And we wonder why people are confused

I love that by reading multiple headlines/news stories one may be more confused about the nature of a situation than if they had just read a single story.  I think a great example of that is in the midst of happening in Halifax presently.

It seems that Halifax's mayor, Peter Kelly, is on his way out as the executor of a long-contested estate.  The CBC's headline for their story conveying the details is:

Halifax Mayor to step down as estate executor

On the other hand, the Coast - the independent weekly that first pushed the story of the mayor's challenges as executor, has the following headline:

BREAKING NEWS: Peter Kelly removed as executor of the Mary Thibeault estate

The CBC's headline gives me the impression that Kelly had some choice in the matter while the Coast's headline seems to suggest that Kelly had no choice in the matter.  These differences seem significant to me, or am I reading more into the headline differences than I should?

Which is the greater journalistic sin?

Is it worse to make up a quote to complement your argument, a la Jonah Lehrer, or to plagiarize another author's work, a la Fareed Zakaria?  Or maybe they're both offences equally egregious sins?

The more I think about the issue the more I'm inclined to think that fabrication of content is a greater sin, and is generally more likely to cause more harm, than plagiarism, though that doesn't mean that plagiarism isn't problematic in its own right.

Now I'm fixing the radio

Yesterday afternoon I was listening to CBC Ottawa's All in a Day when I heard the host reading a listener letter chiding the host for warning cyclists about a location where police were actively handing out tickets.  After reading the note the host agreed that he wouldn't issue such warnings in the future.

I was immediately reminded of a story tweeted about by On the Media.  In the story it was reported that a man in Florida had been charged after he had been flashing his car lights to warn drivers about an upcoming speed trap.  The judge considered headlight flashing a form of protected free speech and the ticket was overturned.  Despite the fact that the case related to free speech protections that are specific to the US, I thought one the concepts that the judge mentioned was particularly relevant to the issue of warning cyclists.

At an earlier hearing Circuit Judge Alan Dickey said, "If the goal of the traffic law is promote safety and not to raise revenue, then why wouldn't we want everyone who sees a law enforcement officer with a radar gun in his hand, blinking his lights to slow down all those other cars?" reported The Crime Report.

My thinking is that the judge has it right.  Whether one is flashing lights or issuing a warning over the radio the end result is, hopefully, less of the prohibited/dangerous activity.  And isn't reducing the number of incidences of the action in question usually the justification for such check-points?  And, as far as society is concerned, isn't reducing these incidences what we really want as an outcome not the issuance of more tickets?  Are we necessarily served by the police issuing more tickets (which implicitly means that instead of being prevented the behaviour was ongoing until after it had been observed)?

Anyway, I quickly dashed off an email to All in a Day expressing my disagreement with the listener's letter, citing the aforementioned case.  Just a few minutes ago I received an email from someone from the show looking for more information about he case because they are interested in doing a follow-up piece on the topic today.  So if all goes well the radio will be one step closer to fixed by the end of the day.

If that's all the re-writting you're going to do why don't you just re-post the press release?

A few minutes ago I noticed an Ottawa Citizen article about an Russell Peters' upcoming appearance in Ottawa.

Not surprisingly, it was noted that the quotes attributed to Peters' came from the press release.  The rest of the 'article' doesn't appear to be so upfront about its origins.

I was a little bit surprised to see that the 'article' mentioned that

The tour will feature ... video cameras and screens for an up-close and intimate show that will capture his signature audience improv in an arena setting.

Did a newspaper article really just include a passage about a modern stadium show having video cameras and screens?  Is the author assuming that the audience hasn't seen such a show in 20 years?

And what about that part about "his signature audience improve," is that the kind of phrasing that would normally appear in a newspaper article about an upcoming show?

Anyway, a few of the passages in the article caught my attention.  They just didn't read like an article - they read like a news release.  In the end I thought I should try to find the news release mentioned in the article and compare it to the Citizen's article.  Turns out they are pretty similar.

