A day or so ago, there was a media panel on MSNBC that caught my attention as I was surfing channels. It was about Elon Musk, one of the richest individuals in the world, and his takeover bid for Twitter, that enormous microblogging and social networking conglomerate.
Astonishingly, one of the media talking heads said that Elon Musk could “actually control exactly what people think.” So far so good, he probably is. But then came the zinger when she added, “That is our job.” What an incredible statement which, as far as I could see, was not challenged by anyone around the table.
Sadly, however, that moment of perhaps unintended clarity is something we all need to think about at a time when our world is changing so rapidly, when fake news has become a household word and disinformation a pretty powerful weapon.
So, the question is, does mainstream media attempt to control the way we think? If true, are they effective at that and should (or can) anything be done about it? Have we reached the point where the fundamental democratic principal of a free press and free speech needs to be redefined? And if we have reached that point, how do we go about it?
Perhaps because of my brief moment watching the media panel on MSNBC, my antennae were up and I started to ask myself what was behind some of the stories I was reading and seeing. The ones that caught my eye were not bold-faced examples of misinformation, but more subtle, which is perhaps, more concerning.
One, not surprisingly, was in the Toronto Star, acknowledged champions of the left on the political spectrum. On Friday, the Star published a story about a Conservative backbencher being sued by an ex-lover who has alleged that she owes him $30,000. Officials of the paper itself touted it as the best-read story of the day.
Why? Because the accompanying picture was a file photo of Premier Ford with that particular MPP and his then-girlfriend. There can be only one reason to publish that picture and that is to associate Ford with an allegation not proven, and in any event that had absolutely nothing to do with the premier but nonetheless was intended to make people think negatively about him. Without the picture, the story would not have made the back page. With a provincial election looming, it was just an unwarranted “trash Ford” moment for the Toronto Star.
Today, CTV News published an online article with the headline, “Conservative leadership candidate Aitchison calls carbon tax ‘effective’ but would scrap it.” What Scott Aitchison actually said on CTV’s Question Period this morning, in response to a question by host Evan Soloman, was that while the carbon tax might be the most effective way to deal with the problem, it was fundamentally unfair to Canadians and that is why he would come up with an alternate solution. There is a huge difference in those two statements.
Many readers do not go beyond the headline and those that do are often influenced by what they first read, regardless of what follows. And so, I think it is fair to ask: what impression of Aitchison’s statement did CTV want to leave with readers to think about? Is that, as the MSNBC media commentator said, their job?
I have always been wary of censorship in any form, with the exception of those areas that are protected by law, such as libel, slander, and hate speech. I am particularly opposed to censorship by governments or by government-appointed agencies, of any political stripe, who have, by definition, partisan reasons for influencing what people are told or what they should think. At the very least it is a conflict of interest. At its worst, it can lead to a frightening abuse of power.
Given the complexity, availability, and expanse of communication venues today, it is understandable that some oversight, regulation, and control of internet sites is necessary. The great challenge, the necessary challenge in my view, will be to accomplish this without bipartisan appointments and control so that no single political entity is ever in the position of deciding what the population should know or believe.
I also believe that government has no business subsidizing newspapers or, for that matter, any news sources. The current penchant of the Trudeau government to do so is concerning as is the selection of who should benefit from such public generosity. Few organizations will bite the hand that feeds them, and no member of the media should accept financial assistance from governments for whom they believe they have oversight in the public interest. It just doesn’t wash.
That brings us inexorably to the CBC. There is a growing cry for them to be defunded, especially from some Conservative leadership candidates. I do not share that view, at least not entirely.
CBC Radio has a lot going for it and in my view is relatively balanced in its reporting and commentary. It is also an important voice for many of Canada’s cultural and historical issues. It often deals with matters and content that are important to the Canadian mosaic, but not commercially viable. They deserve public support.
CBC Television is quite another matter. They are, at times, little more than an extension of the government’s public relations machine. At the least, they know how to cheer for the home team. They should not be subsidized by the government, and it is alarming to see that the Trudeau administration is suggesting that CBC News should be relieved of the need to attract advertisers, giving the government what is, effectively, total control.
I do not advocate the demise of CBC Television news. I suppose they have the same right for political bias as other news outlets. But they should not be subsidized in any way by government. They should compete on a level playing field with every other news outlet by attracting advertisers to support their existence. To that extent, and that extent only, I support defunding.
The Globe and Mail journalist Andrew Coyne has recently said there needs to be a separation of news and state. I agree with him. I also believe we need to get rid of government subsidies for all news outlets and we need to find a way to hold mainstream media accountable for misinformation and fake news. I am well aware that is a tall order, especially in this day and age, and possibly not totally achievable.
What we need to guard against now at all costs, however, are those in the media, or in the government for that matter, who really believe their job is to ‘control what people think’.
That is the great and present danger.
