Breaking news this week! Scientists in the UK have now definitively stated that science has proven that the chicken came first in the age old conundrum “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”
According to these eggheads (sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun) a certain protein that is found in the chicken’s ovaries governs crystal growth and is found only in the hard part of the egg shell. Using the UK national supercomputer in Edinburgh, the scientists concluded that the protein to create the egg comes from the chicken and, therefore, the chicken must have come first otherwise the egg could not have been formed. That’s my non-scientific parsing of the scientific studies.
But why all the fuss and fuming over the question in the first place? The answer was always obvious. God made the wild animals according to their kins, the livestock according to their kinds and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (Gen. 1:25).
Ain’t science wonderful. How many thousand years to confirm what God had already stated?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Sorry., I’m white and male and therefore, apparently, not part of Canada
So we’ve got a new Governor General.
Trouble is—for the politically correct crowd—he’s white, male and from Ontario! Heaven’s above that cannot be allowed.
All the grumps in academia and liberal think tanks weighed in. One expert in constitutional law from York University pontificated that this choice of GG did not reflect the “diversity” of Canada and therefore was a poor choice. Never mind that the man was eminently qualified. Never mind that he has a strong hold on both bipartisanship (he served both Liberal and Conservative governments) or that he himself is a constitutional law expert—something, given the arguments over coalitions and proroguing would surely be a good thing in our days of minority government.
But no. For the PC brigade he doesn’t represent diversity. Let’s forget that the past two GG’s have surely done that (Adrienne Clarkson and Michaelle Jean—female, non-white, non-traditional career paths). Let’s forget that—believe it or not—white males are also part of Canada. Let’s forget that Ontario is still part of Canada and, because it is the most populous, therefore the largest pool of people for any position going. Let’s forget that there are still a lot of white males living in Canada.
It is becoming very obvious that in this country if you are white, male and anything over the age of 40 you are immediately a) not representative of Canada anymore; b) to be denigrated at all times; c) will not be considered for any jobs or positions in any way shape of form as long as there are others available; and most importantly, d) you are responsible for all crimes—cultural, religious, political, social—perpetrated against anyone who considers himself or herself a victim at any time in history since at least 1100 AD (I wanted to make sure the Crusades were not forgotten).
What a whacky non-connected world these people live in. And the sad thing is, their pompous and elitist view of how things should be only exacerbates things. Instead of addressing the true evils of society, they build straw man arguments that detract society’s attention. More importantly my fear is that this kind of stupidly thought out political correctness may drive people into the more extreme right wing folds.
But then, in their eyes, I already am a condemned extremist. After all, I am white and male. Sorry about that.
Trouble is—for the politically correct crowd—he’s white, male and from Ontario! Heaven’s above that cannot be allowed.
All the grumps in academia and liberal think tanks weighed in. One expert in constitutional law from York University pontificated that this choice of GG did not reflect the “diversity” of Canada and therefore was a poor choice. Never mind that the man was eminently qualified. Never mind that he has a strong hold on both bipartisanship (he served both Liberal and Conservative governments) or that he himself is a constitutional law expert—something, given the arguments over coalitions and proroguing would surely be a good thing in our days of minority government.
But no. For the PC brigade he doesn’t represent diversity. Let’s forget that the past two GG’s have surely done that (Adrienne Clarkson and Michaelle Jean—female, non-white, non-traditional career paths). Let’s forget that—believe it or not—white males are also part of Canada. Let’s forget that Ontario is still part of Canada and, because it is the most populous, therefore the largest pool of people for any position going. Let’s forget that there are still a lot of white males living in Canada.
It is becoming very obvious that in this country if you are white, male and anything over the age of 40 you are immediately a) not representative of Canada anymore; b) to be denigrated at all times; c) will not be considered for any jobs or positions in any way shape of form as long as there are others available; and most importantly, d) you are responsible for all crimes—cultural, religious, political, social—perpetrated against anyone who considers himself or herself a victim at any time in history since at least 1100 AD (I wanted to make sure the Crusades were not forgotten).
What a whacky non-connected world these people live in. And the sad thing is, their pompous and elitist view of how things should be only exacerbates things. Instead of addressing the true evils of society, they build straw man arguments that detract society’s attention. More importantly my fear is that this kind of stupidly thought out political correctness may drive people into the more extreme right wing folds.
But then, in their eyes, I already am a condemned extremist. After all, I am white and male. Sorry about that.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The misuse of technology…pass it on!
