I don't know how I could have been so foolish as to miss it. A reader pointed out something very important to me, something I had missed.(maybe I really should have become a staffwriter for the Times and Transcript).
She sent me a video of Dr. Lapierre at one of his community meetings. He was asked what his mandate was. He replied that it was to report on community opinions. That's it. There was not a word about making recommendations for what should be done on the issue of shale gas. He was just supposed to report on community opinions.
I'll try to save a little face by saying it bothered me even yesterday that a biologist should think himself qualified to make the recommendations he did make. But even that doesn't get me off the hook.Damn. How could I have missed that?
Dr. Cleary's report was held until it could be put out along with Dr. Lapierre's. When it got into the hands of the Irving press that made it possible to use it to downplay the Cleary report. The press did not treat it at all as a report on public opinion. Instead, it seized on the statement that shaling should go ahead. Dr. Lapierre was not mandated to report on that; and he has no expertise to make such a recommendation.
This was all a setup.
Was the TandT lying? I'm not sure anybody there is smart enough to lie.
Why did Dr. Lapierre put in that bit about it being okay to go ahead? After all, it looks very much like a deliberate attempt to avoid the major issues and to pave the way for the gas lords. Did the suggestion come from cabinet? I would doubt it. I have seen no evidence of any brains in the cabinet for plotting at that level.. No, this is a very cute strategic move. I suspect it comes straight from corporate staffers.
As well, we should always be suspicious of university teachers. I don't mean they're crooked or dishonest. Their problem is they crave status, public reputation, honours, being interviewed for their opinions. And they're often naive. That makes them easy meat for those who want to use them. (I say this based on forty years experience as a prof, and many approaches from just such people as the flacks from the gas industry.)
We're being lined up like sheep. Watch for more. The next step in the strategy is likely to be the appointment of the "independent commission" which is likely to be heavily staffed with academics.
__________________________________________________________________________
The front page has a story of the demolition of a very large church on George St. That raises an issue that should be handled in an editorial or by a staffwriter on the op ed page. Unfortunately, none of them have to wit to write about anything but guitars, motorcycles, a visit to grandma's or, in the case of the editorial, whatever the boss says to write.
Understand first that I am not a Jesus jumper. While I have religious beliefs, I don't give a damn whether Mary was a virgin; I don't hunt up obscure references to justify hunting down gays on the notion this makes me holier. I have no idea whether God created the universe. I think the fever over the end of the world coming and Jesus coming back to rule is simple-minded. I particularly dislike the cutesy messages on the lighted sign at Highfield Baptist.
That said, I don't think the disappearance of churches in our society is any minor matter.
Throughout history, the basis of whatever morality we have has come from religion. And I cannot think of any society anywhere throughout history in which that has not been true. Yes, the churches have been many bad things, and have been perverted for many bad purposes. But - they are also, for society as a whole, the only source of morality we have. The decline of the churches is something that should scare the wits out of us.
Morality is the glue that holds a society together. You cannot have a society if it is okay to murder, to steal, to covet.... Morality is practical. Without some morality, a society destroys itself - just as we are not destroying ours.
We now live in a world in which corporation exert vast powers with not a trace of morality in them. We go to war constantly; usually against primitive and poor opponents; we kill civilians and children in numbers unmatched in history; we use torture on a world scale; we worship the rich and dump on the poor.... In the case of Christianity, the ten commandments simply don't exist at any level of government or in the corporate world.
But morals are practical. And even if all the stories about religion are just made up and tacked on to the morals, it doesn't matter. The morals are still essential to our survival. Take a walk by that church under demolition on St. George. It's more than a building that we're tearing down.
________________________________________________________________________________
Half of the front page is two ads disguised as stories - one an Italian supper, and the other a furniture auction.
_________________________________________________________________________
NewsToday, has some important items. First is "Khadr questions raised" in which an American court, ruling on another case, highlights all the illegalities and outright lies in the US treatment of Omar Khadr. Curiously, the US is now the place where the most hideous betrayals of legal process are being carried out, including torture of children - and being carried out by the most enthusiastic of the clap hands for Jesus set.
Then there's "Gas rules strike right balance:energy minister". Read this to learn how newspapers use stories as propganda. In a nicely staged show, the gas companies have complained about royalty rates and well protection rules. This, says the minister, proves that the government has struck the right balance.
Bull Shit, Mr. Leonard. Even you cannot be that dumb. How can a complaint from anybody prove the rules are right? The proof is in the degree of security provided. In any case, the complaint from the shale gas companies was obviously staged beforehand - as was Mr. Leonard's half-wit response. It's all part of the propaganda campaign to make us line up.
__________________________________________________________________________
Don't waste your time reading the American election report. Romney leads in the looney-tune vote; but there is no substantial difference between the policies of the two men. And both of them, probably by mutual agreement, are staying away from the real issues facing the country.
For an example of such an avoided issue, do read the last page of the section, "Cuban Missile Crisis remembered". Read every bit, right to the last sentence - especially the last sentence.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The editorial is contemptible - contemptible for its indifference to human needs, contemptible for its analysis, contemptible for its treatment of people as commodities, contemptible for its lack of intelligence.
"Public transit is desirable but not essential". That is such a stupid and insensitive statement, it is hard to know where to begin. Of course, it's easy to say for one whose brain is protected by a soft cushion on his office chair, and by the easy ride it had to work on a car seat.
He says that Codiac is inefficient - but is gracious enough to say this is not entirely the fault of the drivers and mechanics. You pompous, ignorant twit. It is NOT AT ALL the fault of the drivers and mechanics. It is ALL the fault of Codiac administrators who, I am willing to bet, get well over 60,000 a year.
Anyway, as he says, only 1 in 20 people use the system. So who cares? Damn right. Who needs hospitals? Who needs libraries? Who needs crosswalks? Who gives a damn about veterans? They're way less than one in twenty. Who needs food banks? Screw 'em all. But we do gotta borrow a hundred million (and more) for a hockey rink that will seat far less that one in a 100 of the metro population.
What an insensitive and ignorant clod! And what is his solution? In effect, his solution is to break the union, and hire some new people really, really cheap.
Oh, and he wants smaller buses because the Codiac ones often aren't full. Somebody might buy him a ticket to a real city where buses frequently travel empty. That's the nature of mass transit.
He closes by saying we need a transit company that is more responsive to the needs of the citizens - well, I guess citizens doesn't include the 1 in 20 who actually use it. (He did not write the word responsive in the editorial. He wrote responsible. But that's just because the editorial writer isn't real smart about what words mean.)
I agreed with Alec Bruce completely - right up the the last paragraph.
Everyone in NB will not become bilingual. This has nothing to do with with any failures of New Brunswickers. Swiss and Dutch (and Hong Kongers) become bilingual because of the environment they live in. New Brunswick does not live in that environment.
Nor can I see the slightest commercial advantage for New Brunswick if all its people were bilingual. You would surprised how few New Brunswickers have any occasion to deal commercially with the francophone business world (or any linguistic business world.)
New Brunswick is drifting into a quite pointless confrontation. It should get a little bit real.
1. Francophones must have their own schools, hospitals, and access to all public services -as English must.
2. Most anglos will not become bilingual - some because they are bigots, but more, far more, because they have no daily need for it.
3. NB francophones become bilingual because so much of their environment is anglo. Their problem will be to maintain a general level of real French in that setting. This is where French schools and French media have an important role.
4. Acadians will become prominent in the civil service and some other areas because they are bilingual. Some anglos will gripe about that - but having an extra skill is bound to have some benefit. (Besides, anglos in this province can hardly say they have been ground into poverty by Acadian dominance.)
Jody Dallaire, I completely agree with you that men should do an equal share of the housework.
No, I don't. Women should do it all.I mean, as a modern man, I'm all for equality in the workplace. Absolutely. But home - well - it's not man's sphere, is it! A woman's sense of worth comes from cooking, washing up, care of the home....don't get me wrong. I'm all for equality. But I would not want to push my way into woman's sphere demanding, interfering in what is her's by right.
Don't get me wrong. I would be happy to do the floors and to cook and all that stuff. But it would be thoughtless and bullying of me to take away a woman's right to do these things, and to deprive her of her self-respect, if you follow me......
I think this needs more discussion.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Oct. 17:
A reader requested that I publish a copy of a sample post I sent to government for information.
If you do it on an access to information form ( which would be found on the government website), it's a simple matter. There are simply a few lines to fill - and send it off.
If you start with a regular post, as I have done below. Then you have some flexibility. I try to keep it short and specific. If I don't get an answer to this, then I'll do the same sending it to my local member - and also to a convenient Liberal member to get a question raised in the assembly.
If that doesn't work, then I go to the environment ministry website for an official access to information request.
