Slashdot Mirror
Attacks on the Media Are a Threat To Democracy, Justin Trudeau Says (www.cbc.ca)
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a press freedom event in Paris Sunday that one of the bulwarks protecting democratic governments from being undermined is also an institution under stress -- a free-thinking, robust media. From a report: "If a democracy is to function you need an educated populace, and you need to have an informed populace, ready to make judicious decisions about who to grant power to and when to take it away," Trudeau said. "When citizens cannot have rigorous analysis of the exercise of the power that is in their name and they have granted, the rest of the foundation of our democracies start to erode at the same time as cynicism arises." The press freedom advocacy organization Reporters Without Borders has developed a six-page international declaration on information and democracy to establish basic principles for the "common good of mankind." The organization hosted a small event on the sidelines of the Paris Peace Forum late Sunday afternoon where five presidents and prime ministers, including Trudeau, offered endorsements for this declaration. The Paris Peace Forum, intended to be an annual gathering of political, business and civil society leaders to explore peaceful solutions to the world's problems, was hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron to coincide with this weekend's events marking the centenary of the armistice agreement that ended the First World War.
Trudeau, addressing the audience at the press freedom event without a prepared text, also talked about the risk if too many citizens become too cynical about public institutions. "Attacks on the media are not just about getting your preferred political candidate elected," he said. "They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens." Citizens are feeling "very real anxiety," Trudeau said, because their jobs are transforming as globalization increases competition around the world. When that anxiety is exacerbated, it undermines trust in institutions and increases cynicism. "One of the bulwarks against that, and one of the institutions that is most under stress right now, is a free-thinking, independent, rigorous, robust, respected media," the prime minister said.
Trudeau, addressing the audience at the press freedom event without a prepared text, also talked about the risk if too many citizens become too cynical about public institutions. "Attacks on the media are not just about getting your preferred political candidate elected," he said. "They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens." Citizens are feeling "very real anxiety," Trudeau said, because their jobs are transforming as globalization increases competition around the world. When that anxiety is exacerbated, it undermines trust in institutions and increases cynicism. "One of the bulwarks against that, and one of the institutions that is most under stress right now, is a free-thinking, independent, rigorous, robust, respected media," the prime minister said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
People have a low opinion of them because of the way so many of them have repeatedly been shown to behave when they're held accountable.
"One of the bulwarks against that, and one of the institutions that is most under stress right now, is a free-thinking, independent, rigorous, robust, respected media," the prime minister said.
Interesting how he left out "honest," yet threw in "respected" like it's some obligation on the public.
Wait.. your above comment makes it sound like you *approve* of the media being throttled, controlled, and lacking a robustness? Like, you're on board with reducing the ability for the media to provide strong advice to voters, etc?
Because, you say "we're even then", as if you're on the side of "the media sucks, it should be silenced" or some such.
Or is it just that, like many people today, you see "THREAT!! NOT MY TEAM! ATTACK LEADER!", regardless of what the story says?
Realistically, you're the problem.
Here's how to fix your broken brain. Never, ever decide an issue is right or wrong, based upon the party, politics of the person saying it, etc. No party gets it right all the time, and no party gets it wrong all the time.
EG, pretty much every party out there says "murder is bad". Using your method of response, if party $x or representative $x said "Murder is bad!", you'd say "No, you suck, it's good!"
Because that's what you did right here.
One problem here is that governments in general cannot be trusted. Their own actions are slowly starting to backfire.
Governments mostly care about bookkeeping and economic growth. They - mine included - don't give a d*mn about the the civilian. Instead of the gov serving the public, we only appear to exist to serve the nation and enrich the few % wealthy.
It has little to nothing to do with internet (as Tim Berners-Lee suggest) itself, it has little but maybe something to do with information and disinformation but any mass media is guilty of that, it's not limited to internet. It has directly to do with the attitude and the actions of governments and officials who treat people as crap. It's no wonder that people get upset.
Add in some propaganda machine's, ranging from populists to anti-populists, and more and more people realizing this is all propaganda. Why is it so hard to deal with fake news? Because the line between fake news and propaganda is blurring. And the civilian? Can choose between getting brainwashed or become cynical.