Technology is wonderful. It allows new and creative ways of communicating—take this blog for example—and opens up whole new audiences for writers such as myself.
So it is frustratingly annoying when this great technological era is scuppered by illogical and irresponsible use by people who should, but unfortunately don’t, know andy better!
I am referring to the inane email that come to my box and, I’m sure yours, with some tale of woe or else some demand that I return the email and send it on to five more friends if I really care about the sender. It used to be called a chain letter. Most sane people simply laughed them off as they dropped the letter in the garbage.
So what happens to those same sane people today? It came via email from a friend, so we must pass it on! And the chain email goes viral.
The worst examples come out of the political realm and are larded with conspiracy theories. There is rarely any proof of the allegations made in the emails. There is certainly no discernment showed by those who pass them on. A couple of months ago I got one of these e-chains that called on me to write a stern letter of admonition to my MP because “they” were removing God from the national psyche. Sounds terrible. Then I read on a bit more. The proof that was cited was that “they” had removed the phrase “In God We Trust” from our currency! Good grief. Those sending this nonsense around to all their friends obviously know nothing about Canada! Obviously some conspiracy theorist had taken an American e-chain and revised it for Canadian eyes by removing “write to your congressman” and replacing it with “write to your MP.” Too bad they were so stupid that they didn’t realize that no such saying has ever existed on Canadian currency. That’s only one example of hundreds of similarly ridiculous e-chains floating out there.
Shame on the perpetrator who came up with that lame email in the first place.
But may a thousand bedbugs bedevil those whose lack of intelligence, knowledge, thought, research and just plain common sense, led them to send that email on to their contacts—and thus to me. Sad to say I got the same email from at least six of my “friends”. I thought they had more discernment than that.
You can pass this one on.
So it is frustratingly annoying when this great technological era is scuppered by illogical and irresponsible use by people who should, but unfortunately don’t, know andy better!
I am referring to the inane email that come to my box and, I’m sure yours, with some tale of woe or else some demand that I return the email and send it on to five more friends if I really care about the sender. It used to be called a chain letter. Most sane people simply laughed them off as they dropped the letter in the garbage.
So what happens to those same sane people today? It came via email from a friend, so we must pass it on! And the chain email goes viral.
The worst examples come out of the political realm and are larded with conspiracy theories. There is rarely any proof of the allegations made in the emails. There is certainly no discernment showed by those who pass them on. A couple of months ago I got one of these e-chains that called on me to write a stern letter of admonition to my MP because “they” were removing God from the national psyche. Sounds terrible. Then I read on a bit more. The proof that was cited was that “they” had removed the phrase “In God We Trust” from our currency! Good grief. Those sending this nonsense around to all their friends obviously know nothing about Canada! Obviously some conspiracy theorist had taken an American e-chain and revised it for Canadian eyes by removing “write to your congressman” and replacing it with “write to your MP.” Too bad they were so stupid that they didn’t realize that no such saying has ever existed on Canadian currency. That’s only one example of hundreds of similarly ridiculous e-chains floating out there.
Shame on the perpetrator who came up with that lame email in the first place.
But may a thousand bedbugs bedevil those whose lack of intelligence, knowledge, thought, research and just plain common sense, led them to send that email on to their contacts—and thus to me. Sad to say I got the same email from at least six of my “friends”. I thought they had more discernment than that.
You can pass this one on.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
From the Redundant Department of Redundancy!
Why is it that so many journalists and broadcasters today opt for the obvious and easy clichés rather than provide meaningful and informative coverage?
This is a point I have ranted on about when I do the TV public affairs show Behind the Story and it never seems to change. (Maybe that’s a good thing, or else what would I have to rant about?).
Anyway, this little sound bite from a weather broadcast this morning bothered me. OK, I might be a bit cranky because of the heat and it might be minor, but it still seems ridiculous. Here we are in the middle of a heat wave with high humidity. So what do the Ken and Barbie talking heads on radio and TV always tell us after they’ve highlighted the temperatures and humidex forecasts? “It’s cooler by the lake?”
D’ya think!?
Why else do we go to the lake? Why do you think property is so desirable ‘by the lake’? Why is there such a crush of motorists heading up to cottage country in the middle of the heat wave—because it’s hotter and more humid by the lake?
I shake my head sometimes and wonder if these guys really review their scripts before broadcasting. It is a sad but true fact that too often, it’s easier to haul out the old bromides and jabber on with them than to either provide new and pertinent information or simply drop the obvious.