Hugh Mackenzie
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
Bev Belanger says
I feel that if news had to get their revenue from business sponsors, then the same big businesses who lobby our government, will try to control who we favour in elections for their own interests. Profits are their goal….so whichever party will support them in that goal, will fund only those news agencies. Not the way to go! Profits for business will always be more important to them than social issues.
I think that if we educate our young properly on how to interpret news stories, and dissect the “hidden agenda”, then that would be better for all. Quality education is never wasted.
James H Boyes says
Hugh,
Another good column. As is usually the case my views are close to yours but are less nuanced and not quite so moderate.
CBC television should not be publicly financed. If it can’t survive without it it should simply be shut down. It is an hugely inneficient and bloated bureaucracy with vice presidents and managers tripping over each other. The public has long since voted with their radio dials and chosen other sources of information. The ratings prove it. I think that many thinking Canadians simply tired of the constant left wing whining, complaining and socialistic, jargon-filled “news” coverage and Toronto centric themes on offer from CBC. The ratings for CBC news show it..
The best thing about CBC radio isn’t the programing but that it provides a refuge for the casual radio listner from the mindless, invariably superficial rubbish on offer by most local radio stations which fill the airwaves with horribly noisy programing and noisy ads which assault one’s brain and even in the background are fatiguing and headach producing.
I do yearn for the days of Peter Gzoski , Lister Sinclair and a certain few others where one be heard entertaining and informative programing. Sadly missed.
The above is why I seldom listen to the radio.
Anna-Lise Kear says
It seems to me that we have always needed and should be an educated public when it comes to media. We are the filters. As I understand, our news, which comes immediately in digital age, and is also siphoned into partisan reads by Internet AI is dangerous. We can become mesmerized (even radicalized) if online, reading what we are fed by algorithms. I learned this about myself during the bone-chilling SH years.
It is essential for me to be open to an opposing view – however, I have to get past the rhetoric of the title to engage in the read. If newspapers had to read like books, one has to get past the first page in order to invest the time into reading. Newspaper titles are like the first page of a book that I am deciding to read. Mr. Mackenzie, your article is balanced – thank you, I’ll take a deeper dive.
Faye McKnight says
Is it the truth? truth is impartial, disinterested, by its very nature without favoritism — and hence fair. Editors have a job and it seems the position today comes with no fences, no rules, only dollar signs and readership percentages.
It is difficult to discern false news without spending hours trying to find the truth. And often the trail is lost due to the chatter of more inconsequential and misleading information.
Gone are the days of turning on the radio or television to get the “news” (the truth) meant to inform us of some event we would otherwise not be privy to, without bias.
Society is drawn to the macabre, the sensational, the desire to see bad things rather than searching for the good things of value. How many times do we see videos of people filming, with their phones, an event which will get them likes 👍 on FB or Twitter or TikTok. The desire to be in the spotlight has long left “real news” hiding in the corner. It, real news, does not draw readership or viewers. As you stated, if Ford was not in the photo, it would not had received any attention at all. I am not sure we can turn this situation around because of society’s greed for attention; being “influencers” or only hearing what they want to hear. Control is the desire, whether political or otherwise. Money rules the day. Profits are to be increased with no thought to how they are accomplished. Real news rarely exists because most of the world doesn’t want to look at, or hear, it.
A very sad statement of our society at large. News has become advertising for political purpose and very intentional in where it wants to lead us. Not sure there is an answer to this problem as it has been out of control for so long. We just have to look to the USA news providers and then look at our own to realize we are, have been, on the same path for a while. Elon and Mark with continue to battle it out with more money than anyone could imagine to play with. As long as the public uses these types of media, “the beat goes on”.
Faye McKnight
Brian Tapley says
It is somewhat telling that the “news”, is often interrupted these days by commercials for that very news program. This is especially true from some USA networks, and yes, in an effort to actually get a slightly more balanced picture I do look at ABC, NB, and occasionally even FOX and CNN. They all do this.
BBC is one that tends to give a larger world view and does not self advertise nearly like the USA stations.
I figure if the news you are giving is so poor in quality that you need to interrupt it with ads to boost the number of subscribers well it is pretty bad.
I was suspicious of many news outlets before, but after Trump much more so. He adds a whole new dimension to brainwashing. Some of his supporters seem to need only a light rinse.
The internet is another animal completely as the forces that fund and try to control what is seen here are less obvious and better at their efforts. Nothing on the internet should be taken as true at first viewing. Fact checking has become an industry of substance due to this feature of the internet.
Then there are the Lobbyists. We used to call this “bribery” but it seems lobbying is merely a “legal bribery” technique. They would be better not to exist at all.
Our democratic system only works when people in general not only have access to the correct and true facts but actually take the time to read or listen and comprehend what they all mean. Short term memory is great but to make progress as a country you need a more long term view and this requires that we remember some history along the way.