The future comes by either evolution or revolution. If gov's actually would start listening and acting in favor of their on population. But i doubt they do, as most gov's are steered by a few multinationals and other wealthy influences than can afford dozens of lobbyists. The independent parliamentarian is something from last century.
Media has been devolving into internet clickbait for some time. There is little trust left.
I think it's tough. Trudeau is a typical politician.
He says journalism is important to democracy yet he doesn't mention how media outlets being concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations isn't.
He also was against stopping all arms sales to Saudi Arabia after their government assassinated a journalist.
So I remain confused.... I personally don't consider 90% of journalists real journalist.
Most are just reporters who take popular stories off the wire and repackage it or get a bit more (in fact checked ) information off the internet and social media and use it as sources.
Huh... it's good to know about the sources people cite.
Notice that you didn't dispute anything the articles had to say. Instead, you attacked the messenger.
Wait.. your above comment makes it sound like you *approve* of the media being throttled, controlled, and lacking a robustness?
While I'm not the GP, I believe he was implying (badly) that people should feel free to attack (i.e. strongly criticize) the media if they feel that the media deserves it. If a media outlet is mostly objective and honest then it will probably survive such a trial by fire, but if not, well, good riddance. As Trudeau is saying that the media should deserve respect because they're the media, I call bs and counter by saying that he's a shitty PM defending a shitty media (or at least, the shitty elements of it) because it's on his side, and now they're both reaping what they've sown.
There is a difference between saying that x and y statements are inaccurate (and here is evidence that they are inaccurate) or relevant information z has been left out which gives an unbalanced impression and saying [media organisation] is an enemy of the people/country/whatever.
The former is valid criticism which gives the media organisation the chance to defend their assertions and editorial choices or correct the record and generally doesn't put anything beyond reputations at risk. The latter is straight out of the playbook of personality cults and tinpot despots. Rather than being an attempt to bring the facts to the fore, it is a vulgar use of raw power to attempt to crush perceived opponents. As it is leveraged power rather than facts in dispute it is very difficult to defend against and does put people in real danger - as we have seen very real examples of. Notable users of this tactic to to destroy opposition include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Nazis Rather than encouraging a robust public debate it holds a gun to the head of any free speech that does not conform to the views of power.
Trial by facts and evidence should what the media has to deal with. Anything beyond that is straying into very dicey territory.
In America there is no such luck.
Most of the American media side with the far-left, and the small remainder, with the far-right.
That leaves the Americans --- with nothing.
Every single day we either get bombarded with the "TRUMP IS A BASTARD" message or the "TRUMP IS OUR SAVIOR" message.
There is no longer a discussion --- it's a SHOUTING MATCH with diatribes thrown everywhere, every. single. day.
Citing Wikipedia is considered an attack, now? Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally? After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants? There nothing there worth responding to.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
It seems to be a one-stop-shop for racism and Islamophobia.
Okay, serious question time: What's wrong with being against a movement that is against you?
I don't know about you, but me and most people see nothing wrong in being anti-$FOO if $FOO is anti-$ME. And don't give me that crap about how only fringe Muslims are anti-$ME, the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
I see nothing wrong with anti-$FOO people, just like I see nothing wrong with groups who counter anti-$FOO people.
Finally, I'm also seeing no evidence for your "racist" claim - is that something you automatically trot out whenever you have no facts?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The issue is that the GP selected a very disreputable source for their claims. If those claims were true then it would seem wise to select a source with a good reputation and history of accurate reporting.
It's similar to how Wikipedia has banned Brietbart and the Daily Mail as sources. They could waste time evaluating every single citation, but it's easier to just ban sources with extremely poor levels of accuracy because if the story is true there will certainly be better citations available.
Thus it is worth discussing the reliability of sources, because if we see someone who relies exclusively on Rebel Media we know we should apply extra scrutiny, if not simply ignoring them. Time is limited, and citing sources like Rebel Media is worse than citing no sources at all.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The media is ALREADY controlled. Not by the government. But by the corporations that own them, their political leanings and the ever-present drive for clicks/views/market share.
And the portion of the media being throttled are independent journalists. Because the large news corps simply CAN'T accept any competition. Nobody's throttling the MSM.
And the MSM has lacked robustness for more than two decades now. They've ceased being NEWS and become PROPAGANDA outlets.
Again, nobody's stopping the MSM from providing ANY sort of advice to voters that they wish to.
