[UPDATED, see below]
It’s nothing new, but when can media just stop. Maybe when it’s no longer profitable? We need a revolution in media by boycotting all venues that perpetuate the women-as-sex-meat theme. Here’s what’s new, this time with Eugenie Bouchard and Cate Blanchett.
Continue reading Can We Stop Treating Women Like Meat? Now? Maybe? Please?
It’s getting harder and harder, what with constant corporate media concentration, and corporatist convergence of messaging from right wing governments and their informal corporate media PR departments.
But everyone once in a while we see evidence that there is a growing number of journalists who exist with integrity and can demonstrate meaningful contribution to society:
Continue reading How to Spot a Good Journalist
I know you’re wondering. But it’s hard to imagine. Kind of like a fish imagining life without water. We’ve known corporate media for generations. Since the advent of psychology and marketing, the influence/manipulation of corporate media is ubiquitous. And not in a good way.
But let’s take a few moments to imagine the features of post-corporate media, where increasing the audience [by a variety of questionable, sensationalist means, sometimes] to increase ad revenue isn’t the goal.
Let’s start here with this:
Continue reading What Does Post-Corporate Media Look Like?
September 12, 2013
PTSD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, is thankfully becoming less stigmatized due to increased awareness, but like most mental health issues, there stigma that prevents open discussion about mental health is profound. But I recall 2-3 decades ago it was far worse.
There are a few PTSD events that have come up recently that are related to Canada’s shameful neglect and mistreatment of Canadian Forces personnel and veterans suffering from PTSD.
We are going to focus on PTSD, PTSD in the military, mental health and PTSD resources and networks over the coming weeks.
Kate, Robin, Stewart and everyone supporting them in each of their networks would appreciate your interest, open mind, emotional support, and even your money.
Once upon a time, it was fun to take online polls. For lots of reasons. But one of my favourites was to watch how poorly polls could be constructed.
Once, six years ago, Innovative Research Group put a racist poll into the field. It included questions about whether I had favourable or unfavourable feelings about various races and religious groups, sometimes lumping in folks who come from nearby places. It was disgusting. What DID I think about Blacks, South Asians [as opposed to, say, Asians], Muslims, recent immigrants…you get the picture. They didn’t ask about South Americans or Jews or Hindus. Or Christians. I wonder why.
At any rate, I took a bunch of screenshots of the offensive survey, so that I could write about it and show everyone what kind of data they were trying to mine. Maybe they were just trying to figure out who were the racists in their polling pool.
But as you can see below, Angus Reid has developed a new tool that it is using in at least some of its online polls:
Aside from the understandable agreement to not share client’s proprietary information, it requires participants to not take screen shots of the poll itself. To continue with the survey we are required to agree that we will not “photograph, record, publish on the Internet, copy, or in any way reproduce any of the confidential information included in this study.”
Well, that’s just sad.
If they end up asking some really notable questions, we can’t share that. Or, if they trot out a racist survey like IRG did six years ago, I wouldn’t be able to share the love.
I wonder what kind of consequence there would be if I were to share, not client confidential information in the survey, but really crappy survey methodology that doesn’t violate a third party’s privacy. Is the worst that can happen that I would be barred from future surveys?
All I know for sure is that pollsters have really screwed up lately, completely blowing the Alberta and BC provincial elections, and being out in left field on the US presidential election. It comes from having unrepresentative samples because people don’t want to answer calls, or certain types of people not having landlines, and people just lying about how much they intend to actually vote. Then polling firms try to adjust for underrepresented populations. Often badly.
What if pollsters, going forward, realizing their methodologies are…suspect…now try some new kinds of engagement. And now, they don’t want us sharing that.
Their credibility is in the toilet. Adding this agreement stage to the whole process may poison their cherished online polling community. It’s called Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. And Angus Reid might have just stepped in it.
UPDATE: Apparently the families of the 1% are hoarding as well.
Class war is alive and well.