In the one below, though I don't say it, I am really after information about whether the provincial government cares anything at all about soil contamination. That's why I ask whether land owners are required by law to clean contaminated sites, then ask how many of the 885 sites have been cleaned. Was Highfield Square reported? When? (The implication is that if the site was reported, why was the owner not required to clean it up?)
To the Ministry of the Environment;
Today's Moncton paper carries a story that there are some 885 contaminated sites in the province. (Those, at least, are the reported ones.) I need answers to several questions on that.
1. Does a report of a contaminated site (if confirmed) place the owner under obligation to clean it?
2. If so, how many of the 885 reported sites are being cleaned?
3. Is Highfield Square in Moncton one of the reported sites?
4. If so, when was it reported?
5. Is any list of reported sites available?
6. If so, does it contain the date for the reception of each report?
Any assistance in this would be much appreciated.
Graeme Decarie
So far, no response or even acknowledgement. The next stage comes soon. In fact, I may go directly to the official request under access to information.
Today's editorial was predictable. It was high praise for Dr. Lapierre's report on shale gas. It doesn't even mention the report of Dr. Cleary, the chief medical officer. (Dr. Lapierre is mentioned, I note,as the first recipient of the K.C.Irving Chair in Sustainable Development.. This illustrates two things 1. The things an Irving can say with a straight face 2.The intrusion, through money, of corporations into our universities.
None of this suggests that Dr. Lapierre's report is invalid or dishonest. Indeed, it seems closely in tune with that of Dr. Cleary - the chief difference being Dr. Lapierre's open statement of a speedy go ahead - though with great planning beforehand and tough enforcement. The Lapierre report is by no means a sell-out. It wants the early stages to be well regulated, and to be small.)
The TandT is pimping for his report because the explicit go-ahead is there. The TandT, the gas industry, and the government know quite well they can do a go-ahead, and just fake the rest.
Dr.Cleary, again, gets buried on A2. And, again, the editor chooses a laid-back headline "Lot of time for health measures:MD". Yeah. Relax, everybody. That's the thrust of her report. No need to worry. After all, Scarlett O'Hara had it right when she said, "Tomorrow is another day." - just as the gas industry has it right when it says, "Frankly, Lapierre and Cleary, we don't give a damn.
The gas industry is already preparing for tomorrow.They have a big spread on C4 about how shale gas royalties in New Brunswick are too high. So guess how they will react to demands for more research, closer monitoring, etc. And guess whose side the government and the TandT will be on. And guess what your chances are of a really independent oversight committee to check on what effect the industry is having on the province.
There's another big story on Syria that gives almost no sense of what is happening there. For example, it does not mention that the rebels are equipped, paid, trained and have special ops from the UK, US, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the emirates. In particular, it doesn't mention that a high proportion of the Free Syrian Army that is loading up on western weapons and training - and money - is al Quaeda. As happened in Libya, the US, in particular, is actually a major supplier of weapons for the people it calls terror groups.
Nor does it mention that the the rebels of the "Free Syrian Army" have been driving out Syrian Christians to cleanse the new Syria.
Almost all of this news is coming from only one source, a British haberdasher who calls himself the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. He says the Syrian air force is using cluster bombs which are forbidden by international convention. Quite true - though it might have added perspective it he had mentioned that the US has ignored that convention for years. Nor is it the only one.
Nor does it mention the possibility that Syria, Lebanon and Israel have huge deposits of natural gas.
For two days in a row, the front page has carried a major story that Denis Lozier is retiring from his job as head of an insurance company. He was also in politics, and did volunteer work.
So?
Why two front page stories in two days? Not enough ads to fill space?
Finally, for those who lives are low in thrills, there is a huge change, moving the editorial page back by one to make room for an additional page of letters to the editor. (The original letters to the editor page continues in its usual spot. Why more letters? Well, I suspect that they're cheaper than paying people to report and to write commentaries.
They must be breaking in a new editor, too. Pages D6 and D9 have the same letter. I don't believe I have ever seen that in a newspaper before. Of course, it could be an attempt at stereo letters.
Oh, C12 is a special page - a whole page of colour photos of little groups lined up, and holding oversized cheques. These people are volunteers; and I admire them for what they do. And, occasionally, a paper should mention this sort of thing. But it does this every day, and it's often a whole page. I mean, you see people holding a big cheque, shaking hands, and smiling at the camera. That's it. It doesn't change a whole lot from one day to another. Why does TandT do this?
Part of it is "feel good", "Moncton is a great town", "Aw, gee, isn't that nice."
But some if it is, I suspect, to divert attention from the real issue. Why is it that so many essential institutions like schools, hospital, food banks have to rely so heavily on volunteers to operate adequate programmes in this city? Why is it that so many large and wealthy corporations can get money, rebates, etc. from the government without having Mr. Irving lead its execs in a walk through the streets in bathing suits and high heels to raise money?
Oh, Irving Shipbuilding is going to court of prevent the public from getting any information about its government contracts. Well, why should the common people know what's in those contract? If Irving has decided they're okay, that's surely good enough.
Surprisingly, the story didn't make the TandT. Check it out in yesterday's Chronicle-Herald. And maybe we should all write letter to the Chronicle-Herald protesting this gross breach of Irving privacy.
If you do it on an access to information form ( which would be found on the government website), it's a simple matter. There are simply a few lines to fill - and send it off.
If you start with a regular post, as I have done below. Then you have some flexibility. I try to keep it short and specific. If I don't get an answer to this, then I'll do the same sending it to my local member - and also to a convenient Liberal member to get a question raised in the assembly.
If that doesn't work, then I go to the environment ministry website for an official access to information request.
In the one below, though I don't say it, I am really after information about whether the provincial government cares anything at all about soil contamination. That's why I ask whether land owners are required by law to clean contaminated sites, then ask how many of the 885 sites have been cleaned. Was Highfield Square reported? When? (The implication is that if the site was reported, why was the owner not required to clean it up?)
To the Ministry of the Environment;
Today's Moncton paper carries a story that there are some 885 contaminated sites in the province. (Those, at least, are the reported ones.) I need answers to several questions on that.
1. Does a report of a contaminated site (if confirmed) place the owner under obligation to clean it?
2. If so, how many of the 885 reported sites are being cleaned?
3. Is Highfield Square in Moncton one of the reported sites?
4. If so, when was it reported?
5. Is any list of reported sites available?
6. If so, does it contain the date for the reception of each report?
Any assistance in this would be much appreciated.
Graeme Decarie
So far, no response or even acknowledgement. The next stage comes soon. In fact, I may go directly to the official request under access to information.
Today's editorial was predictable. It was high praise for Dr. Lapierre's report on shale gas. It doesn't even mention the report of Dr. Cleary, the chief medical officer. (Dr. Lapierre is mentioned, I note,as the first recipient of the K.C.Irving Chair in Sustainable Development.. This illustrates two things 1. The things an Irving can say with a straight face 2.The intrusion, through money, of corporations into our universities.
None of this suggests that Dr. Lapierre's report is invalid or dishonest. Indeed, it seems closely in tune with that of Dr. Cleary - the chief difference being Dr. Lapierre's open statement of a speedy go ahead - though with great planning beforehand and tough enforcement. The Lapierre report is by no means a sell-out. It wants the early stages to be well regulated, and to be small.)
The TandT is pimping for his report because the explicit go-ahead is there. The TandT, the gas industry, and the government know quite well they can do a go-ahead, and just fake the rest.
Dr.Cleary, again, gets buried on A2. And, again, the editor chooses a laid-back headline "Lot of time for health measures:MD". Yeah. Relax, everybody. That's the thrust of her report. No need to worry. After all, Scarlett O'Hara had it right when she said, "Tomorrow is another day." - just as the gas industry has it right when it says, "Frankly, Lapierre and Cleary, we don't give a damn.
The gas industry is already preparing for tomorrow.They have a big spread on C4 about how shale gas royalties in New Brunswick are too high. So guess how they will react to demands for more research, closer monitoring, etc. And guess whose side the government and the TandT will be on. And guess what your chances are of a really independent oversight committee to check on what effect the industry is having on the province.
There's another big story on Syria that gives almost no sense of what is happening there. For example, it does not mention that the rebels are equipped, paid, trained and have special ops from the UK, US, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the emirates. In particular, it doesn't mention that a high proportion of the Free Syrian Army that is loading up on western weapons and training - and money - is al Quaeda. As happened in Libya, the US, in particular, is actually a major supplier of weapons for the people it calls terror groups.
Nor does it mention that the the rebels of the "Free Syrian Army" have been driving out Syrian Christians to cleanse the new Syria.
Almost all of this news is coming from only one source, a British haberdasher who calls himself the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. He says the Syrian air force is using cluster bombs which are forbidden by international convention. Quite true - though it might have added perspective it he had mentioned that the US has ignored that convention for years. Nor is it the only one.
