Well normally a new addition to the short list that is my blogroll doesn’t usually call for a post; what usually happens is that I forget about it (along with my visitors) just moments after the deed is done.

However, like our featured guest in my previous entry, I too get excited and get that all over good feeling when a substantial blog shares a similar philosophy to my own. Sure Ezra and I part ways in our views, he choosing free speech over anything and everything, me focusing on the real issues in question; he being hostile, antagonistic and emotionally-laden and me trying my bestest to be fair, open-minded and unattached, but I’m sure we share the same sensations?

Ok, enough of that and more of the amazing discovery - I would hate to have Ezra show his teeth over me expressing myself (tee-hee).

Serendipitously, like many great discoveries, I stumbled upon this inspirational site called News Hounds. I’m sure I’m not the first to do so, but I haven’t read any Canadian blogs talk about it and it is a perfect talking point for the freedom of expression debate. Basically, you have a group of 7 or 8 like-minded individuals watching Fox News on a regular basis so they can point out the flaws and biases within their reporting. Before I go on speaking on their behalf and further describing what they do, hear is what they have to say about themselves through their manifesto:

For approximately three months, each of us watched FNC conscientiously for five or more hours a week and posted our findings regarding Fox’s self-proclaimed mission of fair and balanced reporting.

Appalled by our results, we, who would not meet in person until months later, banded together in cyberspace in concern and outrage over the failure of American media, and Fox News in particular, to relate the news properly. Rather than serve as the public’s eyes and ears, Fox and other media conglomerates have become echo chambers for the rich and powerful with whom they have become all too cozy. This blog is an attempt to counter that alarming condition. We believe that a viable democracy depends upon viable media.

The Fox News Slut Cartoon (sorry, couldn’t resist)

Essentially they are doing pretty much what many of the far-right bloggers recommended for the Osgoode Four Three. Does it seem to be working? I can’t say for sure but they are definitely having some impact. They certainly don’t have the resources and finances to compete with Fox News, Time Warner and the like but that ain’t stopping them. Their driving force is passion for a cause and good ole fashion hard work and dedication. Maybe the Steyn supporters had somewhat of a feasible solution?

Before leaving this one as a total score for my opponents–by virtue of my balanced and analytical approach–I will say a couple of things with respect to the Maclean’s case in Canada. It is true, undoubtedly, that the Osgoode team would not have received the attention they did if it were not for the complaint. It would have taken them years to come near the level of publicity and access they were granted by the various newspapers that graciously supplied a platform for them to express their views (for the purpose of business of course). But maybe that is just the way it should be…the unheard are just that and to be heard they must do so on an unlevel playing field.

Moreover, unlike the U.S., Canada has unique legislation that unquestionably weighs in on this situation. We have the Multiculturalism Act (1988) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) which are distinctly Canadian. They recognize legislatively and therefore are a semblance of our societal values; that Canada is a truly diverse nation, one in which we take pride in and make reasonable steps to ensure its presence and unification. In similar form to the way the freespeechers suggest to move elsewhere if minorities and others don’t want a democratic society where freedom of expression is its bedrock, I say the same if you can’t accept the reality of what Canada is. Where does this leave the question of minority concerns with respect to journalism, it’s still unclear, but perhaps the printed press should be held more accountable and have some formal system dealing with these kinds of issues.

On a different note, to lighten up the mood, here’s the News Hound post that caught my eye: Fox News Provides Report on Poor, Victimized, Mark Steyn - And Provides Commentary From A Neo Nazi, Too!. The author and audience see Mark Steyn’s writing for what it is, and the post does a number on Steyn (and neo-nazi) supporter Paul Fromm too.

Here are a couple of musings from the comments section that I got a kick out of:

“Isn’t Steyn living in New Jersey illegally?”

When referring to Steyn’s demographics argument, “Thanks Mark Steyn, that’s just what this world needs…motivation for racist idiots to start a baby making contest.”

And last but not least, “Steyn is Canadian? I thought he was from Australia. And doesn’t he live in Jersey? Or Vermont? I want to see proof of citizenship. As far as anyone knows he was born in Iran. Deport this illegal alien now!”

In his article titled, Racial bias starts close to home, the Toronto Star’s Royson James gives his two cents on the media’s role in preventing racial bias. 

