Crying censorship

The Genies were enflamed this week with protest over the Conservative government's proposed Bill C-10.

Award recipients feared the bill, which would allow the Heritage Ministry to deny tax credits to productions deemed "offensive" or "contrary to the public interest", would spell the demise of provocative filmmaking in Canada.

The bill has also been panned by Broadcaster Magazine and a tens of thousands-strong Facebook group.

The Conservative response? The bill is essentially a loophole-closer once supported by a Liberal.

But it's also endorsed by the evangelical moral crusader Charles McVety.

Personally, that's enough to get me nervous.

But then there are those terms: "offensive" and "contrary to the public interest". I've got a creepy feeling I've heard them somewhere else.

Oh, now I remember. Here.

Court concedes confidential sources

In a frustrating move for the journalistic community, the Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a 2004 landmark ruling protecting the use of confidential sources.

The court reinstated a search warrant ordering The National Post to produce a document from reporter Andrew McIntosh said to be central to the "Shawinigate" investigation of former PM Jean Chretien.

In 2004, Ontario Superior Court justice Mary Lou Benotto became a hero to many Canadian journalists when she quashed the warrant, calling journalists' ability to protect their sources "essential" to media in a democracy.

"She called the proposed search unreasonable and a violation of the media's constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression and interfered with journalists' rights to protect sources," reports the Toronto Star.

"Without them, many important stories of public interest wouldn't have been published, she said, citing everything from Watergate to reports on hazardous waste dumping."

The Canadian Association of Journalists immediately issued a statement calling the ruling " a major setback for press freedom and the public's right to know."

never mind

Update:

Syed Soharwardy has withdrawn his human rights complaint against Ezra Levant for publishing the infamous Muhammad cartoons in the Western Standard.

He explains why in this roundabout editorial, which, interestingly, acknowledges concerns over whether human rights commissions should tackle hate speech at all.

Here we go again

Warning! Several of these links contain images of the prophet Muhammad!

Just when you thought 12 little cartoons couldn't stir up any more chaos.

Today, Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoon of Muhammad that, along with 11 others printed in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper three years ago, sparked a wave of violence across the Muslim world.

The move was a response to the arrest of three people for allegedly plotting to kill the cartoonist, who's been under high surveillance since the fateful publication.

"Regardless of whether Jyllands-Posten at the time used freedom of speech unwisely and with damaging consequences, the paper deserves unconditional solidarity when it is threatened with terror," read an editorial in another paper which also reprinted the offending art.

I don't get it. If the decision was "unwise" in the first place -- presumably because it led to violence -- how is it now a wise decision as a reaction to violence?

Is publishing purely for the sake of offending a journalistic right? Is it ever a duty? If freedom of expression ends anywhere, it seems to me that inciting mass violence ought to be that place.

The tangled issue has reached Canada, where conservative publisher Ezra Levant is facing a human rights complaint for printing the cartoons two years ago. In a Toronto Star editorial, Kelly Toughill makes a good case for keeping human rights commissions out of journalism, but steers clear of the ethics of Levant's move.

Meanwhile, in a less nuanced analysis, FOX news has published several more antiquated depictions of Muhammad -- in a news story about Muslims' outrage over the inclusion of the very same images on a Wikipedia page. "People are very upset over a thing which we will now proceed to do." Very neutral, FOX.

The Newseum

A monumental tribute to the history of journalism, one of the most expensive museums of all time.

"You get more feeling for the newspaper business from Daily Planet panels in an old Superman comic than you get at the Newseum," wrote Henry Allen of The Washington Post.

http://www.slate.com/id/2183936/fr/rss/

Breaking News

Now that we have your attention, did you know that on Super Tuesday, ABC alone sent out over 30 "breaking news " alerts about election results, according to an innovative, interactive website, Breaking News or Not?

Increasingly, it seems, news networks report "breaking news," interrupting scheduled programming to alert viewers to "urgent" stories -- on everything from Heath Ledger's death to tornado death tolls.