Here's a pretty good example of the copy-paste journalism employed in this instance.

As the article puts it:

Peters has given away more than $1 million over the past several years to various charities, from the Brampton Civic Hospital to Heart House Hospice, Gilda’s Club, the MS Society and a scholarship at his former high school (The Russell Peters North Peel Scholarship) to send a deserving student to college. The scholarship is now in its third year.

And as it appears in the original press release:

Peters has given away more than a million dollars over the past several years to various charities, from the Brampton Civic Hospital, to Heart House Hospice, Gilda's Club, the MS Society and a scholarship at his old high-school, TheRussell Peters North Peel Scholarship to send a deserving student to college.  The scholarship is now in its third year.

Similarities like these can be found throughout the article.  Paragraph after paragraph has been basically lifted from the press release.

There are a few aspects of this practice that I don't understand.  First of all, isn't this basically copyright infringement?  If it isn't, does it mean that I could I re-write the Harry Potter books as the Larry Sotter books and sell them for $5 less and make billions? Or maybe just remove all of the Oxford comas?

Secondly, isn't there something of a moral issue here.  The newspaper is presenting the content as though it is a piece of journalism.  I'm sure media studies types have a better way of framing the issue, but to represent something as journalistic output that is really nothing more than a modified press release seems, at the bare minimum, a little misleading.

Thirdly, isn't this just hugely inefficient?  If the paper thinks that the press release content is valuable, but not valuable for independent reporting, why not just re-post the original press release as a press release of interest?  Why spend the time and money to hire someone to make a few minor stylistic changes that can't possibly be significant enough to eliminate any copyright-related issues?  In an era when newsroom cuts are rampant, this seems a particularly strange practice and an area ripe for modernization and reform.

A Few Quick Notes 565

-After yesterday's talk of a storm, today has been a surprisingly nice day so far.  Maybe this will last?

-I am not sure if it is generally the case that whole wheat banana bread is as good as regular banana bread, but the stuff I made yesterday was good enough for me to eat about two-thirds of the loaf before dinner.

-For the nth year in a row I haven't managed to wangle myself an Oscar party invite.  Oh well, I guess I won't get to watch America's second most popular live television event.

-Over the past day or so I've been in the process of convincing myself that there's a good joke about  downhill skiing and the fact that it seems to be one of the few sports where you sit down and get machine to do the boring bits so that you only have to stand for the fun stuff.  Kind of a 'just dessersts' scenario.

Maybe downhill skiing as a concept just isn't as ripe for humour as I keep thinking it is.

-Back to work.

Cameron: 37
Neil: 0

Is the web off-limits to reporters?

Today I learned that the Globe and Mail's long-time parliamentary bureau chief, Jane Taber, now heads the paper's Atlantic bureau.  I learned about this change in part by reading what I understand to be her first contribution from her new post.

This first article, which deals with Halifax mayor's Peter Kelly's current political challenges, seems to have been triggered by a recent article in the Coast that deals with Kelly's failings as executor for the estate of a late friend.  The Coast article really goes after Kelly and outlines a number of problems with the way in which the probate process has been handled so far.

As Taber notes

Now Halifax is buzzing over allegations that Mr. Kelly took more than $160,000 from the $500,000 estate of a long-time elderly friend, Mary Thibeault, and with questions of why, seven years after her death, the will has not been settled. 

These questions were first posed last week in The Coast, a free weekly newspaper.

The primary issue I have with the article comes from the final sentence of the previous quote.  As many of us resident in Nova Scotia know, the Coast has been covering the issue of this will for quite some time.  A quick Google search for "peter kelly executor" lead me to a March 2011 story on the topic.

Maybe I should at least be happy that the mainstream media finally picked up on the story, even if it took them almost a year?  And isn't this the kind of story that the mainstream media should be breaking rather than re-reporting from the local alternative/arts weekly?

Cameron: 33
Neil: 0

A Few Quick Notes 562

-Though today was a cool day, it was also a beautiful day.  If only most winter days were like today nobody would have anything against winter.