Nor does it mention the possibility that Syria, Lebanon and Israel have huge deposits of natural gas.
For two days in a row, the front page has carried a major story that Denis Lozier is retiring from his job as head of an insurance company. He was also in politics, and did volunteer work.
So?
Why two front page stories in two days? Not enough ads to fill space?
Finally, for those who lives are low in thrills, there is a huge change, moving the editorial page back by one to make room for an additional page of letters to the editor. (The original letters to the editor page continues in its usual spot. Why more letters? Well, I suspect that they're cheaper than paying people to report and to write commentaries.
They must be breaking in a new editor, too. Pages D6 and D9 have the same letter. I don't believe I have ever seen that in a newspaper before. Of course, it could be an attempt at stereo letters.
Oh, C12 is a special page - a whole page of colour photos of little groups lined up, and holding oversized cheques. These people are volunteers; and I admire them for what they do. And, occasionally, a paper should mention this sort of thing. But it does this every day, and it's often a whole page. I mean, you see people holding a big cheque, shaking hands, and smiling at the camera. That's it. It doesn't change a whole lot from one day to another. Why does TandT do this?
Part of it is "feel good", "Moncton is a great town", "Aw, gee, isn't that nice."
But some if it is, I suspect, to divert attention from the real issue. Why is it that so many essential institutions like schools, hospital, food banks have to rely so heavily on volunteers to operate adequate programmes in this city? Why is it that so many large and wealthy corporations can get money, rebates, etc. from the government without having Mr. Irving lead its execs in a walk through the streets in bathing suits and high heels to raise money?
Oh, Irving Shipbuilding is going to court of prevent the public from getting any information about its government contracts. Well, why should the common people know what's in those contract? If Irving has decided they're okay, that's surely good enough.
Surprisingly, the story didn't make the TandT. Check it out in yesterday's Chronicle-Herald. And maybe we should all write letter to the Chronicle-Herald protesting this gross breach of Irving privacy.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Oct. 16: Liar, liar.......
..Pants on fi-re...
There is such a thing as the ethics of journalism. There are numerous book on the subject. I'm pretty sure about that because I spent a term teaching the ethics of journalism to working journalists in Hong Kong. Today's Times and Transcript is a powerful example of a lack of ethics. Indeed, it amounts to lying.
"No shale gas moratorium, report says" That's the headline on A1. Oh, so, great. We can go ahead. Everything's clear. But there are two problems with this, both of them serious problems about the ethics of journalism..
1. Two reports on shale gas were issued. One is by an academic biologist, Dr. Lapierre, the other by the province's chief medical officer, Dr. Cleary. The one that became the headline on p.1 was the one by Lapierre. The one by the chief medical officer was buried on p.8, was markedly shorter, and went off the point to include comments by the gas industry.
Dr. Cleary's report was held back for over two weeks so it could be released at the same time as the other report. That smells of collusion between government and Irving press to smother the Cleary report by releasing both on the same day, and giving serious and prominent coverage only to one of them. (Well, perhaps collusion is the wrong word. After all, both the TandT and the government are owned by the same person.)
The reason for the playing up of one report is that the biologist's report made it slightly easier to write that lying headline.
2. In fact, the biologist did NOT make the the bald statement that we can go ahead on shale gas. He did say there should not be a moratorium BUT - he also said we should make very small and slow beginnings with severe monitoring all the way. He also added a list of actions that would have to be carried out before even small and slow beginnings could be made - very severe regulations, tight and honest monitoring, a damages bond put up by the industry - and more.
Indeed, both reports were much the same. Both said massive research is yet to be done, that the risks are high, that monitoring will have to be close. Dr. Cleary added comment on the social problems of crime, alcoholism and other ills that would be likely to accompany any boom.
So, if both reports were much the same, why did the TandT decide to highlight one report and almost ignore the other? That was because the biologist said that shale gas exploration should go ahead (though under very severe conditions. However, the words "should go ahead" appeared. That gave the headline that the TandT, the government, and the shale gas industry wanted, a headline that gave the impression there were no problems. And the headline is the part of a story that has the greatest impact.
So, will the gas companies go ahead? Absolutely. Will there be severe regulation and honest monitoring? No way.
We have a government that is under the control of rapacious people. We have newspapers that lie as a matter of routine. Now, expect a flood of stories about how the government is getting tough, how research on shale gas is racing ahead, how safety is nn longer a problem... It must be nice to be in a business that has the government and all the newspapers to lie for it.
Lower on page 1 is a story that contradicts a story that appeared yesterday. Today's story says "No gulf between food bank groups". That is the opposite of what yesterday's story on the same subject had to say. But you have to read the whole story - and read it closely - to understand that yesterday's story was a mistake. That means the correct headline should have been "TandT apologizes for error in food bank story".
Well - except that there was no error. The reporter yesterday was quoting an official as saying that there was disagreement between some of the food bank groups. And he did say it. So where's the error?
The error lies in the TandT backing down when it got a complain from a person ranking higher than the one they quoted. What a real editor does in a position like that is he assigns a reporter to get the full, accurate story. He or she does not simply give in to what some boss demanded.
P. 1 also has a story about a private company which will offer a medical service, radiological imaging, to those who can afford it.That looks like a step toward two-tier health service, one for the rich and one for the rest of us. But, though the reporter lavishly quotes the owner of the business on how wonderful it will all be, she does not seek out a single opinion from the medical profession. That isn't reporting. That's advertising and propaganda.
Incidentally, think about it a moment. A private company has to buy equipment, hire a staff AND make a profit. Common sense tells us that this costs more than a public service. In fact, in the US where most health care is private, the system is the most expensive on in the world, one of the least efficient. is the leading cause of bankruptcy for seniors, and produces some of the worse statistics on general health, death rates (including stillbirths), and both of these worst among the poor in the whole of the developed world.
This new machine does not save us money. It costs us money. If carried further, it does what it does in the US. It provides health only for those who can afford it. And they can afford it because they have such huge tax breaks. The rest of us have to make up for the taxes they don't pay. So where's the saving?
NewsToday covers a big story that Frank McKenna hopes the Beaverbook Canadian Foundation will reverse its decision to carry out work in New Brunswick.
So?
This is a news story? If so, I have flash for tomorrow's paper. Graeme Decarie hopes to win the Oct. 17 Lotto 649. Watch this space for fast-breaking developments.
Oh, this section also has a big story that Energy Minister Leonard applauds the idea of an independent institute to oversee the shale gas industry. What a coincidence! He gives a major interview on the very same day Dr. Lapierre's report appears - suggesting just such a institute.
In some twelve years, New Brunswick government's have done nothing about the shale gas industry. And, certainly, Energy Minister Craig Leonard has shown no great bursts of concern. Suddenly, he thinks a really tough and independent institute is just what is needed. Right. Just like we need a Chief medical officer - so we can ignore her.
C12 has a story about a man who broke the sound barrier in the highest parachute jump ever done. Interesting - or would be if they hadn't run the same story yesterday.
Louise Gilbert has an important comment on the op ed page. It's about how life-long learning is good for seniors. She's quite right - and not just for seniors. Our brains need life-long learning as much as our bodies need exercise. If we neglect these, we become just a society of decaying vegetables. Moncton has a serious decay problem.
And one of the roots of that decay is The Moncton Times and Tribune. Today's paper is a particularly dreadful example of how the rot can show.
shoulshale
There is such a thing as the ethics of journalism. There are numerous book on the subject. I'm pretty sure about that because I spent a term teaching the ethics of journalism to working journalists in Hong Kong. Today's Times and Transcript is a powerful example of a lack of ethics. Indeed, it amounts to lying.
"No shale gas moratorium, report says" That's the headline on A1. Oh, so, great. We can go ahead. Everything's clear. But there are two problems with this, both of them serious problems about the ethics of journalism..
1. Two reports on shale gas were issued. One is by an academic biologist, Dr. Lapierre, the other by the province's chief medical officer, Dr. Cleary. The one that became the headline on p.1 was the one by Lapierre. The one by the chief medical officer was buried on p.8, was markedly shorter, and went off the point to include comments by the gas industry.
Dr. Cleary's report was held back for over two weeks so it could be released at the same time as the other report. That smells of collusion between government and Irving press to smother the Cleary report by releasing both on the same day, and giving serious and prominent coverage only to one of them. (Well, perhaps collusion is the wrong word. After all, both the TandT and the government are owned by the same person.)
The reason for the playing up of one report is that the biologist's report made it slightly easier to write that lying headline.