Sloppy journalism—which I will continue to highlight in this blog—is a pandemic today. Had I written or broadcast some of this stuff while at Ryerson, I never would have passed (and certainly not with honours).
Now pardon me while I try to seek relief from some of the sweltering heat. I hear it’s cooler by the lake.
This is a point I have ranted on about when I do the TV public affairs show Behind the Story and it never seems to change. (Maybe that’s a good thing, or else what would I have to rant about?).
Anyway, this little sound bite from a weather broadcast this morning bothered me. OK, I might be a bit cranky because of the heat and it might be minor, but it still seems ridiculous. Here we are in the middle of a heat wave with high humidity. So what do the Ken and Barbie talking heads on radio and TV always tell us after they’ve highlighted the temperatures and humidex forecasts? “It’s cooler by the lake?”
D’ya think!?
Why else do we go to the lake? Why do you think property is so desirable ‘by the lake’? Why is there such a crush of motorists heading up to cottage country in the middle of the heat wave—because it’s hotter and more humid by the lake?
I shake my head sometimes and wonder if these guys really review their scripts before broadcasting. It is a sad but true fact that too often, it’s easier to haul out the old bromides and jabber on with them than to either provide new and pertinent information or simply drop the obvious.
Sloppy journalism—which I will continue to highlight in this blog—is a pandemic today. Had I written or broadcast some of this stuff while at Ryerson, I never would have passed (and certainly not with honours).
Now pardon me while I try to seek relief from some of the sweltering heat. I hear it’s cooler by the lake.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Memorial of Flight 621
I cannot begin to fathom how the loss of close family members in a tragic air crash would affect me.
How would my life change and how would I cope with the feelings of loss and grief not only in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, but over the years.
This weekend I met some family members struggling after 40 years to deal with such a loss. On July 5 1970, Air Canada Flight 621 crashed into a farmer’s field in what is now Brampton. All 109 passengers and crew lost their lives. Sunday morning more than 100 family members from Montreal, Toronto and Los Angeles gathered at the crash site for a 40th anniversary remembrance event. It was the first time most of them had visited the ground where their loved ones perished.
My public relations company has been working with the landowners and developers in the area for the past two years, to work with the families and create an appropriate and respectful memorial garden on the site. Sunday’s event was the first many of the families knew about the plans and they were most appreciative. The media coverage we obtained for the developers was positive.
But I still reflect on the words and experiences many of the families shared. One man lost his flight attendant bride of 33 days. A Montreal woman lost her father. Another woman lost her mother and two young sisters. A woman lost an uncle, who happened to be the First Officer on Flight 621 and whom most investigators blamed for the tragedy; for pilot error when he deployed the spoilers too soon. She remained silent in the background, certainly aware of the raw emotions being shared and perhaps even carrying feelings of guilt for the uncle’s role in the disaster.
The remembrance event even brought some of my own life and career in full circle. On July 5 1970 I was a rookie reporter with the Toronto Star and helped cover that accident. I even earned the munificent sum of $50 for freelancing the coverage to the Los Angeles Times because so many Californians were on that Montreal-Los Angeles flight.
Each of us reacts to life-changing stresses and losses in different ways. For me, my deep and abiding faith is something I would certainly cling to. The pain and grief would be incalculable, I am sure, but I believe I would still be able to agree with the Apostle Paul when he said, “I know whom I have believed.”
Sharing Sunday morning with those families again brought home the inconsistencies and insecurities of life. It was a privilege to have shared that time with them.
How would my life change and how would I cope with the feelings of loss and grief not only in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, but over the years.
My public relations company has been working with the landowners and developers in the area for the past two years, to work with the families and create an appropriate and respectful memorial garden on the site. Sunday’s event was the first many of the families knew about the plans and they were most appreciative. The media coverage we obtained for the developers was positive.
The remembrance event even brought some of my own life and career in full circle. On July 5 1970 I was a rookie reporter with the Toronto Star and helped cover that accident. I even earned the munificent sum of $50 for freelancing the coverage to the Los Angeles Times because so many Californians were on that Montreal-Los Angeles flight.
Each of us reacts to life-changing stresses and losses in different ways. For me, my deep and abiding faith is something I would certainly cling to. The pain and grief would be incalculable, I am sure, but I believe I would still be able to agree with the Apostle Paul when he said, “I know whom I have believed.”
Sharing Sunday morning with those families again brought home the inconsistencies and insecurities of life. It was a privilege to have shared that time with them.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Words that annoy the French and how we should annoy the politically correct
I just finished a great read.