But this blog, started by editors fed up with the seemingly never-ending stream of breaking news after the Paris Hilton arrest, provides audiences with a chance to decide whether news is worthy of the "breaking" title.

www.breakingnewsornot.com offers citizens a chance to discuss and debate the merits of news stories and the opportunity to discuss who got the story first, and who got it right. It even keeps a running tally of the time since the last "breaking news" story.

Is media biasing the public against the press?

A recent poll of media credibility conducted by Sacred Heart University found that the American people are losing faith in their journalists at an alarmingly rapid pace.

In the current national poll, just 19.6% of those could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003. It should be noted that this segment of the public ranked Fox News, known for its Republican spinsters, the most accurate news provider.  

Does the public have it wrong or should we trust their lack of trust? Are they perceiving bias in the news because the media is biasing the public against journalists?

The erosion of public confidence in journalism is old news, some may say, but perhaps we need to examine factors that influence public perception of ineptitude in journalism, says Roy Peter Clark, Senior Scholar at the Poynter Institute. 

"The public bias against the press is a more serious problem for American democracy that the bias (real or perceived) the press itself," he writes in a recent article "The Public Bias Against the Press." 

"I hold journalists less responsible -- and the public more responsible -- for misperceptions of news media performance. In short, the last two decades have seen unprecedented attacks upon the legitimacy of the news media, so many messages from so many directions that they are as impossible to ignore as, say, the soft-core sexual images that pervade American culture."

The media itself  perpetuates popular myths that journalists are scum, parasites that leech onto the likes of Britney Spears and Heath Ledger, at the expense of more positive, less popular, portrayals of journalists fighting doggedly in the name of public interest. 

And just how is the media implicated in biasing the public? By confusing people.

"Journalism expresses itself through media, but most media expressions are not forms of journalism," reminds Clark.

Take for instance, the seemingly harmless romantic comedy 27 Dresses. Like many formulaic flicks of this genre, it features a familiar Shakespearian trope -- a woman and man hit it off, the man somehow screws up and then there is the inevitable reconciliation at the end. 

Tack onto this the fact that the leading man is a sleazy reporter for the "Commitments" section of the fictional New York Journal.  He needs a killer story to rise above his beat -- wedding reporter hell. He decides a scathing expose of a woman who has been a bridesmaid 27 times is his ticket out.

Although it is only a lighthearted comedy, 27 Dresses solidifies notions  in the popular imagination that the underhanded journalist can't be trusted with your privacy.

The "journalist" here commits countless ethical breaches, with no foresight or questioning of his tactics, and --true to Hollywood -- breaks hearts along the way to get his story. His first breach is using a pseudonym. Anonymity -- a tactic usually reserved for the most dire of circumstances (read: not a wedding expose) -- has questionable ethics written all over it.  He then deceives his source about the nature of his story, takes pictures of her under false pretenses and proceeds to libel her sister on the front page of the Style section.

Not only do movies like this (see a role reversal in 2003's How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days) engrain stereotypes about women, romance and relationships, they irresponsibly convey that journalists cannot be trusted, that they forsake the public interest, responsibility to their sources and readers, and ethical principles to get  a "scoop" on even the most mundane of stories.

Gone are the days when journalists were portrayed as trusted sources of news, purveyors of the public interest and crusaders for the people. And it is the media itself that has perpetuated the most derogatory of stereotypes about journalists.

Noble portrayals of journalists like All the Presidents Men and more recently, The Insider have been replaced by popular media images and Hollywood portrayals where journalists scheme and connive to get their stories. "The usual shtick is that they are slimeballs or part of the wolf pack that runs up the courthouse steps with notebooks and microphones extended," writes Clark.

Ironically, while the essence of journalism is the practice of verification, the entertainment media seems to overlook verification in the accounts of journalism they portray to the public.