2. In fact, the biologist did NOT make the the bald statement that we can go ahead on shale gas. He did say there should not be a moratorium BUT - he also said we should make very small and slow beginnings with severe monitoring all the way. He also added a list of actions that would have to be carried out before even small and slow beginnings could be made - very severe regulations, tight and honest monitoring, a damages bond put up by the industry - and more.
Indeed, both reports were much the same. Both said massive research is yet to be done, that the risks are high, that monitoring will have to be close. Dr. Cleary added comment on the social problems of crime, alcoholism and other ills that would be likely to accompany any boom.
So, if both reports were much the same, why did the TandT decide to highlight one report and almost ignore the other? That was because the biologist said that shale gas exploration should go ahead (though under very severe conditions. However, the words "should go ahead" appeared. That gave the headline that the TandT, the government, and the shale gas industry wanted, a headline that gave the impression there were no problems. And the headline is the part of a story that has the greatest impact.
So, will the gas companies go ahead? Absolutely. Will there be severe regulation and honest monitoring? No way.
We have a government that is under the control of rapacious people. We have newspapers that lie as a matter of routine. Now, expect a flood of stories about how the government is getting tough, how research on shale gas is racing ahead, how safety is nn longer a problem... It must be nice to be in a business that has the government and all the newspapers to lie for it.
Lower on page 1 is a story that contradicts a story that appeared yesterday. Today's story says "No gulf between food bank groups". That is the opposite of what yesterday's story on the same subject had to say. But you have to read the whole story - and read it closely - to understand that yesterday's story was a mistake. That means the correct headline should have been "TandT apologizes for error in food bank story".
Well - except that there was no error. The reporter yesterday was quoting an official as saying that there was disagreement between some of the food bank groups. And he did say it. So where's the error?
The error lies in the TandT backing down when it got a complain from a person ranking higher than the one they quoted. What a real editor does in a position like that is he assigns a reporter to get the full, accurate story. He or she does not simply give in to what some boss demanded.
P. 1 also has a story about a private company which will offer a medical service, radiological imaging, to those who can afford it.That looks like a step toward two-tier health service, one for the rich and one for the rest of us. But, though the reporter lavishly quotes the owner of the business on how wonderful it will all be, she does not seek out a single opinion from the medical profession. That isn't reporting. That's advertising and propaganda.
Incidentally, think about it a moment. A private company has to buy equipment, hire a staff AND make a profit. Common sense tells us that this costs more than a public service. In fact, in the US where most health care is private, the system is the most expensive on in the world, one of the least efficient. is the leading cause of bankruptcy for seniors, and produces some of the worse statistics on general health, death rates (including stillbirths), and both of these worst among the poor in the whole of the developed world.
This new machine does not save us money. It costs us money. If carried further, it does what it does in the US. It provides health only for those who can afford it. And they can afford it because they have such huge tax breaks. The rest of us have to make up for the taxes they don't pay. So where's the saving?
NewsToday covers a big story that Frank McKenna hopes the Beaverbook Canadian Foundation will reverse its decision to carry out work in New Brunswick.
So?
This is a news story? If so, I have flash for tomorrow's paper. Graeme Decarie hopes to win the Oct. 17 Lotto 649. Watch this space for fast-breaking developments.
Oh, this section also has a big story that Energy Minister Leonard applauds the idea of an independent institute to oversee the shale gas industry. What a coincidence! He gives a major interview on the very same day Dr. Lapierre's report appears - suggesting just such a institute.
In some twelve years, New Brunswick government's have done nothing about the shale gas industry. And, certainly, Energy Minister Craig Leonard has shown no great bursts of concern. Suddenly, he thinks a really tough and independent institute is just what is needed. Right. Just like we need a Chief medical officer - so we can ignore her.
C12 has a story about a man who broke the sound barrier in the highest parachute jump ever done. Interesting - or would be if they hadn't run the same story yesterday.
Louise Gilbert has an important comment on the op ed page. It's about how life-long learning is good for seniors. She's quite right - and not just for seniors. Our brains need life-long learning as much as our bodies need exercise. If we neglect these, we become just a society of decaying vegetables. Moncton has a serious decay problem.
And one of the roots of that decay is The Moncton Times and Tribune. Today's paper is a particularly dreadful example of how the rot can show.
shoulshale
Monday, October 15, 2012
Oct. 15:..a waste of paper
There is only one opinion column in today's Times and Transcript worth reading. That makes the editorial page the strong part of this edition because there is not a single news story worth reading.
There seemed a possibility of a story on p. 1, "Metro food banks balk at central system". Unfortunately, the headline said pretty much all the story had to say. It was cut and paste journalism with the reporter covering a difference of opinion simply by writing down whatever various people involved had to say about it. Some said the central system of food distribution through Food Depot Alimentaire was inefficient. Some said it wasn't. That was it.
There was no attempt even to inform readers exactly what Food Depot Alimentaire is, how it's funded, how much food gets distributed by it, and how much by independent food banks, and some estimate of what the cost per day to feed one person is. The result is a story that has no story. There is no information in it. One organization of which Monctonians know little, if anything, is arguing with other organizations of which Monctonians know little if anything. And there is no information about either side to give the reader any idea who might be right. This is like a report on a hockey game about two teams playing a game, in which four players suffer serious injuries - but the story does not mention the names of the teams, of the injured players, about how the injuries occurred - and gives no score.
Any reporter who submitted such a story would be gone from the sport section within minutes. (Of course, if it was the Times and Transcript, he would probably be promoted to editor.)
Pictures and a story about the Grey Cup being on display in Moncton occupy all of p. 3. Almost all of p. 5 is about the start of the lobster season in the Bay of Funday - and half of it pictures at that. Very exciting for somebody who has never seen a lobster boat.
p. A6 is taken up with a retired businessman making a speech, a very powerful one, on a subject he knows nothing about. Nor, apparently, does the reporter.
Richard Currie, a retired CEO, was invited to give a speech to Dalhousie medical alumni. Well, of course he was invited. He donated $250,000 to them. If he gave that much to me, I would listen to his opinions with rapt attention, and give him a standing ovation.
His theme was that all New Brunswickers should be bilingual, (curiously, the money he gave was for English medical research only), that there should be a single school system for both English and French, that everything costs twice as much when you have French and English systems - as in education and hospitals -
and he cited Holland as a country in which people commonly know as many as three languages.
The reporter summed up the speech as hard-hitting. Thick-headed is a term that occurs to me more readily.
For openers, it's not going to happen. It is both difficult and useless to teach a majority population to all become fluent in the minority language. In the case of New Brunswick, it's even more difficult since most English have no need whatever to learn French. Those who do learn it in school will soon forget it as they grow up in a world in which they have no need for it. To say that New Brunswickers should all speak French and English is like saying all Americans should speak English and Spanish.
Schools are not factories.Students will learn, in the long term, only what they have a need for. Today, I could not pass a grade nine algebra test. Of course not. I've had no need for it since grade nine. It is not possible to teach people something they don't feel any need for.
In New Brunswick, there is not the slightest chance of making the whole province bilingual. Nor would anything be gained by it. It would be like Quebec with its very similar situation. The French, with the exception of professionals and leading business people, don't need English. Result? The products of French public schools, despite the enormous impact of English TV, movies have an abysmal record of bilingualism.
Then, he says the Dutch seem to easily learn several languages. Quite so. That's because Holland is a small country surrounded by big ones it has to deal with every day. The Dutch need and use several languages on a daily basis. New Brunswick is not Holland.
I have no idea where he got the notion that have French and English networks for hospitals and education.doubles their cost. And, as usual, the reporter doesn't ask.
Currie concludes it would be wonderful if all children in New Brunswick were bilingual. "Imagine," he said, "the skill level New Brunswickers would have in the world." What world? Do we have huge trade with French-speaking countries? Will the Chinese be impressed?
I've spent a lot of time on this speech, but only partly because it was so silly and uninformed. It's also a dangerous one. Language is a divisive issue in New Brunswick. We need discussion led by people who know what they're talking about, who avoid injecting emotionalism into it, and who direct their thinking into reasonable and achievable goals. New Brunswick has come a long way on language. It still has some way to go. We need more people with a sense of reality. Instead, we have too many English who are far too emotional in their reaction against French; and far too many French who have not come to grips with the nature of the challenge facing them. The last thing we need is a report of a dreadfully incompetent speech - just the sort to bring out the idiots on both sides.
It's also a story in which the reporter utterly failed to ask questions or to give the speech any context and meaning.
So why did the Times and Transcript even consider covering a speech about the learning of languages delivered ty a grocery CEO? Would they have carried a story of a speech by a language teacher on how to run grocery stores? Hey! You know why they printed it. He's rich, one of the gang. And this is a province where the money divide is even bigger than the language divide.
The whole section has not a word on anything serious. It's bits of entertainment news, human interest trivia, harmless, feel-good events like fund-raisers, meaningless photos...and all of it written up in amateurish style.