-I guess RUTRTW started today.  I am already batting a big fat .000 at 0 for 1.  I don't think I am even going to joke about trying harder this year.  If anything I will try harder to make my own coffee.

-The bread I mentioned this morning is now done.

The taste and texture are pretty much what you might expect them to be in a bread with 12 grains.

-We had a somewhat pleasant sunset tonight in Wolfville.




[Embedded video]

-While sitting in a reception area this afternoon I had the chance to catch parts of three day-time talk shows.  Maybe my sample size is limited, but I have no idea how anyone could watch that stuff.  Not only were all of the shows at least mildly exploitative, but they were just unpleasant and void of substance.

I guess I can feel a little more comfortable with my decision not to consume this kind of media.

Cameron: 30
Neil: 0

What I won't be doing tomorrow...

...is watching the Super Bowl.  What I will be doing tomorrow is looking forward to the end of Super Bowl snack adds in the the local grocery stores.

For some reason, even though I don't think my media consumption habits are all that different this year,  I feel as though I am hearing more about this weekend's impending Super Bowl.  It is almost as though I can't avoid discussion of coverage of the event.

This week, much to my surprise, two of the podcasts I listen to that normally have nothing to do with sports had extended sections on the upcoming Super.  How To Do Everything covered issues relating to the game and the viewing of the game while Planet Money covered issues relating to the expected economic spin-offs for Indianapolis.  And I'm sure I've heard about it somewhere else as well, I just can't remember where at the moment.

I guess I still don't quite get the fascination with this event, particularly in Canada.  Not only does the coverage drag on for hours, but the game being played has to be one of the more excruciating sports to watch.  And it's best of one, so if the better team is a little off for the game they may not even win.  And who likes watching a championship in which the better team is so likely to lose?

Cameron: 5
Neil: 0

I am not sure who's more to blame

I don't understand why some media outlets continually choose to cover non-stories and then insist on turning them into negative stories.

I currently disgusted with a CBC story that deals with student speculation about parking limitations at MUN even though a new 870 space parking structure that opened today.

Maybe the most troubling aspect of the story is that most of the student opinions are nothing more than speculation.  The students quoted in the story simply don't know if there will continue to be parking problems once the new structure opens or if it may actually alleviate parking congestion around campus because the facility just opened today.  And even if all parking problems aren't resolved with the addition of this structure, are things not better than they were yesterday?

The tone of the story is also troubling.  Instead of focusing on the fact that the university is actually trying to alleviate student and staff concerns about parking this story adopts a negative tone and doesn't even really acknowledge the improvement to the parking situation that will arise because of this structure, which one might have expected to be the primary focus of the story.

To some extent, the way the story is framed here it all feels a little circular.  Wouldn't the natural response to these student concerns be the construction of a few parking garage?

Oh, and another problem is reporting on a real story but omitting the context and the pertinent details so most people reading will think it's a non-story and miss the significance of the whole thing.

Recent CBC coverage of the Labrador City housing shortage has done a great job of this.  Today's story about changes to the social housing eligibility income cap does a particularly great job of painting only a partial picture of the situation.

A story yesterday about bus accidents in Halifax was infuriating because they went so far as to request information about each Metro Transit bus accidents but then failed to put the numbers in a context that would allow one to reasonably judge whether or not the accident rate was reasonable or not.  With just a little more work this could have been a great story, instead it was likely more harmful than helpful as it sowed seeds of confusion rather than seeds of clarity.

Finally, some coverage of an issue close to my heart

For some time I have been concerned about the contemporary mainstream media practice of including content that journalists know to be untrue in their stories.  The situation frequently arises when a public figure says untrue and is then quoted, without a qualifying statement, by the media outlet.  To feign ignorance or simply fail to deal with such untruths, at least to me, seems to undermine the utility of the whole venture of journalism.

For quite a while I have had the sense that this is an issue that has been completely sidestepped by the mainstream medeia.  They just aren't interested in dealing with the issue and challenges that would be sure to crop up if such an approach were to be adopted.