I’m always very suspicious when a government or government mandated agency starts to be less than transparent and forthcoming with explanations that make sense. Generally secrecy here is a sign that whomever is in charge would rather you and I don’t know what they are doing and of course one needs to wonder why that might be. An honest mistake by someone in a government position is generally excusable, we all make them. Mistakes might be expensive but they can be fixed and learned from for a better future but an attempted cover up of something not popular with misinformation or outright false data, (Trumps “fake news”) is not to be tolerated.
Hugh has a good point and reasons to be worried.
I think there might be a misprint in Hugh’s article where he mentions the law suit for $30,000.00. I don’t know about you but if somebody wanted to sue me because they claim that they owe me that money I’d just take the money and say thank you. More probably they are asking the politician to pay them the money but that is just how it reads.
John Bullock says
Hugh, good commentary on a smelly subject. Why not add an additional step to the “government should not be funding media” bent and not allow private donations to political parties. If we suspect governments are pressuring media outlets they fund, then we would also suspect the same type of pressure from private citizens who have donated large sums of money (or favours) to political parties. We see too many connections between wealthy private citizens and politicians. It’s time to end this.
Hugh Holland says
I share your concerns Hugh, but from a slightly different perspective, A media bias website rates all American media as far left, moderate left, center, moderate right, far right. Far right FOX reflects the views of billionaire owner Rupert Murdock and his advertisers. Left leaning CNN reflects the views of billionaire owner Ted Turner and his advertisers. In both cases its all about attracting advertising dollars based on number of viewers. In fact, public media like the BBC, CBC, PBS, and NPR are least likely to be biased because they can never be sure which party will be their next employer.
In general, ethical journalism allows complete freedom of expression, except for: 1) Spreading hate, 2) Inciting violence, and 3) Information the publisher knows to be false. Of course, these are all subject to interpretation.
The debate in Canada right now is about finding a way to deal with the US based “social media” that played such a prominent role in organizing and funding hate groups in Canada and the so-called “freedom convoy” that was anything but.
The big social media companies have become ridiculously profitable by being essentially exempt from the standards of ethical journalism. They have zero cost of researching and packaging factual information. They make their money by selling information about their users to commercial and political interests. They argue that they do not create the information, they simply distribute it. However, the algorithms in their business model clearly act to amplify and distort the messages they distribute. Their algorithms can make the controversial opinion of one person look like a million people. Russia did that to influence the 2016 US election and others. To quote a recent New York Times article, “When you’re in the business of maximizing engagement, you’re not interested in truth. You’re not interested in harm, divisiveness, conspiracy. In fact, those are your friends.”
Ethical media rules should prohibit the use of algorithms that amplify and distort the message. That would make social media more ethical and reduce their profits to socially responsible levels. They may even have to charge a user fee like other media. An alternative idea on the table in the US is to transform social media companies into public utilities like the post office, since they claim they are only involved in distributing information, not creating it.
Craig Nakamoto says
I agree with Bev. One of the most effective ways of dealing with this issue is educating children about media and how to recognize bias, hidden agendas, false news, advertising, and political interference. I think there is still one course in High School that touches on this, but it should be much more of a priority in our curriculum. Which leads me to a broader comment, which is that our education system is broken and is in desperate need of help. This is a root problem that is affecting everything else. The elementary and high school required curriculums should include practical subjects like: media studies, interpersonal communication, personal finances, first aid, etc. And I don’t mean all rolled up in one or two optional courses, I mean spread out and repeated in various mandatory courses, throughout grades 1 to 12.
Allen Markle says
The ‘News’ can be so boring. It ideally should deal with the facts, but it’s hard to get good ratings without the ‘what ifs’ and suppositions; both of which are fortes of CBC TV. That’s were the good stuff comes from. There was even the song “Dirty Laundry” by don Henley back in the early 80’s, which seems to have been the template for real good ratings. But it’s not the ‘News’.
We have likely all heard accusations made against some person, nothing proven, just accused in media, and noted to ourselves and others, that the poor soul can now be referred to as ‘Toast’ because they have been burned. Hard to come back from such a scorching. Later, even if the report is proven to be false, that smell lingers.
In the past we said certain media was left of center. Now it’s left, left field, far left, far out and “can you still see me over here?” Or right; just to be fair. Won’t come across that (fairness) in a lot of reporting.
Today’s media has a penchant for working a topic until it whimpers; ’til most people just say “Enough”. True, some stories are ongoing; but the recent pandemic allowed every doctor with an office and everybody with a well voiced opinion, to disseminate the facts. How many times and ways do you have to be asked to wear a mask, wash your hands and keep you distance?
We have vast quantities of information at our beck and call, but searching in the same place and from the same source, every time, delivers someone else’s ‘truth’. It also narrows the body of information we can winnow through to find our own personal ‘truth’.
We have to do this ourselves, because mainstream media really just requires we be entertained and attentive.
Being informed and aware, is our own problem.
Nancy Long says
CBC was created to counteract the USA media influence on us. It still serves this purpose. Maybe it’s a bloated bureaucracy and this could be looked at for cost effectiveness. However, I believe that people need to become critical consumers of news and media. And the CBC helps balance this.