Time yourself. If it takes you more than two minutes to read section A, you need a life.
NewsToday hits a new low. Almost half of it is pictures and story about a skydiver. There's a story that says Obama has problems. Who would have guessed? To be fair, there's an amusing story about Stephen Harper on the last page or NewsToday. He expressed some discomfort in attending a conference in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is, he says. not really as democratic as it should be - and there are terrible abuses of human rights.
Aw, shucks.
He must feel really, really bad when he talks trade deals with China, or local tensions with Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. And he must feel just terrible that both the lack of democracy and flourishing of abuse in Congo
have some connection with the activities of his buddies in the Canadian mining industry who have quite a record in Congo and Central America for abuse of the people, of the environment, and interference with civil government.
Norbert Cunningham writes a column on column assuring us it is not true your blood will boil and your eyes pop out if you ever step into outer space. Way to tell it like it is,Norbert.
In this whole, wretched edition, the only thing worth reading is Alec Bruce's column.
Oh, and check Heloise for advice on what to do if you lose one of your stud-type, pierced earrings. Use it as a thumb tack.
We could build a series on this crucial problem of the 'only one earring' syndrome. For example, you could have one of your ears amputated. Or, if you're a man, you could used it to meet strange women on the street - "excuse me, miss, I just found this beautiful earring, and your ears are so exquisite I thought it must be yours...."
There seemed a possibility of a story on p. 1, "Metro food banks balk at central system". Unfortunately, the headline said pretty much all the story had to say. It was cut and paste journalism with the reporter covering a difference of opinion simply by writing down whatever various people involved had to say about it. Some said the central system of food distribution through Food Depot Alimentaire was inefficient. Some said it wasn't. That was it.
There was no attempt even to inform readers exactly what Food Depot Alimentaire is, how it's funded, how much food gets distributed by it, and how much by independent food banks, and some estimate of what the cost per day to feed one person is. The result is a story that has no story. There is no information in it. One organization of which Monctonians know little, if anything, is arguing with other organizations of which Monctonians know little if anything. And there is no information about either side to give the reader any idea who might be right. This is like a report on a hockey game about two teams playing a game, in which four players suffer serious injuries - but the story does not mention the names of the teams, of the injured players, about how the injuries occurred - and gives no score.
Any reporter who submitted such a story would be gone from the sport section within minutes. (Of course, if it was the Times and Transcript, he would probably be promoted to editor.)
Pictures and a story about the Grey Cup being on display in Moncton occupy all of p. 3. Almost all of p. 5 is about the start of the lobster season in the Bay of Funday - and half of it pictures at that. Very exciting for somebody who has never seen a lobster boat.
p. A6 is taken up with a retired businessman making a speech, a very powerful one, on a subject he knows nothing about. Nor, apparently, does the reporter.
Richard Currie, a retired CEO, was invited to give a speech to Dalhousie medical alumni. Well, of course he was invited. He donated $250,000 to them. If he gave that much to me, I would listen to his opinions with rapt attention, and give him a standing ovation.
His theme was that all New Brunswickers should be bilingual, (curiously, the money he gave was for English medical research only), that there should be a single school system for both English and French, that everything costs twice as much when you have French and English systems - as in education and hospitals -
and he cited Holland as a country in which people commonly know as many as three languages.
The reporter summed up the speech as hard-hitting. Thick-headed is a term that occurs to me more readily.
For openers, it's not going to happen. It is both difficult and useless to teach a majority population to all become fluent in the minority language. In the case of New Brunswick, it's even more difficult since most English have no need whatever to learn French. Those who do learn it in school will soon forget it as they grow up in a world in which they have no need for it. To say that New Brunswickers should all speak French and English is like saying all Americans should speak English and Spanish.
Schools are not factories.Students will learn, in the long term, only what they have a need for. Today, I could not pass a grade nine algebra test. Of course not. I've had no need for it since grade nine. It is not possible to teach people something they don't feel any need for.
In New Brunswick, there is not the slightest chance of making the whole province bilingual. Nor would anything be gained by it. It would be like Quebec with its very similar situation. The French, with the exception of professionals and leading business people, don't need English. Result? The products of French public schools, despite the enormous impact of English TV, movies have an abysmal record of bilingualism.
Then, he says the Dutch seem to easily learn several languages. Quite so. That's because Holland is a small country surrounded by big ones it has to deal with every day. The Dutch need and use several languages on a daily basis. New Brunswick is not Holland.
I have no idea where he got the notion that have French and English networks for hospitals and education.doubles their cost. And, as usual, the reporter doesn't ask.
Currie concludes it would be wonderful if all children in New Brunswick were bilingual. "Imagine," he said, "the skill level New Brunswickers would have in the world." What world? Do we have huge trade with French-speaking countries? Will the Chinese be impressed?
I've spent a lot of time on this speech, but only partly because it was so silly and uninformed. It's also a dangerous one. Language is a divisive issue in New Brunswick. We need discussion led by people who know what they're talking about, who avoid injecting emotionalism into it, and who direct their thinking into reasonable and achievable goals. New Brunswick has come a long way on language. It still has some way to go. We need more people with a sense of reality. Instead, we have too many English who are far too emotional in their reaction against French; and far too many French who have not come to grips with the nature of the challenge facing them. The last thing we need is a report of a dreadfully incompetent speech - just the sort to bring out the idiots on both sides.
It's also a story in which the reporter utterly failed to ask questions or to give the speech any context and meaning.
So why did the Times and Transcript even consider covering a speech about the learning of languages delivered ty a grocery CEO? Would they have carried a story of a speech by a language teacher on how to run grocery stores? Hey! You know why they printed it. He's rich, one of the gang. And this is a province where the money divide is even bigger than the language divide.
The whole section has not a word on anything serious. It's bits of entertainment news, human interest trivia, harmless, feel-good events like fund-raisers, meaningless photos...and all of it written up in amateurish style.
Time yourself. If it takes you more than two minutes to read section A, you need a life.
NewsToday hits a new low. Almost half of it is pictures and story about a skydiver. There's a story that says Obama has problems. Who would have guessed? To be fair, there's an amusing story about Stephen Harper on the last page or NewsToday. He expressed some discomfort in attending a conference in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is, he says. not really as democratic as it should be - and there are terrible abuses of human rights.
Aw, shucks.
He must feel really, really bad when he talks trade deals with China, or local tensions with Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. And he must feel just terrible that both the lack of democracy and flourishing of abuse in Congo
have some connection with the activities of his buddies in the Canadian mining industry who have quite a record in Congo and Central America for abuse of the people, of the environment, and interference with civil government.
Norbert Cunningham writes a column on column assuring us it is not true your blood will boil and your eyes pop out if you ever step into outer space. Way to tell it like it is,Norbert.
In this whole, wretched edition, the only thing worth reading is Alec Bruce's column.
Oh, and check Heloise for advice on what to do if you lose one of your stud-type, pierced earrings. Use it as a thumb tack.
We could build a series on this crucial problem of the 'only one earring' syndrome. For example, you could have one of your ears amputated. Or, if you're a man, you could used it to meet strange women on the street - "excuse me, miss, I just found this beautiful earring, and your ears are so exquisite I thought it must be yours...."
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Oct. 14: Questions on a Sunday
I would assume that most journalists in New Brunswick got their training from the journalism school at St. Thomas University. That's a small, but pretty good school, with some instantly recognizable names among its faculty. So it must teach its students how to ask questions. Why, then, do most journalists in this province seem never to have heard of a question? So, just killing time on a Sunday, I'll compose a list of questions to give them the general idea.
The Sale of Moncton High School
1. On the sale of Moncton High School, the government has only one bidder to choose from. (An earlier prospect, Rompspen Mortgage, has dropped out.) The one left is OHMS Holdings. Who and what are these companies? Who sits are on their boards? Is there any connection between them?
2. The winning bidder is supposed to accept terms on the future use of the building. Most of these terms are written in government bafflegab; but there are obligations.
Will the government tell us, BEFORE making any decision, what the bidder proposes to do with the building? Will we get that information in plenty of time so that there can be public discussion and input before the bid is accepted?
3. A question that should have been asked from the start--- if a builder can a)pay for the building and the land b) make the needed structural repairs c)completely renovate the building for a different use, then d)still make a profit ----wouldn't it have been cheaper for the province to simply repair the place as a school?
4. Given the seemingly high expenditures involved in this sale, will there be some special goodies in the contract for the buyer? If so, at whose cost?
Contamination at Highfield Square
In his oped column of Oct. 13, young Mazerolle let slip that the contaminated soil might be moved to the old city dump, which already contains toxic soil from a previous experience. The dump is on low ground, right by the river.