I have this rose-coloured, nostalgic dream of history. Once upon a time we emerged from feudalism with a democratic revolution. All were equal. Well, most.
But the hope of democracy was to rid the world of the despot rule of aristocracy. But then we got corporations. Many of the aristocratic elite ended up entrenching their power through these fake humans. And we still have the aristocrats today. And for centuries, the rest of the elite have wielded power through corporations.
So this year when data was leaked with information about who is using tax havens, governments lined up to do nothing to stop it. Governments are compradors who serve the elite. They are in no rush to go after cash socked away in tax havens, even if it means eroding the capacity of governments to do the work of government.
US$11.5 TRILLION are socked away in tax havens.
And that’s no accident. The elites do not like governments. They include regulations that box in the elites and attempt to distribute their wealth through taxes in order to serve the people. Like some kind of democracy. Or something.
But as you will read below, you will see a few features of the feudalism we currently live in:
All I know is that if I got a job and tried to set up a corporations in an off-shore tax haven, I wouldn’t be able to convince my employer to pay my corporation instead of me. Humans with SINs need to pay taxes.
But if I decided to not work for anyone as an employee, I could create a corporation registered in an off-shore tax haven. Then if I could contract out my work so an organization hires my corporation to do work, I could conceivably not have to pay tax if I work my accounting correctly. Donating money to the federal Conservative Party may help discourage CRA from pursuing the wealth I could sock away in a tax haven.
And I’d have to go back and check to see if the Liberal Party in government was any good at tracking down offshore stashed cash. But considering what kind of an offshore expert Paul Martin is, I’d doubt their record is any better.
And where does this leave us?
Well, firstly, we need to remember that class war is alive and well. There is a collection of rich elites who are really running things by influencing/being governing parties and by being untouchable. And the rest of us are serfs.
Secondly, the goals of the Occupy Movement were bang on. And they still exist.
Thirdly, when you see a politician speaking and acting strongly to support democracy instead of neglecting the elites, support them. But you’ll hear a lot of crickets.
Fourthly, expect more decadent, despotic behaviour from the elites. They seem to get off on it.
Earlier this year, 2.5 million files and 120,000 companies and trusts who use offshore tax havens was revealed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) that caused an international furor. What also became apparent when this list was revealed was, that like the Lagarde list, governments had access to this information for years and were not doing anything to hunt down these funds. In fact, the Harper government has eschewed all efforts to pursue this money, while at the same time laying off 3,000 tax collectors at the CRA this budget year.
“The offshore system is the secret underpinning for the political and financial power of Wall Street today. It is the fortified refuge of big finance,” Nicholas Shaxson, author of Treasure Islands, a 2011 book on offshore tax havens, has said. And he is quite right.
Today, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) claims that offshore banks globally hide some (US) $5-trillion to (US) $7-trillion from tax authorities, or about 8 per cent of the world’s assets under management. Moreover, an estimated (US) $11.5-trillion is being stashed in offshore accounts worldwide for one reason or another.
Now governments talk about the so-called “tax gap” — the difference between what they could collect and do collect — caused by the use of offshore havens. In the U.K., this estimate ranges from £50 billion to £100-billion annually. Of that, about £20-billion sits in offshore tax havens. Meanwhile, though, the CRA refuses to make an estimate of the tax gap in Canada, but it’s safe to say if they did they would find it’s in the many tens of billions.
The offshore tax haven issue speaks to one of the Great Lies currently promulgated by conservative, liberal and even social democratic governments: which is that governments are broke. And hence they must lay off civil servants, impose cuts and wage restraints on the public sector. And it is why governments are desperately trying to avoid the issue: after all, they’ve all encouraged tax evasion and avoidance by offering corporations and the wealthy lower and lower taxes and greater tax breaks over the years. Now they are reaping what they have sown.
– from How offshore tax havens destroy governments | rabble.ca.
