedy, because it gives readers and the audience the responsibility to think for themselves and hopefully ask the obvious questions anyone would ask. This contributes to inform and helps us in the processing of that information against our values and social consensus.

Serving to preserve our dignity and integrity through the gathering of a momentum as our righteous sense of civic duty compels us daily to get involved in asking for truth to come out and justice to be served, the participation of the media is crucial in informing and inspiring the people, the strength of our democracy, to speak up and ask for accountability on the part of those who make and enforce the law.

When government officials act in a way that seems to be detrimental to the values we have agreed, as citizens and voters, to see protected and nurtured, then we have the right to ask questions, hard questions, annoying questions, redundant questions, until we are satisfied with the answers. And so does the media.

CONTINUED...

1 Comments:

Andre said...: This being said, our RESPONSABILITY (not sure why I use that word, but I feel it's because the avoidance of this exercise can lead to even more damning of the innocents) is to remember that we get a story. The story of an event. With pictures of a story. Not the filming of the whole event from the source to the conclusion. We get a story, not all the facts. Facts demand work to be excavated from the anonymity created by their sheer number and the distortion suffered in their use and misuse.

We, the readers and consumers, would do well to ask ourselves how much of the story is creating a public image of the actors of the event, an image we can’t shake off afterwards because we don’t have time to dig deeper, or simply don’t care?

Larry, Carline and Mona-Clare Finck

So, although they usually only want to report “the news,” the media plays an uninvited part in tragedies around us. And those on the receiving end of the news stories also become “uninvited” participants. That’s all of us, the people. So how do we take this into account when it comes to the Finck’s tragedy in Nova Scotia?

When so many people have started to come up and volunteering stories to me and others about injustices they or someone they know suffered from the Children’s Aid Society in Nova Scotia, are these people recognizing telling signs, having a sense of ‘déjà vu?’

Are we not going to wonder why they feel that their stories are connected to Mona-Clare Finck’s ordeal? Are we not going to? In truth, our silence would be shameful.

Just like the silence of so many during World War II when the Jewish genocide was going on in full daylight. People said afterward that they COULD NOT BELIEVE that these atrocities were going on. But they were, and when they learned about it, they were stunned. How many times have we also heard similar lines: “Why, I couldn’t believe it…!” “I can’t believe that the authorities could do such a thing…” “It’s too crazy to be true!”

What was the media focusing on, that the people in America and other parts of the world were ignorant of the true nature of the Nazi’s agenda? And, closer to home, aren’t we shocked at the revelations coming from the Gomery Commission? The greatest gift is: it's on TV, in the open, for all to see. That's the combined power of a public inquiry and simple and relevant media coverage.

What can we do?

If we knew something was wrong, would we ask “What can I do to help change things?” If the answer implies that we’d have to face the government in a court of law to ask for accountability from our officials, then the number of those who would consider any form of action certainly decreases exponentially. We don’t really have the time, energy or resources when tragedy does not hit home. But when tragedy hits, then tragedy becomes part of our lives, and gains access to all of the above.

As for the general public, they are asked to participate in so many charities, to support so many worthy causes, and usually they will. But when a tragedy like the Shirley Street standoff occurs in their neighborhood, then it can become confusing to try and face the dynamics associated with making up our mind. And how about identifying an efficient way to be heard from our elected officials so they engage in a public inquiry? Will people’s opinion already be formed from the exposure to the numerous news coverage?

How then can the media approach to news coverage be one that facilitates not only their own agendas (after all they’re a business too and there’s nothing wrong with that) but also serves ‘public interest’ in a way that goes beyond informative entertainment? It would be an insult and a gross misrepresentation to say that all media are barely only hungry for “juicy stuff.” They are not. They’re hungry for what is of interest to their particular demographic target market, for what will prompt a sale. And their market is interested in the format, presentation and content; whichever comes first for that particular group…

What then contributes to have the public at large instantly form an opinion regarding the innocence or guilt of someone? And can it be done in such a way that does not then contribute to isolating ‘the actors of those events’ from much needed support when the time comes for them where they could use the informed concern of their own communities as they go through their tragedies?