If you are interested in history and have a good sense of humour, let me recommend “1,000 Years of Annoying the French”. It is by English historian Stephen Clarke and available via Amazon.
I bought it at Heathrow Airport on my way home from Turkey. It’s long. It’s funny. It’s provocative.
From William the Conqueror in 1066 through the 100 Years War right up to Charles de Gaulle and the building of the Chunnel, Clarke rips and rolls his unique way through French-English history.
His comments about the French approach to national honour are particularly interesting in light of the French soccer team debacle in South Africa. As the team arrived home in shame, their leader Thierry Henry was called on the carpet in front of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. (Lest we get too smug, let’s consider how we respond when Team Canada fails in international hockey. Oh the ignominy! Oh the shame! Oh the national hand-wrenching!)
Now France (and Italy) begins the process of reviewing their national honour in light of their teams’ struggles in what is, after all, a game.
But where is the shame and hand-wrenching on things that really matter? Where is the national soul search when as a country we adopt policies or legislation that fly in the face of all that this country was founded upon? Where is the angst when Judaeo-Christian principles are mocked, stripped away and trampled upon by the politically correct brigade? Where is the anger when people who express a faith and a faith-based approach are ridiculed? Where is the shame when politicians are lambasted for mentioning God or expressing their faith in the course of their duties?
It’s easy to get our knickers in a knot over the inconsequential. But it’s a lot harder to tackle the tough issues our country faces.
It’s time to confront the PC elitists who have taken upon themselves the mantle of “protector” of fairness and equality when in reality they are anything but fair and equal. It’s time to challenge their false premise that any expression of faith or belief must be stamped down in the name of an inclusive society. Simply put, that’s BS and its time we stood up and said so.
Maybe it’s time to write a book “1,000 ways to annoy the Politically Correct”. Would I get any buyers?
If you are interested in history and have a good sense of humour, let me recommend “1,000 Years of Annoying the French”. It is by English historian Stephen Clarke and available via Amazon.
I bought it at Heathrow Airport on my way home from Turkey. It’s long. It’s funny. It’s provocative.
From William the Conqueror in 1066 through the 100 Years War right up to Charles de Gaulle and the building of the Chunnel, Clarke rips and rolls his unique way through French-English history.
His comments about the French approach to national honour are particularly interesting in light of the French soccer team debacle in South Africa. As the team arrived home in shame, their leader Thierry Henry was called on the carpet in front of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. (Lest we get too smug, let’s consider how we respond when Team Canada fails in international hockey. Oh the ignominy! Oh the shame! Oh the national hand-wrenching!)
Now France (and Italy) begins the process of reviewing their national honour in light of their teams’ struggles in what is, after all, a game.
But where is the shame and hand-wrenching on things that really matter? Where is the national soul search when as a country we adopt policies or legislation that fly in the face of all that this country was founded upon? Where is the angst when Judaeo-Christian principles are mocked, stripped away and trampled upon by the politically correct brigade? Where is the anger when people who express a faith and a faith-based approach are ridiculed? Where is the shame when politicians are lambasted for mentioning God or expressing their faith in the course of their duties?
It’s easy to get our knickers in a knot over the inconsequential. But it’s a lot harder to tackle the tough issues our country faces.
It’s time to confront the PC elitists who have taken upon themselves the mantle of “protector” of fairness and equality when in reality they are anything but fair and equal. It’s time to challenge their false premise that any expression of faith or belief must be stamped down in the name of an inclusive society. Simply put, that’s BS and its time we stood up and said so.
Maybe it’s time to write a book “1,000 ways to annoy the Politically Correct”. Would I get any buyers?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Complaints
It’s hot and humid, but repeat after me: I will not complain after the crappy summer we had last year!
Complaining is human nature, I guess. Last summer was too cold and too wet. The winter before was too snowy and cold. There’s not enough rain. There’s too much rain. It’s too sunny. It’s not sunny enough.
There has to be a balance point doesn’t there?
The complaints last week were all about the G8/G20 summits and the way Toronto was shut down. Not about the topics of discussion by the world leaders, of course, but more about the way our lives were disrupted. The Blue Jays game with the return of Roy Halladay was moved to Philadelphia, for crying out loud! This vibrant city becomes a ghost town on a summer weekend. Traffic disruption as motorcades roared up and down from cottage country carrying various and sundry world leaders. Very little water cooler talk though about AIDS, poverty in developing nations, infant mortality, nuclear development in North Korea and Iran, Sudan…well I could go on, but you get the picture.
