October 2005
_________________________________________________________________
October 23rd, 2005
Welcome Back - Part 2
At the end of August, I spent some time in the Arctic. As Hurricane Katrina began its slow final approach 
to New Orleans, I was hunkered down in a remote Inuvaluit community on the delta of the Mackenzie river. 
I had gotten sick, so I confined myself to a hotel room. The town had no cable system, but the hotel that
hosted me had a satellite dish. I had nothing but time to lay around and recover. 

It was here that I got my first good look at the Fox "News" Channel. I used quote marks there because in
the several hours of programming that I watched, I did not see a single journalist. There was no insight.
There was no quality. As Katrina rolled into New Orleans, I knew that the most dangerous element of this 
storm would not be the high winds, but the potential flooding of a city that lies below sea level. To its
credit, CNN reported about the possibility of levee breaks, as did the BBC. (BBC made the levee break scenario
a central focus of its reports) As the storm made landfall, the Fox spin said that since she had weakened to
a category four, Katrina was not the disaster that all had anticipated. In light of the weakening, one early
morning Fox anchor mocked those who warned that Katrina would be devastating. As water poured into 
New Orleans, Fox reported that the threat of Katrina was all hype, and that things weren't so bad.      

Lots of people I talk to despise Fox "News". Many American liberals put a lot of energy into being angry with
the network and its lies. Masochists like the people who work for groups like Media Matters or News Hounds
("We watch Fox so you don't have to") monitor it constantly to provide Americans with accounts of its perpetual
dishonesty. Though what these sites tell us is often comical, I wonder if they're worth the effort. Maybe it 
makes more sense to accept Fox for what it is, a mouth-piece for the Bush Administration, a place for preaching
to the choir. Fox "personalities" like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter are propaganda merchants, 
nothing more. They are liars who promote un-American ideas. They remind me of preachers, always praising the 
magnificence of their beloved leader and his crazy ideas. If they were ever looking for jobs, their experience
would qualify them to work for the Ministry of Information in personality-cult regimes like those of 
North Korea's Kim Jong-Il or Turkmenistan's Turkmenbashi. 

Keeping this in mind, Fox can be useful to the media literate. If you want to know what the Bush Administration
wants you to be thinking, just watch Fox. If you want to see who they'll invade next, or what you're supposed
to be afraid of, just watch Fox. If you want to get inside the head of the sheeple, just watch Fox. The next 
step is critical. After getting a read on what "they" want you to know, (it should only take a few minutes) 
change the channel. Turn it off. Fox is the junk food of a balanced media diet. There is no reason to get angry
about it. There are better things to do than stew about the bias in their reporting. Accept that Fox is owned by
Rupert Murdoch, an Australian right-wing ideologue. The plutocrat has programmed accordingly. The outrageous 
claim of being "Fair and Balanced" is clearly a joke. They reported and then I decided that their network is crap. 

This brings me back to the start of this post, to my gratitude to the CBC for providing Canadians with quality
journalism. The mandate of the CBC is to keep Canadians informed. Profit is not the first priority. The CBC is
not run by an entertainment company, a weapons manufacturer, or in the case of Fox, Mr. Burns. I find it ironic
that public broadcasters are far more objective and critical of governments and their motivations than private 
ones are, but that is the reality. My experience watching US corporate news entities left me convinced that you
will not get accurate reporting from giant media conglomerates. It is not in their economic interest to provide 
people with unbiased and objective reporting. They will not undercut the bottom line. For two months I relied on
info-tainment networks to give me the news. I was confused, but now the fog has lifted. Welcome back CBC. 
Keep on doing what you do best. Canadians missed you. Canadians need you.
 

_________________________________________________________________
October 16th, 2005
Welcome Back - Part 1
I am Canadian. (This is not a beer commercial) Over the last couple of months, something had been missing
in Canada. It was an odd time. Many Canadians felt confused and out of the loop. Everything wasn't quite as
it should have been and it was hard to figure out why. There was a sense of being disconnected and less coherent.
I couldn't quite place what the problem had been until early this week when everything changed back to normal 
again. Now I know just what it was. Canadians have something precious back. Stereotypes aside, this has nothing
to do with the return of the NHL. Go Habs Go.

From mid-August to mid-October, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, our beloved CBC, was caught in a labour
dispute with its employees. A lock-out ensued as the old contract expired before a new agreement could be reached. 
Canadians took the hit. The CBC plays a special role in our lives. Canada has a small population scattered across 
a huge landmass. (30 million people spread across nearly ten million square kilometres) The CBC serves to unite us
from coast to coast to coast, making us feel like a tight-knit community. 

The most important function of the CBC is to provide Canadians with quality journalism. The CBC is a lot 
like the BBC in the United Kingdom, it is owned by the people and controlled by parliament. It is fair to ask
how a media organization run by government can be trusted. It could be assumed that any state-run television
station would serve only as a vehicle for state propaganda. 