My opinions on the issue aside, it seems that today an editor at the New York Times finally wondered if their readers were interested in having reporters actually try to alert readers of known falsehoods or claims of questionable validity.

Perhaps not surprisingly, at least based on an assessment of the article's highest rated comments, readers do seem to be interested in having their news sources call out politicians when they tell lies.  Most people seem to think that a news source isn't much of a news source if it doesn't accomplish this basic task.

Anyway, though the story was only posted this morning more than 250 comments have been logged and commenting further commenting has now been halted.

I suspect that they have attracted more of a response to this piece than they expected.

Anyway, I am curious to see how the paper responds to this uproar (as the editor's piece leaves the impression that they knowingly include false statements that they make no effort to correct in their paper on a regular basis).  Given the immediate web uproar surely at least a follow-up comment will be made?

On the Media lead me to this response to the original NYT piece.

More details required

A story that I just read on CBC's website really left me wanting more details and a little clarification and again reminded me that much media content should be consumed with a critical eye.

First of all, while the story is primarily dealing with the appearance of caffeine in non-cola carbonated beverages it does not mention the precise dates on which changes were made to allow caffeine in non-cola beverages (according to Health Canada it was March 2010), nor does it even address all relevant changes to policies relating to caffeine in non-cola beverages. All that the article mentioned is that "Health Canada extended the use of caffeine to non-cola soft drinks last year." Part of the problem I have with this lack of information is that this date doesn't jive with my memory of their availability. In particular, they make reference to IRN-BRU being unavailable until this change, though I am sure that I purchased I purchased IRN-BRU in Canada before March 2010. If I had to guess I would have said that my impression was that it has been regularly available in specialty food shops/sections for the past five or six years.

Additionally, in their discussion of this change they completely neglected to mention the regulatory changes a few years ago that allowed for the sale of energy drinks, a type of product that for some time had been unavailable in Canada even while they were widely available in Europe and the US. When did this change happen and isn't it relevant in a discussion of the increased availability of caffeinated carbonated beverages? Why would they later mention the sale of energy drinks and their availability to children if the changes are unrelated to those relating to the sale of non-cola carbonated beverages?

The CBC story also does not mention the fact that while caffeine may not be added to non-cola soft drinks these drinks have a lower maximum level of caffeine.

It should also be noted that even though the CBC story suggests that only colas could have caffeine before this change I am pretty sure that the rule was a little less precise (at times Health Canada uses the term 'cola-type' while in other instances they use the term 'cola'). My understanding of the rule was that it had to do with the brownness of the beverage, which is why your Dr. Pepper's and Barq's of the world were allowed to be sold as caffeinated beverages in Canada before this rule change. The more I think about it, this confusion is likely due to the unclear terminology used by Health Canada in their discussion of caffeinated carbonated beverages.

Maybe what surprised me the most about this story was that the general angle that they took was to confront the potential negative health impacts increased availability of caffeinated carbonated beverages might have on children. What these impacts might be weren't discussed. And of course figures suggesting increases in caffeine consumption among children as a result of the rule change were not provided, nor was the discussion separated from the energy drink issue, which actually seems to be the core of the issue.

I also thought that it was funny that non-cola beverages were being presented as some now kind of non-caffeinated safe haven, now long gone, for parents who don't want their kids to over-consume caffeine. I couldn't help but wondering if a relatively easy way to avoid accidentally providing a kid with a caffeinated beverage would be to either provide a non-pop drink or read the ingredients.

Oh, and maybe the most egregious aspect of the whole story was that it was suggested that the regulatory change came about "because it was good for trade." Of course no evidence other than the fact that some foreign soft-drink manufacturers wanted such a change was provided to support this claim. How this position made its way from the international trade types to the Food and Drug Regulations people is not explained. More importantly, they even note that the official Health Canada position is that "Health Canada's decision to permit the addition of caffeine to non-cola soft drinks was based solely on health and safety considerations."