1. Is he for real? Toxic materials have been dumped on low ground, in the city, beside a river? And it's possible the city plans to dump more? And no reporter has asked a word about this?
2. Does this have the approval of the Minister of the Environment? A highly toxic dump by a river and within city limits? Would it even be legal for him to approve such a thing?
3. When the city lawyer announced that the budget for cleanup of Highfield Square was already set, was this the dump he was thinking of? That would certainly be cheap. But it would be safer to spread it along high ground - say, Mountain Street - in one of the schoolyards.
4. We were informed this past week, that city hall has plans to protect Moncton in the event of higher ocean levels and the flood dangers this could cause.
How does dumping toxic waste onto low ground beside the river fit into those plans? In fact, instead of dumping more toxic soil into that spot, shouldn't we be moving what is already there?
Shale gas
We have been promised, long ago by The Moncton Times and Transcript and by the Government on the issue of fracking and shale gas. We've heard almost nothing from either of them. We were promised the toughest possible regulations. Where is the open review of those regulations? Where are the expert opinions on them?
Mass transit
We live in a city that feels it can spend a hundred million plus (probably a big plus) on an "events centre" - one with red and blue lines and goal nets. So how come paying transit workers a decent wage for one year is such a big issue that we have all had to suffer from the long, transit lockout?
Is there some towering, moral principle at stake here? You know and I know that there is big money in this province exchanged in questionable deals, in handouts to big business, in tax breaks,in the giveaways of whole forests etc. Would it kill us to give transit workers a slightly higher raise for the final year of their contract? This, unlike the other favours we hand out so freely, would be money spent in Moncton. So what's the big issue that makes this fight worth it?
It's okay. Journalists are supposed to ask questions. I mean, if we didn't want to know anything, we wouldn't buy a newspaper, would we? (Oops. Actually, we do buy it. Maybe we shouldn't ask questions, and maybe the paper shouldn't tell us anything. Maybe buying the TandT is a cheap way of checking out of a miserable world and getting permanently stoned.)
Oh - a blunder on my part.
I read on another site of a Visions United Church which seemed to be experimenting in an interesting way with its service, including using a move theatre. Is that the same Visions United I see advertised in the TandT? If so, I have not noticed anything about its experimentation in the newspaper. If this is the same Visions United, please drop me a note under comments. I'd be happy to give you what limited advertising reach I have.
I was interested to read that Kateri, a Mohawk woman from the Montreal region, will be canonized in Rome. So I issue fair warning to the Roman Catholic church. Reverend Zenon Decarie (a relative) is now being considered for canonization. That must make me eligible for some perks. Think about it.
The Sale of Moncton High School
1. On the sale of Moncton High School, the government has only one bidder to choose from. (An earlier prospect, Rompspen Mortgage, has dropped out.) The one left is OHMS Holdings. Who and what are these companies? Who sits are on their boards? Is there any connection between them?
2. The winning bidder is supposed to accept terms on the future use of the building. Most of these terms are written in government bafflegab; but there are obligations.
Will the government tell us, BEFORE making any decision, what the bidder proposes to do with the building? Will we get that information in plenty of time so that there can be public discussion and input before the bid is accepted?
3. A question that should have been asked from the start--- if a builder can a)pay for the building and the land b) make the needed structural repairs c)completely renovate the building for a different use, then d)still make a profit ----wouldn't it have been cheaper for the province to simply repair the place as a school?
4. Given the seemingly high expenditures involved in this sale, will there be some special goodies in the contract for the buyer? If so, at whose cost?
Contamination at Highfield Square
In his oped column of Oct. 13, young Mazerolle let slip that the contaminated soil might be moved to the old city dump, which already contains toxic soil from a previous experience. The dump is on low ground, right by the river.
1. Is he for real? Toxic materials have been dumped on low ground, in the city, beside a river? And it's possible the city plans to dump more? And no reporter has asked a word about this?
2. Does this have the approval of the Minister of the Environment? A highly toxic dump by a river and within city limits? Would it even be legal for him to approve such a thing?
3. When the city lawyer announced that the budget for cleanup of Highfield Square was already set, was this the dump he was thinking of? That would certainly be cheap. But it would be safer to spread it along high ground - say, Mountain Street - in one of the schoolyards.
4. We were informed this past week, that city hall has plans to protect Moncton in the event of higher ocean levels and the flood dangers this could cause.
How does dumping toxic waste onto low ground beside the river fit into those plans? In fact, instead of dumping more toxic soil into that spot, shouldn't we be moving what is already there?
Shale gas
We have been promised, long ago by The Moncton Times and Transcript and by the Government on the issue of fracking and shale gas. We've heard almost nothing from either of them. We were promised the toughest possible regulations. Where is the open review of those regulations? Where are the expert opinions on them?
Mass transit
We live in a city that feels it can spend a hundred million plus (probably a big plus) on an "events centre" - one with red and blue lines and goal nets. So how come paying transit workers a decent wage for one year is such a big issue that we have all had to suffer from the long, transit lockout?
Is there some towering, moral principle at stake here? You know and I know that there is big money in this province exchanged in questionable deals, in handouts to big business, in tax breaks,in the giveaways of whole forests etc. Would it kill us to give transit workers a slightly higher raise for the final year of their contract? This, unlike the other favours we hand out so freely, would be money spent in Moncton. So what's the big issue that makes this fight worth it?
It's okay. Journalists are supposed to ask questions. I mean, if we didn't want to know anything, we wouldn't buy a newspaper, would we? (Oops. Actually, we do buy it. Maybe we shouldn't ask questions, and maybe the paper shouldn't tell us anything. Maybe buying the TandT is a cheap way of checking out of a miserable world and getting permanently stoned.)
Oh - a blunder on my part.
I read on another site of a Visions United Church which seemed to be experimenting in an interesting way with its service, including using a move theatre. Is that the same Visions United I see advertised in the TandT? If so, I have not noticed anything about its experimentation in the newspaper. If this is the same Visions United, please drop me a note under comments. I'd be happy to give you what limited advertising reach I have.
I was interested to read that Kateri, a Mohawk woman from the Montreal region, will be canonized in Rome. So I issue fair warning to the Roman Catholic church. Reverend Zenon Decarie (a relative) is now being considered for canonization. That must make me eligible for some perks. Think about it.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Oct. 13: Oh, Brent.....
....it's at the top of the oped page. Brent Mazerolle's column. For a moment - alas! just a moment - I thought it was going to be about the contamination at Highfield Square. It was - sort of - eventually---
That first half of it was vague summary of some novel. I have no idea why. Then Brent mentioned a call he had received asking why the TandT had not covered the issue of contamination in Highfield Square. Well, geegollywhiz, wrote Mr. Mazerolle. He says he did cover it, last Spring.
With all due respect, Brent...and as you probably know...I discussed your coverage of last Spring. I discussed in this blog, and at length. I showed how it was written to say a minimum, and to give the impression this was nothing to worry about or even think about. There was no information about what the toxic substances are, how deep they run, how concentrated they are... Your whole article could be summed up as "Don't worry about it, folks. Nothing important." You didn't get much public reaction because you didn't want much public reaction. That was a story written to kill public reaction before it could even happen.
You asked no questions about what this toxicity can do, how it would be disposed of, what it would cost... You asked no questions at all. As to what the toxicity was, you gave only a vague reference to "the usual diesel spills... all cities have this"...in summary, no big deal.
As to source, you don't mention the original source. It was not "a citizen". It was this blog. You know that, Brent. And you know that it is normal practice at real news media to identify the source of a story.
Even when you get to a professional source, the CBC, you don't mention its name. It was just "another media outlet". Well, of course, he's not going to mention the CBC. This is the station that makes the TandT look ridiculous every day, the one Norbert Cunningham foams at the mouth about, the one the Irvings would probably love to see closed so they could buy it, and own all the news in New Brunswick.
Then he's surprised that I had to make an official request to get the information from city hall. After all, he called, and they said, "Yes. It's contaminated."
Well, yes, Brent. The told me that, too. But I've done a lot of journalism - and a journalist doesn't stop with whatever some clerk is gracious enough to tell him. And they wouldn't answer me. That's why I went to an official request.
Then he says it's no big deal because it happens in all cities. Yes, it does. So do bank robberies, murders, rapes, big drug deals and the opening of new restaurants. Does that mean these should not be covered in Moncton? Hell, when was the last time the TandT missed any of those - especially the opening of new restaurants?
Then he drops a bomb. He ways he thinks it will be dumped in some local site in Moncton - where we have dumped such contamination before..
WHAT? You didn't ask to find out? This is insane. It certainly should be illegal.Most real cities have to use dumps that pose as little danger as possible - and usually hundreds of kilometres away. Are you serious? Is Moncton actually going to dump this stuff right here? Right by the river? And has it, as he says, been dumping contamination there before? If you knew that Brent, why didn't you write about it last Spring?