He begins by reviewing the Star’s week long series on crime and punishment, a rather detailed inquiry and analysis of the racial discrepancies within Canada’s criminal justice system, and noting how studies and reports here and abroad have evidenced racial profiling and discrimination.  Following his somewhat cursory review he concludes that: 

All this provides scientific justification, applied with academic rigour, for claims we are biased. It gives people not predisposed to hate or blame reason to pause. To some, though, it is a red flag

That’s all fine and dandy, but now for his insights.

He self-admits that the media is partly to blame, yet doesn’t stop there:

While we must report the news, and bad news sells, greater care is needed to provide off-setting images of groups that tend to be featured in violent crime and crimes with a high media quotient

His ‘epiphany’ comes next:

If disaffected black youths in socially neglected neighbourhoods play out gang feuds on our streets – events that naturally cause alarm – there must be counter-images, or we will all think “gun violence” when we think “black.”

Hmm, counter-images what a great idea!  No limits on press coverage, topics, reporting etc.  Instead, in effect, he suggests more coverage and more views with greater diversity.  The only problem he hasn’t solved is getting recalcitrant editors to entertain such a deplorable practice.

For all you free speech naysayers out there, this one’s for you.  A quick primer on the devastating effects of media characterizations and their unparalleled ability to influence public perception followed by some “leftist” theorizing. 

When reading, keep in mind that it has never been the position of this site that journalists be censured or expression be impeded; we are more concerned with large-scale media outlets being held more accountable for their pivotal role in society and the power they wield.

(Note:  This site fully supports the right to expression, open and public debate and participation in the marketplace of ideas for all).

A Personal Account of the American Media Shift:  Pre and Post Revolutionary Iran

Professor Flora Keshishian, recent Fulbright Award recipient, is also an Iranian immigrant to America.  In one of her scholarly articles (Keshishian, F.  (2000).  Acculturation, Communication, and the U.S. Media: The Experience of an Iranian Immigrant.  Howard Journal of Communication 11 93-106), she provides a personal perspective on the traumatizing impact of media characterizations and stereotyping.

To keep this brief and to the point I will put context to the excerpts and let Professor Keshishian’s words tell the story.

The time period is the 444 days including and following November 4, 1979, the day of the infamous “hostage crisis” of Americans in Iran, during the unsettled post revolutionary atmosphere.  U.S.-Iran relations instantly deteriorated and the media coverage became fragmented, incomprehensive and ideologically oriented:

…In a manner reminiscent of the experiences of the Japanese Americans in the 1940s, Iranians in the United States became scapegoats and suffered harassment and covert discrimination, mainly because of their national heritage (Ansari)

…Instead of clearly discussing the socio-politico economic forces that lead to the revolution, the U.S. press made the situation in Iran look like a recurrence of a crusader’s war, Islam versus Christianity

 …In and of themselves these images were not problematic because they do respresent parts of Iranian culture.  But the association the American public had made, because of the way the media had presented the images, was problematic.  These negative perceptions were further intensified by references to Iranian leaders as “antimodern,”fundamentalist,” and ‘irrational”; and referred to people in Iran as “religious fanatics,” “leftist-backed,” and “backward.”

 …What was a relatively postiive, though still stereotypical and oversimplified, prerevolution and prehostage image of Iran–hospitality, Persian carpets, oil, caviar–vanished. 

…During the hostage period, I heard stories about Iranian immigrants who had been attacked–a woman who had been raped and, in another incident, a few men who had been beaten in a bar–because they were Iranian

…These incidents affected me to a point where I no longer felt comfortable identifying myself as Iranian, and I was not alone in feeling this way.  According to Ansari (1988), “the anti-Iranian reaction was so widespread that it forced Iranian Americans to misrepresent their ethnic identity”

Just Another Example of Hurt Feelings?

The preceding historical reflection is not assumed to be a novel, mind-blowing description of an unexplored sociological phenomenon.  Surely it will be dismissed as one of the costs of living in a free and democratic society.  However, in my view, it was worthy of a post if not for the fact of its educational value, then for the mere purpose of re-publicizing a point of view that is far too often left out.

Most importantly, however, it is a documented account of the American media’s recurring practice of vilification. As a result, individuals residing within American borders are absorbing the adverse effects of the U.S. government’s severed diplomatic relations with a foreign nation and actions unrelated to them.  Flowing from this media offensive is a degraded quality of life, marginalization, discrimination and, at times, a threat to the security of the person for residents of the same ethnic background as the enemy state. 