While it is possible that the change occurred for the reasons they suggested, a little more evidence should have been provided for the story to have real credibility. As the story currently stands it is nothing more than an incoherent mish-mash of decontextualized comments about caffeine in beverages in Canada.

Reporters on Twitter

Maybe even before I had a Twitter account I was aware of the fact that quite a number of reporters and media types were making use the aforementioned service. As I have spent time on Twitter I have seen that reporters frequently use the service to do such this as promote stories, cover events live, or seek information from fellow users. All of these uses, and more that I can't think of, seem like pretty reasonable uses of Twitter by members of the media. Actually, that there are so many reporters doing things like this on Twitter is one of the reasons that I am so fond of the service. Particularly during election campaigns I have found this entertaining as one might have the ability to simultaneously hear about the daily campaign events of the competing parties as they make their way through the campaign.

But it seems that one major consequence of the fact that Twitter makes the provision of content so easy is that editors are no longer involved in filtering the content of these reporters. Content is going directly from the reporter to the consumer (often times this information seems to be accompanied by more editorializing than one might find in the accounts that are eventually published).

Consequently, many reporters in their Twitter profiles suggest that their tweets don't represent the views of their employer, or something to that effect. They, to at least some extent, are trying to separate their Twitter content from the content provided by their employer.

Of course this separation seems to be only partial at best, and sometimes veering towards misleading. Not only is the connection between the media organization and the reporter made apparent by such disclaimers, but in many cases it is the connection that brings their account it's sense of legitimacy. Furthermore, the reporter has access to the content they are tweeting about only because they are reporters working for their employer. And it should also be noted that they are typically covering stories on Twitter that they have been assigned to cover by their employer.

I think that it is also worth pointing out that these reporters are tweeting about these stories on work time, and probably with work phones. Given that these actions are accessible to the public it seems reasonable to assume that the reporters who are engaging in this behaviour are doing so with the support (and possibly encouragement) of their employers.

Another practice that seems common, particularly among CBC reporters, is to include some form of the network name in their Twitter handle. This further blurs the boundary between the individual's private persona and their media persona and arguably undermines the believability of the profile disclaimers claiming that they don't speak as a representative of their employer.

I guess I generally feel that if you don't want your comments to be attributed to you as the employee of a particular enterprise don't make a point of highlighting your relationship to that enterprise and don't use an supposedly private Twitter to report and comment on things that you are simultaneously being paid to report and comment on.

As things stand now, I think it is hard not to see many reporter's tweets as extensions of the media services for which they work. If reporters or media agencies aren't keen on this public perception they will need to work harder to find ways to clearly differentiate the private and sanctioned web 2.0 content of their employees.

How do we deal with lying?

One final topic for tonight.


Something I have been wondering about recently, particularly since the recent Canadian federal election, is the best with lying by public officials in media coverage.

It seems that currently many news agencies just allow the lie to stand. Even if everyone present knows that the statement is a lie it is reported on as though it could be true.

"Earlier today so and so said X."

Occasionally, and only occasionally, someone might be found to provide a contrasting view. Of course as this person would typically come from an opposing camp consumers might be inclined to take the rebuttal with a grain of salt.

Of course what doesn't happen is that the statements are not labelled as lies or untruths by the news agency. Those not as familiar with the situation or those who are a little more gullible might not know that the information being transmitted is not to be taken seriously.

Members of the media seem so scared of being biased that they fail to perform the important task of separating fact from fiction. Of course, by failing to perform this task on a regular basis they make themselves much less valuable than they might be. In some fields of reporting I am almost convinced that the public is worse of with them as their primary purpose seems to be to give life to lies that would likely otherwise die a quick death.

Conflicting Portrayals

A few months ago I read the second Freakonomics book, SuperFreakonomics, and struck by a section of the book dealing the activities of a company called Intellectual Ventures. Much of the discussion focused on the suggestions that the company has for dealing with tropical storm suppression and and reducing global warming. On the whole, the book provided a very positive portrayal of the company.

