I received a offer from the new editor-in-cheif of the National Post [see below]. While poverty prevents me from subscribing to any daily newspaper, considering the fact the letter made it to me I wrote the new editor-in-cheif of the National Post to draw to her attention the Reality that media fails to write about. Continue reading Unperceived? Wilfully Denied? Ignored? Media’s Missing Reality
Category Archives: Media
In Regard to Housing First Abbotsford Failed to…..
Part IV of VI
Arrogance, can’t be bothered, impatience [which would be highly ironic seeing as their impatience has – to date – wasted more than 10 years], what they ‘know for sure’ that ain’t so, closed minds, that’s not what I want to hear, eventually someone will tell us what we want to hear right? lack of compassion, lack of caring …….
There are a multitude of reasons, singly or in combination, that could be responsible for why the politicians, bureaucrats and members of the homeless advisory ignore or are unable to comprehend that the only approach that has repeatedly – and with repeatability – demonstrated it’s effectiveness in enabling the homeless to regain control over their lives is Housing First.
Continue reading In Regard to Housing First Abbotsford Failed to…..
Laetabilis Novus Annus.
What a Concept – Homeless Have Rights!
Yes Andrew, the homeless – being Canadians – have Rights that are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
And as anyone who is following the matter knows, The Abbotsford News obfuscation notwithstanding, the case is about the Rights and Freedoms all Canadians are entitled to and protecting the Rights and Freedoms of Canadians.
Anyone even moderately informed is aware the court case is not focused on the right of the homeless to camp in city parks. The right to camp in a city’s parks is a right only as a consequence of and in redressing the city’s violation of the Charter Rights of the homeless. As Section 24 states:
- 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
As to the question of the need to go to Court……..where else, how else, would Mr. Holota have us, have Canadians, settle fundamental questions about Charter Rights and Freedoms and questions concerning the violation of those Rights and Freedoms by governments [in this case the municipal government of the City of Abbotsford]?
Pistols at dawn in front of City Hall?
Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that the question of whether the factual errors, lies of omission and disinformation written, printed and disseminated by Black Press and Andrew Holota about homelessness, the homeless and the actions of the City of Abbotsford are a violation of the Rights and Freedoms of the homeless or simply served to abet the City of Abbotsford in its continuous violation of the Rights and Freedoms of homeless Canadians will be asked or answered.
As a result, although they may be culpable, neither Black Press nor Andrew Holota are likely to suffer any consequences for contributing to the violation of or violating the Rights of homeless Canadians in Abbotsford.
Mr. Holota’s editorial is rife with statements demonstrating the part Black Press and Mr. Holota have played in creating conditions in Abbotsford where going to court to protect the Rights of homeless Canadians from the City of Abbotsford is not a matter of choice but of necessity.
“....the homeless issue in this town got hijacked by special-interest groups.”
Pivot is a non-profit Society [supported by the community through thousands of donations] whose purpose is to represent and defend the marginalized and disenfranchised by defending their human rights through the provision of access to the legal system. In doing this Pivot also protects the Rights and Freedoms of all Canadians.
Perhaps to Black Press, Andrew Holota and the City of Abbotsford a non-profit Society widely supported by its community, a Society that defends the Human Rights, the Charter Rights of the disenfranchised, is a special interest group.
To the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the powerless, the poor, to all those without the resources to defend their Rights Pivot is a Champion who fights for and defends the oppressed.
It is understandable why, as the oppressors, the City of Abbotsford, Black Press and Editor Holota would view anyone, anything or any group that would fight for and/or defend a class/group of people that the City of Abbotsford, Black Press and Editor Holota wish to oppress, harass, persecute and victimize as a ‘special-interest’ group. In protecting the interests of the homeless Pivot acts against the interests of the oppressors, threatens to force an end to the oppression and drags the oppressors into court, out of the shadows, into daylight and makes a public display of them.
It would be interesting, potentially entertaining, to see by what convoluted process Editor Holota came to label the Abbotsford chapter of the Drug War Survivors, whose membership consists almost entirely of those who have been homeless, are homeless or in the process of becoming homeless as a special interest group vis-à-vis the subject of homelessness in Abbotsford.
To the Homeless in Abbotsford the motivation of Barry Shantz in founding the Abbotsford chapter of the BC/Yukon Drug War Survivors is moot.
What matters to the homeless and all others who are powerless in Abbotsford is that the involvement of Mr. Shantz and the DWS solved a years old dilemma, a dilemma not limited to just the homeless – the barrier raised to holding the City of Abbotsford accountable for its actions by prohibitive legal costs.
Whether it was/is the City of Abbotsford’s violation of the homeless and powerless or the costly illegal subsidy agreement with the Heat, bottomless taxpayer pockets, at least from the view of Abbotsford’s municipal government and politicians, has been an insurmountable barrier to those seeking Justice.
Until Pivot, and the community that supports them, stepped forward to say ENOUGH to the City of Abbotsford and its politicians.
Pivot a special interest group? I suppose if you consider an interest in Human Rights, in protecting the Charter Rights and Freedoms of all Canadians [not just those of the privileged or wealthy], in standing up for the marginalized and disenfranchised as a ‘special’ interest.