If this is true, it's a bigger story than the contamination itself. It's probably safer to leave the contamination where it is Has city council really been dumping contaminated soil right here in town by the river?
And where the hell has the provincial minister of the environment been through all this?
Thanks, Brent, for handing me the job of making another official request for information. It's obvious that the Times and Transcript isn't going to do it.
He ends with a remark that is intended to sound deeply philosophic, I'm sure. But it succeeds only in being irrelevant, having nothing to do with the rights to information and safety that citizens should have. On the question of who made Moncton contaminated, he says, "Oh, right. It was us."
Actually, it wasn't. And even if it were, that would have nothing to do with solving the problems.
This isn't a column. It's a whine.
Bill Belliveau writes a column about the American election. It doesn't matter. The big money has abandoned Obama. Mitt Romney is getting it. And that doesn't matter, either. Both Romney and Obama pursue pretty much the same policies. That's why campaign speeches on both sides are lacking in any substance. That's why both have stayed away from discussing the environment, the enormous power of the military and defence industries lobbies, the uses of drones and the imminence of nuclear war. Both occupy exactly the same positions on these issues. Neither is anxious to discuss them because neither wants to do anything about them.
This campaign is a lot of froth and bombast. But nothing more than that. American democracy now is all "just pretend".
The editorial offers strong backing to the new site for Moncton High. That's a sure sign there's something crooked about it.
As for sports, I see we're still getting that juvenile headline for hockey games "wildtown catfight".
Okay. Let's pretend Moncton is a wild town. But how can it be a "catfight" when the wildcats are fighting the huskies?
And I have to argue with Jana Giles who writes (very well) in the Whatever section, this time on the importance of obeying your parents. I don't mean to say that children should, as a rule, disobey their parents. But - well - parents don't always know best. Getting older gives us more experience. But it doesn't make us wiser. (Take it from a person who's a lot older - but still can be very, very dumb).
We should certainly listen to our parents. We should certainly think over what they have to say. But there comes a time when we are the ones who have to make the decision because only we know what it is we really want out of life.
My mother wanted me to be a clergyman. My father, a religious man, was aghast at the damage this could do to the church. I listened to both. Flunking out of high school made it unnecessary for me to make a decision. But it was my father who had it right. I would have been a disastrous clergyman.
When I decided to go to university, both my parents were terribly upset, and even angry. But I knew this was something I had to try. So I disobeyed them.
Obeying is essential as a part of growing up. So, gradually, is disobeying. And we all have to go through it - with great pain on both sides.
That first half of it was vague summary of some novel. I have no idea why. Then Brent mentioned a call he had received asking why the TandT had not covered the issue of contamination in Highfield Square. Well, geegollywhiz, wrote Mr. Mazerolle. He says he did cover it, last Spring.
With all due respect, Brent...and as you probably know...I discussed your coverage of last Spring. I discussed in this blog, and at length. I showed how it was written to say a minimum, and to give the impression this was nothing to worry about or even think about. There was no information about what the toxic substances are, how deep they run, how concentrated they are... Your whole article could be summed up as "Don't worry about it, folks. Nothing important." You didn't get much public reaction because you didn't want much public reaction. That was a story written to kill public reaction before it could even happen.
You asked no questions about what this toxicity can do, how it would be disposed of, what it would cost... You asked no questions at all. As to what the toxicity was, you gave only a vague reference to "the usual diesel spills... all cities have this"...in summary, no big deal.
As to source, you don't mention the original source. It was not "a citizen". It was this blog. You know that, Brent. And you know that it is normal practice at real news media to identify the source of a story.
Even when you get to a professional source, the CBC, you don't mention its name. It was just "another media outlet". Well, of course, he's not going to mention the CBC. This is the station that makes the TandT look ridiculous every day, the one Norbert Cunningham foams at the mouth about, the one the Irvings would probably love to see closed so they could buy it, and own all the news in New Brunswick.
Then he's surprised that I had to make an official request to get the information from city hall. After all, he called, and they said, "Yes. It's contaminated."
Well, yes, Brent. The told me that, too. But I've done a lot of journalism - and a journalist doesn't stop with whatever some clerk is gracious enough to tell him. And they wouldn't answer me. That's why I went to an official request.
Then he says it's no big deal because it happens in all cities. Yes, it does. So do bank robberies, murders, rapes, big drug deals and the opening of new restaurants. Does that mean these should not be covered in Moncton? Hell, when was the last time the TandT missed any of those - especially the opening of new restaurants?
Then he drops a bomb. He ways he thinks it will be dumped in some local site in Moncton - where we have dumped such contamination before..
WHAT? You didn't ask to find out? This is insane. It certainly should be illegal.Most real cities have to use dumps that pose as little danger as possible - and usually hundreds of kilometres away. Are you serious? Is Moncton actually going to dump this stuff right here? Right by the river? And has it, as he says, been dumping contamination there before? If you knew that Brent, why didn't you write about it last Spring?
If this is true, it's a bigger story than the contamination itself. It's probably safer to leave the contamination where it is Has city council really been dumping contaminated soil right here in town by the river?
And where the hell has the provincial minister of the environment been through all this?
Thanks, Brent, for handing me the job of making another official request for information. It's obvious that the Times and Transcript isn't going to do it.
He ends with a remark that is intended to sound deeply philosophic, I'm sure. But it succeeds only in being irrelevant, having nothing to do with the rights to information and safety that citizens should have. On the question of who made Moncton contaminated, he says, "Oh, right. It was us."
Actually, it wasn't. And even if it were, that would have nothing to do with solving the problems.
This isn't a column. It's a whine.
Bill Belliveau writes a column about the American election. It doesn't matter. The big money has abandoned Obama. Mitt Romney is getting it. And that doesn't matter, either. Both Romney and Obama pursue pretty much the same policies. That's why campaign speeches on both sides are lacking in any substance. That's why both have stayed away from discussing the environment, the enormous power of the military and defence industries lobbies, the uses of drones and the imminence of nuclear war. Both occupy exactly the same positions on these issues. Neither is anxious to discuss them because neither wants to do anything about them.
This campaign is a lot of froth and bombast. But nothing more than that. American democracy now is all "just pretend".
The editorial offers strong backing to the new site for Moncton High. That's a sure sign there's something crooked about it.
As for sports, I see we're still getting that juvenile headline for hockey games "wildtown catfight".
Okay. Let's pretend Moncton is a wild town. But how can it be a "catfight" when the wildcats are fighting the huskies?
And I have to argue with Jana Giles who writes (very well) in the Whatever section, this time on the importance of obeying your parents. I don't mean to say that children should, as a rule, disobey their parents. But - well - parents don't always know best. Getting older gives us more experience. But it doesn't make us wiser. (Take it from a person who's a lot older - but still can be very, very dumb).
We should certainly listen to our parents. We should certainly think over what they have to say. But there comes a time when we are the ones who have to make the decision because only we know what it is we really want out of life.
My mother wanted me to be a clergyman. My father, a religious man, was aghast at the damage this could do to the church. I listened to both. Flunking out of high school made it unnecessary for me to make a decision. But it was my father who had it right. I would have been a disastrous clergyman.
When I decided to go to university, both my parents were terribly upset, and even angry. But I knew this was something I had to try. So I disobeyed them.
Obeying is essential as a part of growing up. So, gradually, is disobeying. And we all have to go through it - with great pain on both sides.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Oct. 12: Read Alec Bruce...
...take it seriously,very seriously, especially the last sentence. For all his gentle tone, Mr. Bruce is reminding us of the central fact of our time. The American empire is collapsing just as those of the British and French and Dutch and Spanish and Portuguese did before. It's the last of the western empires that began with Columbus.
It's military record has not, to put in kindly, been impressive for the last sixty years and more. Despite size and wealth and technology, it cannot beat backward and poor countries with only primitive weaponry. It has tried to make up for its weakness by draughting NATO as a sort of private pet version of the UN. It has abandoned any pretence of observing human rights - resorting to torture, indiscriminate killing of civilians, using drones as assassination and terror weapons - usually used on countries it is not even at war with.
Americans aren't like that. Not normally. But they've been driven into a frenzy of paranoia and fear by manipulative politicians and the news media owned by some of their wealthy friends. The paranoia and fear are so great, they have almost torn up the constitution their founders bequeathed to them. A president can now attack countries without declaring war (Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan), and without the permission of Congress. A president can now imprison any American for an indefinite period with no charge and no trial. Or , to save time, a president can now even order the assassination of an American citizen. No reason required.
Five million Americans are now on government lists to be watched as suspects of...who knows? Many more will be added as surveillance drones fill the skies over the US. The US, once the model of freedom for the world, is now a police state. And a dreadfully corrupt one at that, a nation owned and ruled by the very, very rich.