The press, no doubt, have an incredibly important role to play and expression, debate, discussion and the exchange of ideas are indeed the cornerstones of a functional democracy.  With that said, I have yet to witness any tool or profession that is immune from misuse, abuse and the potential to run awry.  All our rights and freedoms, some of which are arguably more sacred than expression (life, liberty and security of the person) have at times been attenuated for the benefit of the people. However, It is only when the restraints and restrictions are tugging at the coat tails of the aristocracy that they become a problem.

Everything and everyone needs checks and balances, and in absence of them, not imposition, there then becomes an increased risk for totalitarianism.

On January 15, 2000, then fill-in anchor for CTV Newsnet Avery Haines made what turned out to be a very poor judgment call during the taping of her report. Moving past her minor script blunder, she continued on by ranting to an off camera technician, as she assumed that this would not get aired, by making fun of a variety of minorities:

I kind of like the little stuttering thing. It’s like equal opportunity, right? We’ve got a stuttering newscaster. We’ve got the Black, we’ve got the Asian, we’ve got the woman. I could be a lesbian, folk-dancing, Black woman stutterer. What’s that? In a wheelchair … with a gimping, rubber leg. Yeah, really. I’d have a successful career, let me tell you.

Naturally the segment was re-done but due to a technician’s mistake, the tape with the derogatory comment was aired later on that day. Avery Haines was fired from her position two days later during a time of heightened controversy over her remarks.

Several non-governmental organizations raised complaints that Haines’s comments were a reflection of the widespread bigotry against minorities in Canada.

This incident prompted many of her media colleagues in a frenzied defense of her actions and therefore the profession itself.

Borrowing heavily from Henry and Tator’s work on how the media responds to an attack on itself (Discourses of Domination: Racial bias in the Canadian English-Language Press), we can see how the media “closes ranks when one of their own has made inappropriate remarks.”

Outlined in their work is the identification of rhetorical strategies and argumentative discourses utilized by the profession to defend one of their colleagues. For a full analytical description of these strategies please visit the authors’ page here. For now, a satisfactory description of the first and most often used tactic will be layed out, followed by a simple listing of the remainder.

Discourse of Denial: This is Not Prejudicial or Discriminatory Behaviour

- Denial is usually followed by claims that people of colour and other minority groups are hypersensitive about prejudice and discrimination and often see bias where there is none.

These denials are based on a very limited understanding of how racism manifests itself in contemporary society. As noted in a previous post, racism is not the overt expressions that most journalists see as problematic and discriminatory, it is of a more sophisticated kind, draped in clever rhetoric and usually aligned with extreme political movements.

Examples of the discourse of denial:

• ‘There was nothing insulting or derogatory about what she said.’ (Christine Blatchford, This is CTV. You Will Not Be Funny,’ National Post, 18 January 2000).
• ‘Neither Mr. Kowalski nor anyone else has yet identified what, precisely was so objectionable in her comments.’ (Andrew Coyne, ‘To Air Is Human,’ National Post, 19 January 2000).
• ‘One of the most active groups in challenging discrimination in this country is the Canadian Jewish Congress and it is significant that it has issued not a word about the incident.’ (Michael Coren, ‘Apology Should Have Ended It,’ Toronto Sun 20 January 2000).

The Discourse of Reverse Discrimination: Avery Haines is the Real Victim

The Discourse of Rationalization, Justification, Minimalization, and Mitigation: ‘It Was Only a Commonplace Joke Heard Everyday; It Was the Techies Fault’

The Discourse of Otherness and Bipolarization: Political Correctness, Identity Politics, and Tyranny of Special Interest Groups versus Avery Haines, the Good, Compassionate, Fair-Minded Individual

The Discourse of Coercion and Oppressive Public Policies: Employment Equity Legislation is an Unneccessary and Discriminatory Intervention

The Discourse of Popular Support; Most People Don’t Think What Avery Haines Did Was Wrong

This aforementioned list of strategies is not exhaustive; they are the ones most commonly employed to the specific situation discussed above. Stay tuned for a more representative, analysis with modern day relevance; although through time the tactics used simply resurface in a cyclical manner through various forms of rhetoric and different guises.