It is quite scary and lonely when the main issues are no longer human ones, but legal ones. I’m sure pretty much anyone can be convicted of a crime or another (or at least be accused and condemned publicly as if they did) if there was a need to do so by those who have the power to carry those accusations. We’ve seen them movies…

The integrity of our justice system rests not on the lawmakers, but depends on the participation or apathy of the people regarding issues of justice. And this participation demands that people be given access to information that will be as focused as it is inclusive, as relevant as it is incriminating, and as open-ended as it is conclusive. Not an easy task.

While many express concern about the democratic use of information in court cases, we can also wonder about the democratic use of that information on the part of regular people. Because in the end, the people will decide how far they are ready to go to defend the valued principles of the justice system we voted for, if they see it being misused or violated. People will sign petitions, hold town hall meetings, walk the sidewalks with signs, protest before the elected officials offices, fill miles and miles of blogs, and, at times, some will also push the envelope so that attention be quickly given to urgent cases.

In all this, the media can be an amazing ally for both sides of that conflict, and provide for the onlooker enough to help him/her decide which side he/she will stand. If he/she will also then join in a dynamic way to mark their support of their favored position, well, that is a personal choice. But in a democracy (that’s what Canada is, right?… right?) like ours, the voice of the people, oh, and their wallets, are the stronger forces of change.

Here is the last portion of an interesting article by Erica Simmonds that I found online, about the way the media viewed and covered the standoff on Shirley Street last year. You can find the whole article online HERE on the King's Journalism Review website.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Media should have asked questions

Since the event, journalists and neighbours have asked whether the media were wrong to assume that Finck and VandenElsen had done something wrong. The CBC's Rob Gordon says he only reported what happened during the standoff. He is unsatisfied that he didn't get to investigate why the police and the Children's Aid Society came to take the baby. Catrina Brown, a Shirley Street resident, says the media didn't ask enough tough questions, such as why the Children's Aid Society wanted the baby. Neil Everton, the executive producer of Global News, says Global reporters tried, but couldn't get the Children's Aid Society to comment.

Read the whole article...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Personally, I love what investigative journalism can do for justice, exposing the evil of our world and even sometimes (Hoorray!) bring justice to people who have been hurt and abused. And I deeply respect those in the media who are dynamically trying to present both sides of an issue. But in the end, it is left to us, the people, to participate in making a dent in any barriers that keeps the injustice we witness from being influenced toward righteousness. If I am brought into a situation by life, if someone in a crisis knocks at my door, I say I have a responsibility to respond and make a decision as to if and how I can.

And we should not be silent. Because silence before evidence is like assent before a crime that’s being committed before our very eyes: you would not let your loved ones mistreated, would you? Well, some people get even involved in a story that’s not theirs, and they save lives and are hailed as heroes.

This being said, let’s look at Mona-Clare’s story and Carline’s Starvation campaign.

Mona-Clare’s Apprehension

With all the talk about our children being the future, we have forgotten to stop and look at HOW they are collectively becoming the future. As Canadians, Mona-Clare Finck is our future, and that means your future as well, because her case holds a message to Canadians: your children may not be safe from certain government agencies. While those agencies try to help most, there seems to be an unspoken law that allows them to “preemptively” break families, without having to be held accountable.

When Carline VandenElsen tried to hold the Children’s Aid Society in Halifax accountable, she was sucked into a legal battle where the legal system itself created more problems than solving them. The issue was diverted from real questions like “What prompted an order of apprehension to take an unborn child from her loving expectant mother and father?” “What prompted Carline to finally hide with her child so she wouldn’t be taken from her?”

We’re talking here about a woman who has spent years of her life trying to be able to have children, because for her, being a mother was one of life’s greatest gift and she wanted to be part of that, to the full extent of her love, gifts, talents and abilities.

This same mother is now ready to die to support her conviction (shared by countless others) that a public inquiry would serve the best interest of justice in her case. She is asking that this public inquiry investigate the actions of police and child welfare authorities and the disappearance of her baby.

What unfit mother would be ready to die to be reunited to her children…?

That is another very good question. And we’re asking it.; 12:10 AM