Photo source: Globe and Mail
Remember this? Well, you’re about to see a lot of more of Sun New’s hateful and inflammatory programming if Quebecor Inc. gets its way. The owner of the TV network that regularly advocates for the do-or-die free market has launched a campaign to get mandatory carriage for Sun News, meaning that Sun News would be included in all basic cable packages in Canada.
Canadians have overwhelmingly rejected Sun News’ brand of yellow-journalism (here’s a particularly offensive Sun article describing Attawapiskat as a “cesspool”), but under mandatory carriage, cable subscribers would NOT be able to opt out of their subscription to Sun News. How’s that for free market competition? Other the other hand, the struggling TV network would have its yearly $17 million loss covered by a new $18 million revenue (or about $4 per cable subscriber). You can find more information about Sun News’ application for mandatory carriage on rabble.ca and on thetyee.ca.
If you OPPOSE the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) granting Sun News a mandatory carriage license for their questionable programming, you can submit your opposition to the CRTC, but you’ll have to be quick – the deadline is Feb. 20, 2013. The process is a bit fickle, so I’ve posted a step-by-step guide below. You can do this online in about 5 minutes.
Please note I did not create this guide; it was passed around the WAM! Vancouver listserv. It’s also worth noting that any submission to the CRTC is considered a public submission; your name and email will be made public.
Here’s the guide:
Assuming you would be submitting as an individual consumer, and not on behalf of an organization or other person, follow this procedure:
**Example letter (recommended you edit/write your own):
The Sun NewsNetwork broadcasts sexist, racist and other hateful/inflammatory programming that does not reflect my values. It’s fine if their private supporters want to purchase their channel under their current license, but the fact that they are seeking “mandatory carriage” in order to fund their type of “yellow-journalism” just proves that most Canadians do NOT care for their programming. We do not think Canadian tax dollars should fund or make it easier for their biased coverage to enter our homes, whether in the form of basic cable coverage, or in any other format. We request you DENY them “mandatory carriage”. Thank you for your consideration.
You are done with the CRTC’s form, but note you are ALSO expected to send a note of opposition directly to Sun News for the CRTC to consider it a legitimate submission. Submit your opposition to Sun News being granted “mandatory carriage” by writing to them directly* at:
TVA Group Inc. and Sun Media Corporation
c/o Québecor
1600 Maisonneuve Boulevard East
Montréal, Quebec
H2L 4P2 Canada
~ OR VIA ~
Fax: 514-380-4664
Email: reglementaires@quebecor.com
Be sure to include “RE: Opposition to Mandatory Carriage RE: 2012-0687-1: Sun News General Partnership” in the subject line and in the document itself. SAVE A COPY for your records, as the CRTC may require proof of your submission for it to be valid.
If you would prefer to not use the online submission process, you can instead submit your comments to the CRTC* by snail-mail or fax:
By mail: CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2
By fax: 819-994-0218
*Be sure to include “RE: Opposition to Mandatory Carriage RE: 2012-0687-1: Sun News General Partnership”
Here are two other online petitions against mandatory carriage of Sun News. Though I doubt the CRTC is obligated to consider them, it can’t hurt to sign them anyway:
I spent 3 hours in the House of Commons from midnight to 3am this morning watching the contemptuous debauchery of the Conservative government squash democracy in ramming through Bill C-38. Several weeks ago I also spent some time in the BC legislature watching that version of embarrassing contempt.
Beyond a proportional representation system that would head of the Conservative Party’s contempt for democracy, I have noticed a few improvements that can immediately improve how our democracy functions. Some minor changes can greatly improve democratic efficacy in Canada, but the governments in power have every motivation to avoid making them. The Bill C-38 debacle that will play out for the next few hours should motivate us to hold our elected leaders to a higher standard.