In a subsequent two-part episode episode of the Freakonomics podcast this company, and its founder Nathan Myhrvold made another appearance in the Freakonomics canon, this time in relation to the recently published cookbook Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking. Again, the portrayal was very positive and the focus was on the invention and research side of the company's operations. Actually, if memory serves me correctly, these are the only aspects of the company that are even mentioned.

As a result of these portrayals of the company I just assumed that it was primarily a R & D firm, maybe even verging on a philanthropic venture.

As of last night I have been given some reason to question my original assessment.

A recent This American Life examination of some of the company's patent related activities suggests a slightly different image of the company. From this vantage point the company is portrayed predominately as an owner and licenser of thousands and thousands of patents. They note that the company, or that related third parties, frequently use legal action to secure settlements from companies that are deemed to be infringing on their patents. At times, though I am not sure if the two individuals reporting the story say it directly, the company is compared to a protection racket.

I always love it when I am left with opposing senses of things due to conflicting media reports. It is all the more impressive that these conflicting portrayals are both from New York based public radio shows.

Cases like this always remind me that I need to be a little more critical when consuming media. Of course the problem is that it takes time and energy to be so critical, and I quite frequently don't have the time or energy to invest in these issues. Maybe it's sufficient that I am at least aware of some of the problems with current forms of mass media?

A possible new angle on election coverage

Given that in Canada there was just a stink about the proposed removal of the regulatory prohibition on the broadcasting of "any false or misleading news" I wonder if this now well-known clause couldn't be used to some effect.

Wouldn't it be great if sections of Harper's speeches had to be bleeped or cut because of this prohibition? And wouldn't it be even better if it was explained that the reason for their absence was because they were false or misleading?

If we are going to have this incredibly restrictive regulation ('misleading' is a pretty vague word) why don't we at least use it to staunch the flow of actively disseminated misinformation that is coming from so many of Canada's politicians?

Framing and Media Coverage

How appropriate that just hours after I post about the nature of media and political framing of this election that I happen to hear a great interview about research into the potential impact of such frames and metaphors (what is a frame if not a metaphor?).



[Embedded audio]

I love that while the CBC is allowing their resources to be used as a tool of the parties with little effort to take control of the coverage they are conducting hard hitting investigations into the safety of bean sprouts - the dangers of which have been known for years (and can be found with a simple Google search)

Before I go, I should mention that I have just recently started listening to On the Media (the source of interview mentioned above) and am quickly starting to think of myself as a fan. If you are interested in American media and have a chance you might consider checking it out as a radio show or a podcast or through their website.

Election Coverage

Even before this's Spring's Canadian election campaign officially kicked of a variety of media outlets started framing the campaign as a competition between various parties. While this horse race/game frame makes election coverage easier for media outlets, it is of limited utility for voters, particularly because it focuses on the back and forth of partisan debate and various campaign strategies instead of anything that is actually substantive.

Another problem with much of the media coverage that I have seen since the beginning of this campaign period is that it cedes a huge amount of control to the party holding the event that is being covered. It seems that what is happening is that parties are holding 'events' and inviting journalists and then getting coverage of these events and having some component of their message transmitted to the public as a consequence.

This practice seems particularly important when events are held that are not open to the public and serve as nothing but an excuse for coverage in the coming new cycles. It is particularly troubling that the fact that these are partisan get-togethers, in many cases, is not prominent in the coverage of these events. An observer would not necessarily know that these events were either just for the press or partisans and the press.

The more I think about these events the more I think that the media should consider not covering events that are not open to the public. Something seems wrong about the fact that a party can campaign in a way that is so removed from public scrutiny. Not only does a stacked audience allow a misleading sense of the popularity of the proposals to be presented, but it also allows politicians a way of avoiding engaging with the public about matters of the campaign. How is an active and informed voter really supposed to get a sense of a party leader through nothing more than a snippet in the media coverage of an event?