Personally, irregardless of what the City of Abbotsford, its’ politicians, Black Press or Andrew Holota obviously believe I do not regard the behaviour of Pivot as ‘special’; to me Pivot’s behaviour is simply the behaviour of the ethical, behaviour the City of Abbotsford – although highly unlikely to – could learn a great deal from.
As English philosopher Edmund Burke stated “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Border Services Death – Part Two
What if, as discussed in Part One, the broadcast Media does not want to re-label as “Pseudo News” or attach a content warning label to what is currently labelled ‘News’; changes needed to provide warning to those watching the broadcast that the material being broadcast does not meet even the most minimal of standards required to inform, reveal or contribute to the understanding of issues?
Then there should be consequences for misleading the public as to the nature of the material being broadcast.
Take, for example, Global Vancouver’s support of those calling for an inquiry into the in custody death of a woman being held for deportation by Canadian Border Services.
The report aired on Global Vancouver suggested [certainly appeared to suggest] that Canadian Border Services is covering something up because they have made only limited information on what happened available.
Canadian Border Services has stated that they will be releasing more details as soon as the Coroner completes his investigation and that – as is usual with matters under investigation – Border Services cannot comment until the Coroner is finished investigating.
I think it would be very beneficial to any decision on what course of action to follow, to know if the Coroner rules the death suicide.
I am not suggesting that the death be ignored should the woman have died as a result of attempting, ultimately succeeding, suicide. We need to understand what happened and what, if anything, we can REASONABLY do to prevent such a death from happening in the future.
We seemed to have gone inquiry mad as a society, demanding an Inquiry for anything that upsets someone or where someone [or somones] don’t like the answer[s] they are given.
Let us remember that inquiries are not free, that there is no such budget item as ‘Inquiry’, which means the cost of inquiries comes from an item included in the provincial budget – such as healthcare. The more inquiries you have, the less healthcare the government can purchase for citizens.
If a group of people want an inquiry, let them pay for it; if the actions of the media force and inquiry, let those in media whose actions forced/led to the inquiry pay for it. Should something important, something that would have been found only through an inquiry, be found whoever paid for the inquiry can be reimbursed.
Should the inquiry find nothing that would not have been found, or nothing significant and important, then the group of people or the media bear the cost – not the taxpayers.
If media chooses to act irresponsibly by calling reports broadcast ‘News’ when those reports fail to meet even minimal standards required to inform, reveal or contribute to the understanding of issues, when in fact the reports broadcast misinform, obscure or prevent the understanding of issues, there must be consequences. The same way the Supreme Court has said there are consequences of standing up and shouting “FIRE!’” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
‘News’ has become a profit center for the corporate media conglomerates.
Given the focus on profits, the demonstrated lack of ability to manage operations efficiently, effectively and for the long term health and viability of the business, the abandonment of being good corporate citizens, the lack of understanding of the reality and complexity of the economy and the effect the financial health of the entire society has on the viability of a corporation in a timeframe of 1+ years [a state of affairs that applies to politicians, experts and pundits as well as corporate executives]………
……corporations increase profits by cutting costs. Worse, in market conditions such as exist today, with no easy, almost automatic increases in revenue, a market where there is a need to add value in order to increase revenue, corporations and their current inadequate for the task executives the corporations simply cut more costs.
The broadcast hours filled with content created by the station [or network] are the hours where corporate media conglomerates can maximize their profit, making the ‘News’ department a major contributor to the bottom line.
A change in mission, from informing to maximizing profit, that has had a profound effect on the ability to inform, reveal and contribute to understanding as well as the quality of the material generated by ‘News’ departments, as Media conglomerates fill the hours where the station creates the content as cheaply as possible.
Corporations and their executives have a right to choose to race for the bottom and ignore the long term viability of the corporation if that behavior is acceptable to stockholders.
They do not have the right to mislead the public, to fail to inform the public that ‘News’ is no longer what it once was and that the public needs to search out information from multiple sources in order to be able to make informed decisions about how the government manages the health and viability of the economy; about the costs, outcomes and consequences of decisions on social, societal issues.
As stated, where media will not re-label programming, or attach viewer advisors, where the change in standards and practices will mislead the public as to the public’s ability to make informed decisions and choices based on the programming provided by the Media – financial penalties [incentives] must be used to provide incentive for media to either invest the money to provide ‘News’ that meets at least the minimum standards require for reporting to qualify as ‘News’ OR for media to label or use viewer advisories to ensure people understand the purpose [maximize profit] of the broadcasting they are viewing.
Broadcast media today has demonstrated that as a corporation their profit drive is the same as the corporations that dump toxic waste down storm drains or into creeks to reduce the costs of disposal and maximize profit.
In the same manner that it is necessary to impose punitive fines to encourage those who need to dispose of toxic waste to dispose of it in a manner that does not penalize society, financial incentives need to be imposed on media to encourage media to be responsible, providing either accurate labeling, viewer advisories or programming that meets the standards set out for ‘News’ for programming media labels as ‘News’.
Next: Part 3 – The Conclusion
I’m not going to listen; don’t want to hear it.