Here are 3 ways to improve democracy immediately:
Continue reading Fixing Canada’s Democracy, Part 74 of 877
Friday:
Mornings are sub-optimal for me. Mornings that begin at 5:30 are even less functional. Nevertheless, I found myself waking up at a time I think is more sensibly reserved for going to bed. After dressing, re-packing (after developing a sudden mania to fit everything I would need into only my purse and camera bag) and having a brief (extended) cry about not wanting to leave the baby for two days, I was out the door. I was resolute. There was journalism to be had.
My trip from home to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre was a caffeinated one. Many of the notes I took during the journey comment on both the quantity and quality of the coffee I was drinking, including an especially poignant and profane comment about the lack of cup holders on the GO bus.
Registration was a smooth affair, complicated only by me not seeing the media registration desk (twice) and trying to register at the wrong place (twice). I cannot fault the NDP for this, as the media registration desk was far from hidden. I did mention I don’t function well in the mornings.
One of the NDP staff was kind enough to show me to what the convention organizers called “the blogosphere”. In reality, this consisted of a round riser with some tables and power bars, and a crescent of monitors hanging above it to display tweets about the convention. Despite my frequent references to it as “the bloggers’ ghetto”, it really was a nice enough setup. The power bars were ample, the tables were sturdy and it was probably a wise idea to segregate the bloggers from the Monied Media, as we were by far more garrulous with our colleagues.
The NDP took us all seriously, even if some of us were writing for blogs and sites they had never heard of. We had full access to everything happening at the convention, including access to the leadership hopefuls. Where the CBC could go, so could Politics Re-Spun. Of course, I didn’t have quite the pull as Evan Solomon did, nor did I have sufficient height to attract attention in a scrum. Still, it was a heady experience to be taken seriously as a member of the media.
Friday’s atmosphere was noisy, enthusiastic and at times, borderline desperate. Everywhere you turned, there were clumps of supporters exhorting you to pay attention to their candidate. Campaign rooms ringed the upper level of the convention, booths occupying the middle. Sadly (for me, at least) none of the booths offered concessions of any sort. Cotton candy would have been an excellent complement to the carnival atmosphere.
Campaign rooms were very obvious reflections of the campaigns themselves. Singh’s and Ashton’s rooms were quite bare-bones, although Ashton’s room had pastries and dishes of candies. She also had a media rep available to talk to me, while Singh did not. I cannot fault him for that, though, as he had very few people on the ground at all. Cullen’s campaign room was informal and energetic, and his media rep was by far the most accessible, going so far as to give me her cell phone number so I could call or text with any spur of the moment questions. I never actually saw the inside of Dewar’s campaign room, having been intercepted at the door and passed off to his media rep, who was in the hallway outside the room. I thought the campaign was striking a weird note when Dewar’s rep promised me there would be a hip-hop tribute to Jack Layton in Dewar’s showcase. Nash’s room was high-energy (I must say, also, that she had the nicest-looking swag – those t-shirts were fantastic), but focused. Topp’s campaign manager, Raymond Guardia, took the time to speak to me, which seemed to be a reflection of how earnest Topp’s campaign really was. Guardia was also the most reflective, offering the greatest amount of insight into how the entire leadership race was proceeding. And, perhaps most tellingly of all, Mulcair’s campaign room was slightly inhospitable, and contained no one that could speak to me.
The energy on the floor was huge, and delegates supporting their candidate stood in clumps at every turn. Nash’s supporters, in particular, were out in force. I could tell whenever I was within 2 floors of them, simply from the sheer volume of their chanting and cheering. They were also the best mobilized, right down to the flash mob Nash’s campaign organized.
The energy during the opening ceremonies was huge. It was like everyone in the crowd was giddy. In all honesty, they probably were. Up until the opening ceremonies only staff and media had been allowed into the hall, with delegates contained in the frenetic upper levels. Nycole Turmel received a fantastic response to her speech. Andrea Horwath, leader of the Ontario NDP, also received a lot of love from the crowd. The feeling on the floor was one of excitement, anticipating and joy.