So I guess my point would be that many media outlets are complicit in creating a style of campaigning that allows politicians to largely avoid speaking to a mass audience. Media outlets are also helping parties get their message out without ever having to present it before voters. If media outlets decided to step up and somewhat collectively agree to not cover such things I think a great service would be done for public discourse in Canada. No longer would newscasts just reiterate the key points of a speech given by a political figure earlier in the day.

Of course this is unlikely to happen. Media outlets will continue to go to party events that present the leader or a candidate in the way that the party wants that person presented because they want to fill space with election coverage. Such a change would also mean that the media would actually have to do a little work when figuring out which events to attend - no longer could they just jump on a campaign bus or plane and file reports from each stop.

Hopefully at least a little of this makes sense.

Even more helpful government information or: How a missile of an unknown source hardly ruffled feathers

Yesterday in Los Angeles, according to a number of news sources (including Reuters), there seems to have been a mysterious rocket launch that is as of yet unexplained. It seems that military sources are claiming ignorance and an interest in figuring out what it was that took place.

An example from the Reuters' article of this kind of position is the following:

"So far we've come up empty with any explanation," Colonel David Lapan told reporters. "We're talking to other parts of the U.S. government. We're doing everything we can to try to figure out if anybody has any knowledge of what this event may have been."

If you are interested in a video clip of some of the coverage and the footage of the missile you can check out the following embedded video.



[Embedded video]

The interesting question that this video is how NORAD knows that there is no threat if they don't know the source of the missile? Furthermore, if government sources really didn't know what the source of the missile was wouldn't it make sense for them to be a little more concerned? How is it possible that the smallest airline related incident can raise the threat level by a colour while presence of an unidentified missile near one of the US's largest city seems to do nothing to panic the Homeland Security types?

Fundamentally, this story, as it is presently being reported, makes no sense.

I suspect that this story is another instance in which the information provided to the public by the government is garbage. There is no way that such an incident could be of such little concern if the origin of the missile was really not known. That the issue is of little concern only makes sense only if the origin of the missile is known, which I suspect it must be given the lackadaisical response on the part of the government (unless they have somehow managed to completely mask their concern and the fact that the missile is of an unknown/hostile origin).

Anyway, no matter what actually happened, I think it is safe to assume that the public are being fed a line of crap on this one. The only thing more amazing than the fact that the public is likely being misled is the complicity of the media in the misleading.

Almost a whale

A few moments ago I was cruising the web, effectively avoiding the work that I should be doing, when I came across the following VOCM news update.

DFO officers have investigated the remains of a marine animal that washed up on a beach at Lower Cove on the west coast of the province. DFO says judging from the reported length of the carcass, the state and shape of the decomposed matter, it is likely that the remains are that of a small whale - such as a minke or a basking shark. A tissue sample of the carcass was taken and will be examined by DFO to try and fully identify the animal.

I was a little taken aback at the suggestion that basking sharks are a type of small whale, especially considering that they kind of look like sharks (which aren't even mammals).



I guess you learn something new every day.

Blog-off Score

Neil: 0
Cameron: 36

Another follow-up

It seems that my previous two posts were likely coming from positions based on limited or mis-information.

Not only have some of the major media outlets, even those who are providing national coverage, covered a number of the problems that have been faced by the games thus far, they have even dedicated stories specifically to such coverage (though one might question whether the level of criticism leveled is equal to what we might expect had they not paid to cover the event).

Anyway, what I guess I am say is that I am glad to see that some of the problem associated with the Vancouver Olympics thus far have been covered, but that I am somewhat hesitant to accept that they are getting as much as they might given alternate circumstances. That we have heard little about the removals of the homeless seems to suggest that some of my concerns are at least marginally merited.

I guess we have another two weeks to really get a much better sense of the coverage of these Olympic games. Assuming that I am unable to avoid such coverage in the coming days it seems likely that I may have additional comments as more trends become apparent (or as randomness increases).

Blog-off Score

Neil:0
Cameron: 25