The CBC has a clear mandate to guard against this. It must provide Canadians with accurate and unbiased reporting. 
Its editors operate independent of government, without censorship. CBC journalists act as government watchdogs.
They are not at all shy about covering the scandals that plague the ruling Liberal Party. They engage in
sharp criticism of leaders of all political stripes, including the Prime Minister. Nobody gets a free pass. This is how
it is supposed to be. Journalism should act as an unbiased counter-weight to the government line, simply telling the
truth and giving accurate information to the people.  
     
I would argue that it is only through public broadcasting that we can get an unbiased view of 
the world. The news divisions of public broadcasters like the CBC, BBC, and ABC in Australia will not allow 
its content to be spun by government officials. (A refusal to compromise to corporate or government pressure is a sign
of a real journalist) With a clear mandate to be responsible to the people, (not profits) a news organization is much
more likely to tell the truth. By contrast, you can't guarantee such honesty with a giant media conglomerate that 
is only responsible to its shareholders. There isn't much profit in detailed and rational analysis of the world around us. 
There is lots of money to be made by selling fear.   

To my American friends, I'm sorry to say...you don't have any credible mainstream sources of journalism on your
airwaves, with the possible exception of CSPAN or the woefully under-funded PBS. During the CBC lockout, I watched
American news and had a hard time finding much real journalism. It was hard for me to decide which media entity
was most likely to tell the truth. Was it NBC, owned by General Electric, maker of nuclear and chemical weapons?
Would they have any interest in seeing a culture of violence and fear continue? How about CNN? Their parent
company sells entertainment: movies and magazines. Maybe there's a reason why CNN spends so much time
focusing on celebrity culture. In fact, all of the major US networks are just small parts of larger companies.
They have no economic interest telling people The truth. Seven Giant Companies own almost everything
you watch, read, and hear. There isn't much quality out there. Still, there is one special network that is far crappier
than all of the others. This network is a complete farce; its "journalism" is unworthy of being referred to as news.
I'll save my impressions of this network and its "panem et circenses" for next time.

_________________________________________________________________
October 10th, 2005
Open It Up
One of the world's better political entities, The European Union, is considering expansion. Though still
a work in progress, the European Union gives the world an example of how to achieve meaningful political 
reform. To become an EU member, civil society in an applicant country must meet very high standards, the
so-called "Copenhagen Criteria." To join the European family, an applicant country must...

have achieved stability of its institutions guaranteeing democracy, the 
rule of law, human rights and respect for the protection of minorities.

have a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with
competitive pressure and market forces within the EU.

Sounds pretty good eh? Every country in Europe must guarantee its citizens a high standard of democracy,
the rule of law, protection of human rights, and a functioning capitalist economy. These are pretty much
standard expectations for all of us in the West. Suppose for a moment that you were a citizen of a country
that could not currently guarantee these most elementary things. The possibility of EU membership would 
give your nation great incentive to become a better place. The steps taken to meet the Copenhagen standard
could only ensure positive political reform. It has already happened in former Soviet-Bloc states like 
Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 

Four more nations have started talks with Brussels, hoping to become EU members. There are about one 
hundred million people in Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. For these nations to become part of the
European Union, about one hundred million people would first see their nations become freer and more 
democratic, bound by law to become more progressive states. 

The most interesting case of the new applicant states is that of Turkey. Turkey is much poorer than most 
of Europe. To join the EU, it would have to significantly raise the standard of living for many of its 
citizens. More significantly, Turkey is a Muslim nation. If Turkey joined the EU, it would show that Europe 
is not only home for white Christians, but for people of other cultures and faiths as well. Turkey's membership
would be a unification of civilizations, not a clash. Muslims and Christians would have to work together, 
partners in a greater union. This is dialogue between cultures. This could only be positive. 

If Turkey can bring itself up to standard, it will be a triumph for Europe. (despite the claims of
many that the main result would be a Turkish migrant work force in every other country) Welcoming Turkey into 
the Union would send a strong signal to the rest of the world. Bridges can be built between civilizations. 
Islam is not incompatible with modern societies. We are not all so different. There must be incentive for
people to make their countries better places. You can't democratize a nation by bombing it. To do so only 
ensures more conflict. In light of the catastrophic failure of the Americans in Iraq, Turkey can be a shining
example to the Islamic world. Turkey will be a free Muslim nation with a high standard of living. Turkey will
be dedicated to the rights of the individual and the rule of law. In partnership with the West, a Muslim 
country will join the "first world."

Again, Europe is leading the way. It has given nations incentive to set aside centuries-old rivalries. It has
given us all a positive vision of what the world can be. This is how you stop terrorism, by bringing people in.
Though Turkey's membership in the European Union is still likely a decade away, the work to bring it in has 
already begun. It is encouraging to see a new source of positive leadership in the world. Europe is showing us
all how to live together. Brussels may yet undo the damage that Washington has done. There is still cause for
optimism in today's fractured world. Çok tesekkur ederim!
 
_________________________________________________________________
Archives
Main Page