Maybe it’s just that we can’t grasp the immensity of the problem; traffic we can understand and cope with, international aid and development we can’t. Maybe it’s because we feel powerless in the face of huge problems.
And so we complain about our weather issues or traffic issues or whether the Leafs should have given up those draft picks for Kessell.
Life is easier that way.
Complaining is human nature, I guess. Last summer was too cold and too wet. The winter before was too snowy and cold. There’s not enough rain. There’s too much rain. It’s too sunny. It’s not sunny enough.
There has to be a balance point doesn’t there?
The complaints last week were all about the G8/G20 summits and the way Toronto was shut down. Not about the topics of discussion by the world leaders, of course, but more about the way our lives were disrupted. The Blue Jays game with the return of Roy Halladay was moved to Philadelphia, for crying out loud! This vibrant city becomes a ghost town on a summer weekend. Traffic disruption as motorcades roared up and down from cottage country carrying various and sundry world leaders. Very little water cooler talk though about AIDS, poverty in developing nations, infant mortality, nuclear development in North Korea and Iran, Sudan…well I could go on, but you get the picture.
Maybe it’s just that we can’t grasp the immensity of the problem; traffic we can understand and cope with, international aid and development we can’t. Maybe it’s because we feel powerless in the face of huge problems.
And so we complain about our weather issues or traffic issues or whether the Leafs should have given up those draft picks for Kessell.
Life is easier that way.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
The book journey begins
How many times have you been told you can’t rest on your laurels?
For me, too many times!
Nevertheless, I am going to rest on a few laurels for a day or two before I get back to work. For three years I have been sweating away at a novel. Yes, the Great Canadian Novel (except that it takes place in three different centuries and nowhere in Canada) is slowly but surely gestating and growing. It is titled Caliburn and is set in three different times: the 6th, 14th and 21st centuries
I have been in the communication and media business for many years (don’t ask how many, I won’t tell) but writing fiction is a new challenge. It is a skill set that requires radical new ways (for me) of writing. And it is often a Catch 22 situation: if you don’t have an agent, you won’t get published but on the other hand, if you’re not published you can’t get an agent.
Well, the breakthrough occurred. I got an agent! I had contacted him a year ago. He agreed to take a look at it, but warned me that he was going to send it to an editor who would evaluate it for him before he agreed to take me on. Nice. Well last week the evaluation came through. Let me brag a bit. That hard-nosed editor’s response was “Wow!” and compared my book to a cross between Clive Cussler and Stephen Lawhead. At other places she compared me to Dan Brown. High company and my ego was well and truly flattered. Wow indeed!
The agent immediately offered to represent me and flog (my words, not his) the book to US publishers. Needless to say, I accepted.
So let me rest on the laurels for a while.
You see, this week the real work begins. Now I have to rewrite great chunks of it. I have to revise, change scenes, create more structure and better pacing and on and on and on. But I thought it was good?!
A friend recently told me that writers create good books, but editors make them.
So I am going to take his and the editor’s advice. Rewrite and revise will be my new mantra.
For me, too many times!
Nevertheless, I am going to rest on a few laurels for a day or two before I get back to work. For three years I have been sweating away at a novel. Yes, the Great Canadian Novel (except that it takes place in three different centuries and nowhere in Canada) is slowly but surely gestating and growing. It is titled Caliburn and is set in three different times: the 6th, 14th and 21st centuries
I have been in the communication and media business for many years (don’t ask how many, I won’t tell) but writing fiction is a new challenge. It is a skill set that requires radical new ways (for me) of writing. And it is often a Catch 22 situation: if you don’t have an agent, you won’t get published but on the other hand, if you’re not published you can’t get an agent.
Well, the breakthrough occurred. I got an agent! I had contacted him a year ago. He agreed to take a look at it, but warned me that he was going to send it to an editor who would evaluate it for him before he agreed to take me on. Nice. Well last week the evaluation came through. Let me brag a bit. That hard-nosed editor’s response was “Wow!” and compared my book to a cross between Clive Cussler and Stephen Lawhead. At other places she compared me to Dan Brown. High company and my ego was well and truly flattered. Wow indeed!
The agent immediately offered to represent me and flog (my words, not his) the book to US publishers. Needless to say, I accepted.
So let me rest on the laurels for a while.
You see, this week the real work begins. Now I have to rewrite great chunks of it. I have to revise, change scenes, create more structure and better pacing and on and on and on. But I thought it was good?!
A friend recently told me that writers create good books, but editors make them.