They are stopped short by election interference laws of course.
And they can be stopped by their own violations of civility.
People's heads are exploding because Jimbo Acosta was ejected from the White House press corps.
And these same people CHEERED when Obama had a similarly obnoxious reporter ejected from the press corps greetings during his term.
Fuck this "One rule for me and another for thee" shit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
A "disreputable source" is one you disagree with, and do not consider as being part of the sainted Media.
A "disreputable source" is one which an emotionally reactive and intellectually dishonest person disagrees with, and does not consider as being part of the sainted Media.
FTFY. There ARE people who manage to set emotions aside and analyze the news and its sources as objectively as they can given the extant resources. BTW, your pejorative attitude toward the phrase "disreputable source" is uncalled for. While reputation, (good or bad), is no guarantor of propriety, (or impropriety), it is a useful and appropriate pre-screening criterion.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
It's disreputable because left-leaning people say it's disreputable.
No, it's disreputable because reputable sources who have investigated formed a consensus that it's disreputable. In the face of that, you would need a pretty powerful argument to show that it wasn't the case.
You're not allowed to criticize them; they're media!
He means attacking reputable media organizations, claiming they are part of some leftist conspiracy, calling them fake news and banning their staff from the White House for trying to get answers to difficult questions.
Just calling yourself a journalist, setting up a glorified blog and publishing complete rubbish does not elevate you to the same level as an established news organization with editorial standards and a reputable history. The alt-right knows that, which is why they try to drag such organizations down to their level by denigrating them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No-one is entitled to a platform.
There was a Supreme Court case about a company town (I think it was called Straton) trying to prevent Jehovah's Witnesses from entering as the entire town as its roads were privately owned. The SC ruled that if for all other intents and purposes the streets can be used by everyone else (delivery people, etc.), then they must allow the JWs on as well. If it is effectively a public place for all other uses then it must always be treated as public.
Between Facebook, Google, Twitter and Instagram you cover 95% of how people communicate with strangers on the internet. They have become the de facto public square with a monopoly on information sharing. When monopolies come into existence, anti trust laws also take effect. If the 3 phone companies that service your area all say that they don't want to do business with you even if you pay your bills on time, that's both illegal and collusion.
For offline examples, there are also venues that receive threats of protests (which as Berkeley showed last year can easily turn violent and cause millions in damage), and even anonymous bomb threats when they announce that they'll host a conservative speaker, and the venues back out in fear. This is racketeering and is illegal, but our laws aren't being enforced to punish the people responsible.
The biggest threat to democracy is the media and the government colluding together. Having them be enemies is better for the people because the media might actually expose the corruption and incompetence of the government. When the government and the media get along, you know they are both scratching each other's backs. Look at how the press was treated back in the early days of the United States by officials and how the press treated the officials... Heck, fringe whatever wing rags talking shit about the king were the spark that started the Revolutionary War.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
That depends on how you look at it. He's saying that journos need protecting because "freethinking" safeguards democracy. I'm saying those journos have long ago stopped being "freethinking" and so that battle is well and truly lost already.
To be halfway believable he should urge the journos to be that independent freethinking safeguard again that they once were. I say that takes at the very least replacing all the journos hired in the last decade or three with new ones, AFTER we revamp journalism school to be less about regurgitating press releases and more about that, you know, critical freethinking and all that. I haven't seen any of that in the mainstream press for at least a score years.
In that sense he's completely failing to adequately address the problem that caused all that bad cynicism from those bad bad bad citizens against the good good good institutions he and his friends the journos represent. That just doesn't work.
I'm not seeing that he understood the problem or is trying to fix it. From where I sit, he's just complaining the elite is losing the citizenry's support and yet he's still not willing to admit where that actually comes from. Fine, be like that. But don't expect those "levels of cynicism" to start dropping any time soon.
and, at least in the US, few have any sympathy for them. They like to play the victim card over how terrible they're treated but, the reality is, they have few to blame other than themselves.
The news / media have long since ceased being a source of reliable / unbiased information and have, instead, turned into political attack dogs of whatever party they are affiliated with. As a result, I don't even bother to watch, listen or read anything other than the weather from any of our usual news sources. It's simply a waste of my time.