The showcases were fairly well received on a universal level, although specific response was hit or miss.
Cullen’s decision to walk onstage and start talking, free of gimmickry, probably had the most polarized response among delegates. Some loved it, some thought his speech was awful. There seemed to be no middle ground.
Dewar’s foray into urban music was an awkward flop. Another flop was the moment he announced he had “shooken” hands with thousands.
Topp’s showcase featured a lot of messaging about him being “ready” to take on party leadership, emphasis on ascendancy. His supporters were the first to crowd the stage. Topp wasn’t begging for votes. He knew he was a strong candidate, and delivered his message efficiently and confidently.
I wish I could report more on how Ashton’s showcase was received, but I spent most of it conducting an interview with Andrea Horwath. The parts of Ashton’s speech that I did hear were catchy, well-written and masterfully delivered.
Mulcair’s showcase was… special. From the drummers that preceded him every time he entered or left the hall (and the source of many amusing “war drums” jokes on Twitter), to his rushed speech, the impression he gave was less “future national leader” than it was “arrogant” or possibly “baffling”.
Nash’s showcase was easily the shrewdest. The 18 million introductions (or possibly it was seven) were a bit much, but anything featuring Alexa McDonough is tolerable. Nash entered to Florence + the Machine’s Dog Days Are Over, which was a sly nod to the University of Guelph’s vote mob campaign. Her speech also ran past her allotted 20 minutes, which found her standing her ground and shouting her closing remarks over her outro music as they tried to play her off the stage. If that wasn’t a deliberate move to reinforce her “tenacious fighter” brand, I will eat any hat of your choosing.
Singh really surprised everyone at the convention by starting his showcase with an animated video explaining his family’s history in Canada, as well as his own personal history. It was a very likeable move. It touched briefly on his key policy platforms, explained why he was different from other candidates and generally made for a refreshing change of pace. He also had his son play the fiddle onstage, which was endearing. I wish I had more to say about Singh’s showcase, but it was utterly forgettable once he started speaking. It was a weak ending to the candidate showcase portion of the convention.
Voting happened, people ate dinner, and it became time for the tribute to Jack Layton. T-shirts were handed out by volunteers to those entering the convention hall, and by the time the delegates were seated it was a sea of white and orange. “I am the Layton legacy” on the front, “Je suis la releve de Jack” on the back. Shawn Atleo gave a typically terrific speech, in which he reminisced about Layton’s ability to simply listen. Humorous clips of Layton on This Hour Has 22 Minutes, The Rick Mercer Report and Infoman were shown. Mike and Sarah Layton remembered their father with poignancy. Clips of Layton discussing his beloved granddaughter, Beatrice, and the sort of world he wanted her to grow up in, were played. Turmel spoke lovingly of Layton. An announcement was made that the NDP headquarters were being renamed the “Jack Layton Building”. Olivia Chow came onstage and energized the crowd, promising us all that we were indeed the Layton legacy.
Saturday
First ballot: Ashton was the first to drop off the ballot, with only 3737 votes. Singh and Dewar voluntarily withdrew from the race after the first ballot results. Supporters were released with out direction from all camps.
Second ballot: Nash was next off the ballot, after voting hours were extended twice to accommodate people having technical trouble voting. She released her supporters without direction, but the fact that she was backing Topp was the most poorly-kept secret of the weekend.
Third ballot: Plenty of technical trouble, and the voting times were extended again and again. DDoS attacks were made on the NDP servers, slowing the entire process down. Cullen came in last on the third ballot, leaving the fourth ballot a dogfight between Topp and Mulcair. Sometime between the closing of the second and third ballots I became violently sick of hearing the word “kingmaker”.
Fourth ballot: Audible groans from the convention floor as voting was pushed back for what seemed like the millionth time. I ultimately left before the fourth ballot results were announced, as 1) it was late and 2) Mulcair’s victory was a foregone conclusion by that point.
And that, mes amis, was my weekend with the NDP.