So I am going to take his and the editor’s advice. Rewrite and revise will be my new mantra.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thank you for our media
It never ceases to amaze me how insular our society is becoming.
More and more, people across Canada are seeking out and listening only to media outlets that agree with their particular viewpoint. Whether people are “right” or “Left”, there are media they watch or read because those outlets “tell the truth” and paragons of virtue. And, of course, those “other” media are the embodiment of the devil!
All too often this insularity is coupled with a lack of discernment. People readily believe something these days because they saw it on YouTube, or read about it on someone’s Twitter account. There is no fact-checking. There is no questioning. There is no thoughtful discourse. Only condemnation of those who hold alternative views.
I just finished taping another episode of Behind the Story a one hour public affairs show on the CTS network (see it Sunday night at 7 pm EST; or go to the CTS website online viewer) and it always amazes me and impresses me how many good journalists there are in newspapers and broadcast outlets across Canada.
And by good I mean concerned, informative, intelligent and insightful.
We covered a variety of topics on the show—from the firing of US General McChrystal to the G8/G20 meetings in Toronto, to the Vatican’s approval of the Blues Brothers and disapproval of Lady Gaga. Eclectic topics yes, but typical of this show’s broad range of discussion. The show tries to look behind the media coverage of such stories rather than discuss the stories themselves; how well (or poorly) was the news item covered, and were there any holes missing in the story?
We are lucky to live in a country where our media can cover all manner of news events. But we are also lucky to live in a country where we can ourselves question the media and its interpretations or bias (real or imagined). For those of us who make a living with words, these are important blessings that we far too often slough off as trifling.
Try explaining that attitude to those who live in countries where such freedom to communicate does not exist!
Does this mean I agree with everything another guest says on the programme? Or that they agree with me? No, but the show does demonstrate something that sadly is too often missing in today’s society—respect for opposing viewpoints.
I guess there will always be those who disparage The Star or CBC for being “liberal leftwing hot beds”, or those who rail against the Toronto Sun or National Post for their “right-wing demagoguery”. The fact of the matter is that all of them are doing a good job in difficult times of gleaning fact from fiction, right from wrong and truth from lies. We may not always agree with their conclusions or perspectives, but thank God they exist. Canada is a better place for them and its time we started drinking from the opposing cups once in a while. It might even be good for us
More and more, people across Canada are seeking out and listening only to media outlets that agree with their particular viewpoint. Whether people are “right” or “Left”, there are media they watch or read because those outlets “tell the truth” and paragons of virtue. And, of course, those “other” media are the embodiment of the devil!
All too often this insularity is coupled with a lack of discernment. People readily believe something these days because they saw it on YouTube, or read about it on someone’s Twitter account. There is no fact-checking. There is no questioning. There is no thoughtful discourse. Only condemnation of those who hold alternative views.
I just finished taping another episode of Behind the Story a one hour public affairs show on the CTS network (see it Sunday night at 7 pm EST; or go to the CTS website online viewer) and it always amazes me and impresses me how many good journalists there are in newspapers and broadcast outlets across Canada.
And by good I mean concerned, informative, intelligent and insightful.
We covered a variety of topics on the show—from the firing of US General McChrystal to the G8/G20 meetings in Toronto, to the Vatican’s approval of the Blues Brothers and disapproval of Lady Gaga. Eclectic topics yes, but typical of this show’s broad range of discussion. The show tries to look behind the media coverage of such stories rather than discuss the stories themselves; how well (or poorly) was the news item covered, and were there any holes missing in the story?
We are lucky to live in a country where our media can cover all manner of news events. But we are also lucky to live in a country where we can ourselves question the media and its interpretations or bias (real or imagined). For those of us who make a living with words, these are important blessings that we far too often slough off as trifling.
Try explaining that attitude to those who live in countries where such freedom to communicate does not exist!
Does this mean I agree with everything another guest says on the programme? Or that they agree with me? No, but the show does demonstrate something that sadly is too often missing in today’s society—respect for opposing viewpoints.
I guess there will always be those who disparage The Star or CBC for being “liberal leftwing hot beds”, or those who rail against the Toronto Sun or National Post for their “right-wing demagoguery”. The fact of the matter is that all of them are doing a good job in difficult times of gleaning fact from fiction, right from wrong and truth from lies. We may not always agree with their conclusions or perspectives, but thank God they exist. Canada is a better place for them and its time we started drinking from the opposing cups once in a while. It might even be good for us
Welcome to the World of Words
This is my new blog, new posts to follow! Welcome and come back soon to read my latest blog post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)