I would agree with Trudeau in that the news / media -should- be free from attacks and criticism, but only if news / media return to their principles and start acting as the professionals they are -supposed- to be. Not the three ring circus they have become.
Lose the bias, sensationalism, personal agendas and personal attacks against political parties and / or people they dislike and just report the damn news.
Returning to their professional roots will go a long way in re-establishing some credibility as journalists and "news" as a whole.
If not . . . . . well. . . . when you engage in mud-slinging, you're bound to get just as dirty.
Don't whine about it when no one hands you a towel.
You are free to disagree. You are also wrong and a hypocrite.
You would be the first to whine and DEMAND government intervention if FB google twitter etc were banning your favorite socialist candidates and manipulating search result against your team.
Just because you treat our politics like a team sport, doens't mean the rest of us do. There should be no "sides", just citizens trying to best govern their society.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The MSM is an agent of that left. At least in America, they view themselves as an unofficial 4th branch of government. They're not, and the can fuck off and do their job, unbiased. Not just just in what they report, but also in what they hold back and don't (omit).
The MSM, an agent of the left? The anti-corporate left? The pro-socialism left? The left that wants to reduce the influence of money in politics?
You think the MSM, owned and controlled by large corporations, is an agent of the people who rail against large corporations? Get your head out of your ass. The MSM is an agent of profit and the status-quo. They are risk-averse, and so will shun anything that threatens their revenue streams. That includes the far-left and the far-right. The far-right is just the threat du jour, with all the overt racism and aggression. The right is scaring away the ad revenue. That's why they are being silenced by the MSM; not because of some left-leaning attitudes. on the part of media owners.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
He wasn't 'against stopping all arms sales' because he supports the Saudi regime. He was against burdening tax payers with the debt that would cause, as am I.
You are spewing more Fake News to fit your "whatabout" "I'm confused" "but, but but..." narrative.
I don't think most critics want to shut down media. They want to be free to criticize it when it's obviously spouting bullshit.
Trudeau's being criticized because, whether he realizes it or not, he's implying the media shouldn't be criticized when broadcasting approved propaganda. The fact he spun it as 'cynicism' is a perfect example of why it is important to be able to criticize them. The soviets spun critics of their media as 'cynics' and 'dissenters' as well.
Criticism of institutions when they fuck up is critical to maintaining a free society. It does not matter if they're public, private, local, regional, foreign, or domestic.
Nope. The worst offenders — the ones that distort the truth most severely — actually tend to be the ones with right-leaning ideology.
But even if you were correct on that point, you would still be missing the bigger picture. The biggest problem has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with the fact that nobody taught today's journalists that giving equal time to both sides of a story is inherently biased.
You see, most issues aren't purely a matter of opinion. There are actual, objective facts involved in supporting those opinions. And although we can argue about which facts are more important, or over how to interpret those facts, it does no one any good if we allow pundits on either side to substitute "alternative facts" that are provably incorrect.
Giving equal time to inaccurate or downright incorrect information is not serving the public good. Unfortunately, that sort of insanity is exactly what we see on TV every day. We see pundits on one side arguing with pundits on the other side, and nobody with a deep knowledge of the issue doing fact checking until afterwards. So instead of steering the discussion towards a correct, unbiased discussion of the actual facts in which people argue about how to interpret those facts and which ones are more important, we instead have a derailed discussion muddled with disinformation and people arguing over which facts are true.
For example, suppose someone wants to do a story on the shape of the world. The unbiased version of such a story cannot give equal time to people who think the world is flat, because doing so would lead people to incorrectly believe that it is just as likely to be true as the world being round. Real journalism involves reporting facts, not just taking two people who disagree with each other and putting them on screen at the same time, leaving the audience to sort it all out.
Unfortunately, gone are the days when reporters would point out the inaccuracies and lies of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) immediately and unreservedly, mainly because they're too afraid that if they do so, they won't get future interviews. And that's terrifying, because it means that most of the public has no idea what the objective facts surrounding any issue are, and only know that their guy/gal says one thing, and those bad people on the other side say the other.
This is not journalism. News today is not journalism. It is a pale shadow of journalism. And in the rare instances where it starts to approach journalism, calling politicians on their lying, they start shouting "Fake News! Fake News!" and we're back to the pairs of talking heads who can't agree on objective truth, much less subjective truth.
I cry for the future of humanity.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.