With a national debt so huge that even government computers cannot keep track of it, the US is kept afloat to spend yet more money on wars only by printing more paper. There is nothing behind that paper. And someday it will collapse.
Private capitalism was allowed to run wild, with almost no regulation. And where there was any regulation remaining, the law was ignored. That's what caused the banking collapse and the bailouts. In Iceland, bankers who did that went to jail. In the US, not a single banker was even charged with anything. And not only did they avoid legal charges, they got paid for all their crooked losses by the American people, - and they got billions in bonuses for their cleverness. Similar bubbles are bursting all over Europe.
Meanwhile, wars have to be fought to preserve the empire that America lives off, wars in Africa, in Latin America, in the Middle East, maybe in the Far East. The rules of war, such as they ever were, have long since disappeared. And the US has not been doing well.
What will it do when it finds it cannot establish the military dominance it needs to survive?
Nobody is in a position to use nuclear weapons without suffering with everyone else in world-wide destruction. Well, Israel might. It has some 200 nuclear weapons; and its enemies have none to shoot back with. The US is not in such a favourable position. But it does have far the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. What happens on the day they realize they cannot win all those conventional wars? That only a heavy strike against some powerful enemy will work? that they can make deals with other nuclear powers to stay out?
What happens if on that day the president is a George Bush or a Sarah Palin or a Mitt Romney? - or an Obama (whose policies are not so far from those of Romney as they both like to pretend.)?
Americans wouldn't do such a thing?
No. Most of them wouldn't. Most of them wouldn't torture, either. Or kill civilians with drones. Or drive the world economy and billions of people into desperation by illegal actions, put most other Americans into generations of hopeless debt, and so thoroughly corrupt a government it would pay them for what they had done.
There is nothing anti-American in this. We all know Americans. We all know most of them behave pretty much like us. The problem is that American capitalism and American politics have been perverted into thoroughly anti-American forces And the American news media have turned anti-American along with them.
Sorry to take so long on this one topic. It's just that Bruce's column is the first thing I have seen in that paper to give any hint of what is going on.
David Suzuki is excellent about what needs to be done NOW about climate damage. In NB, expect neither the liberals nor the conservatives to do any of it.
Norbert uses a whole column to give the meaning of a word, something which could have been done in a paragraph. Of course, he needed more space to fume and rant and call people names. I have no idea why. Sometimes he's right. Professors are,as he says, so wrapped up in their own tree that they've not a clue how to deal with the forest. Well, yeah. Journalists are like that, too. So are corporation bosses. I've worked closely with all three. And all three are overrun with horse's asses.
And your point is, Norbert?
Speaking of a person who doesn't know what he's talking about, the editor knows nothing about education.
The only real news in the paper is disappointing. A provincial court declined to hear the case dealing with the provincial government's choice of a site for the new high school. Now, nothing further can be done until the written decision is handed down. And that could take a very long time, indeed.
Other observations
1. the big "news" story on A. p.is a blatant, free ad for a bar and grill. At that, it ranks as one of the more important stories I've seen in Section A.
2.The lead story in sports is "Wildtown Catfight".
Really, that's the kind of juvenilia that even Don Cherry is above. Wildtown, wow, pant, pant. Catfight. Yowie! In a middle school newspaper, that might show promise in the writer. In an adult, it suggest a serious need for growing up. Or it suggests the writer thinks people who read the sports section are morons. I don't that's true. And it I don't it's a good idea to give that impresion.
To add to it, The whole layout, including the pictures and the colour are obviously to provide hype for the game. Let the team do its own advertising, fellas. You're there to report, not to be cheerleaders. (I hope.)
I have written to the Minister of the Environment asking for further information about the contamination of Highfield Square.- and for the location of some 885 officially reported sites around the province. We shall see.
Sorry for the lateness on this one. My electricity went as dead as a Times and Transcript editorial.
It's military record has not, to put in kindly, been impressive for the last sixty years and more. Despite size and wealth and technology, it cannot beat backward and poor countries with only primitive weaponry. It has tried to make up for its weakness by draughting NATO as a sort of private pet version of the UN. It has abandoned any pretence of observing human rights - resorting to torture, indiscriminate killing of civilians, using drones as assassination and terror weapons - usually used on countries it is not even at war with.
Americans aren't like that. Not normally. But they've been driven into a frenzy of paranoia and fear by manipulative politicians and the news media owned by some of their wealthy friends. The paranoia and fear are so great, they have almost torn up the constitution their founders bequeathed to them. A president can now attack countries without declaring war (Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan), and without the permission of Congress. A president can now imprison any American for an indefinite period with no charge and no trial. Or , to save time, a president can now even order the assassination of an American citizen. No reason required.
Five million Americans are now on government lists to be watched as suspects of...who knows? Many more will be added as surveillance drones fill the skies over the US. The US, once the model of freedom for the world, is now a police state. And a dreadfully corrupt one at that, a nation owned and ruled by the very, very rich.
With a national debt so huge that even government computers cannot keep track of it, the US is kept afloat to spend yet more money on wars only by printing more paper. There is nothing behind that paper. And someday it will collapse.
Private capitalism was allowed to run wild, with almost no regulation. And where there was any regulation remaining, the law was ignored. That's what caused the banking collapse and the bailouts. In Iceland, bankers who did that went to jail. In the US, not a single banker was even charged with anything. And not only did they avoid legal charges, they got paid for all their crooked losses by the American people, - and they got billions in bonuses for their cleverness. Similar bubbles are bursting all over Europe.
Meanwhile, wars have to be fought to preserve the empire that America lives off, wars in Africa, in Latin America, in the Middle East, maybe in the Far East. The rules of war, such as they ever were, have long since disappeared. And the US has not been doing well.
What will it do when it finds it cannot establish the military dominance it needs to survive?
Nobody is in a position to use nuclear weapons without suffering with everyone else in world-wide destruction. Well, Israel might. It has some 200 nuclear weapons; and its enemies have none to shoot back with. The US is not in such a favourable position. But it does have far the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. What happens on the day they realize they cannot win all those conventional wars? That only a heavy strike against some powerful enemy will work? that they can make deals with other nuclear powers to stay out?
What happens if on that day the president is a George Bush or a Sarah Palin or a Mitt Romney? - or an Obama (whose policies are not so far from those of Romney as they both like to pretend.)?
Americans wouldn't do such a thing?
No. Most of them wouldn't. Most of them wouldn't torture, either. Or kill civilians with drones. Or drive the world economy and billions of people into desperation by illegal actions, put most other Americans into generations of hopeless debt, and so thoroughly corrupt a government it would pay them for what they had done.
There is nothing anti-American in this. We all know Americans. We all know most of them behave pretty much like us. The problem is that American capitalism and American politics have been perverted into thoroughly anti-American forces And the American news media have turned anti-American along with them.
Sorry to take so long on this one topic. It's just that Bruce's column is the first thing I have seen in that paper to give any hint of what is going on.
David Suzuki is excellent about what needs to be done NOW about climate damage. In NB, expect neither the liberals nor the conservatives to do any of it.
Norbert uses a whole column to give the meaning of a word, something which could have been done in a paragraph. Of course, he needed more space to fume and rant and call people names. I have no idea why. Sometimes he's right. Professors are,as he says, so wrapped up in their own tree that they've not a clue how to deal with the forest. Well, yeah. Journalists are like that, too. So are corporation bosses. I've worked closely with all three. And all three are overrun with horse's asses.
And your point is, Norbert?
Speaking of a person who doesn't know what he's talking about, the editor knows nothing about education.
The only real news in the paper is disappointing. A provincial court declined to hear the case dealing with the provincial government's choice of a site for the new high school. Now, nothing further can be done until the written decision is handed down. And that could take a very long time, indeed.
Other observations
1. the big "news" story on A. p.is a blatant, free ad for a bar and grill. At that, it ranks as one of the more important stories I've seen in Section A.
2.The lead story in sports is "Wildtown Catfight".
Really, that's the kind of juvenilia that even Don Cherry is above. Wildtown, wow, pant, pant. Catfight. Yowie! In a middle school newspaper, that might show promise in the writer. In an adult, it suggest a serious need for growing up. Or it suggests the writer thinks people who read the sports section are morons. I don't that's true. And it I don't it's a good idea to give that impresion.
To add to it, The whole layout, including the pictures and the colour are obviously to provide hype for the game. Let the team do its own advertising, fellas. You're there to report, not to be cheerleaders. (I hope.)
I have written to the Minister of the Environment asking for further information about the contamination of Highfield Square.- and for the location of some 885 officially reported sites around the province. We shall see.
Sorry for the lateness on this one. My electricity went as dead as a Times and Transcript editorial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)