Comedy: The New News

As election time gets closer and closer, I find myself reading more politically oriented news magazines, such as Maclean's. The latest issue, which is heavily devoted to the political race, features Rick Mercer as a campaign columnist.

A comedian, doing journalism?
Perish the thought.
But when we take a hard look at the people that actually read and think critically about the news, we find that they are the intellectuals, the intelligent. Or at least, that is what we like to think.

So if we want to get the news out to everyone, and not just the intellectuals that actually read the newspaper, what better way to do it than to do it at their level?

I'm not saying comedy is for the less than intelligent, but it is more accessible to them.

The same thing happened with The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. More Americans were getting their news from him, a comedy show, than from many other stations. According to a PBS study done in 2007, 1.6 Million people watch The Daily Show, in contrast to 1.4 million going to the New York Times Online for their news. Even less buy the actual newspaper (1 million) and fewer buy the Washington Post. You can see the full list here.

I don't really have an issue with comedians providing us with news. At least that means that people are actually reading/viewing it, and hopefully learning from it.

So now, for a few fun Rick Mercer videos!
Moving in with Iggy!
Sleeping Over with the PM!

Enjoy!

Who's Actually Going to Vote?

In the past, Canadian elections involved politicians enticing the population to gain votes. The people came out in droves and voted for who they thought would best run the country. In the loom of another federal election, we have to wonder whether or not that will occur.

Looking at the last Canadian election that took place in 2008, we saw the lowest voter turnout. Ever. In 1896, voter turnout was at a similar low, but never in the history of Canadian democracy had voter turnout fallen below 60%. 2008 was a year to break that record, and I wonder if the same will happen in 2011. Glen Asher asks, 'Where are the voters?', and he is quite right in doing so.  

Oh, Stevie. What will you wear next?

We are having an election that no one really wants. Who can really expect people to come out in droves and vote? There isn't a political leader today that entices anyone, young people especially, to vote. Gone are the days when Pierre Elliot Trudeau could turn himself into a celebrity and turn the youth onto voting. Instead we have Stephen Harper, who, including his fancy vests, has no more personality than the robots to which he is constantly compared to. How is he going to get the youth to vote? 

When you look at it, the youth aren't likely to vote for the Conservative government anyways. Considering that we are a group of idealists, a conservative stance, which includes tougher penalties for lesser crimes, abolishment of the gun registry, and trying time and time again to get rid of same-sex marriage. 

Of course, the alternatives aren't exactly much better. Voting Liberal doesn't seem too great when watching Harper's smear ads, and sadly, that's the most many people will see before heading to the polls, if the head there at all. NDP? Not if you own a business. Bloq Quebecois? Only if you're from Quebec. Green? Vote all you'd like, and good luck getting a seat in parliament.

  

The youth aren't likely to come out of their hidey-holes in order to vote if this is what they can vote for. 

There needs to be someone who excites the people into voting. Someone who promises something that Canadians actually want, and someone who will get it done. 

Apathy is a common trait amongst Canadians of today. In the cases where it's not, it's for political parties that promise Marijuana legalization, supported by the counter culture. So who is voting? The stoners and the old folk who've got nothing better to do? 

Sounds absolutely peachy. What are your thoughts?

Whistle While You Work

Where do we draw the line with the publication of confidential documents?

If a government wants to keep something secret, can we let them as journalists? Or is this very action anti-democracy?

I will start off by discussing whether or not it is alright for the media to publish confidential government documents stolen by a whistleblower. In my opinion, the publication of government documents that directly affects the lives of the people that voted the government in is an essential part to democracy. Who is the government to keep secrets from the people? If it is a matter of security, then I can understand. But when there is no threat to the people, secrets should become known.

As journalists have a duty to report the news and to inform the people, this is simple. If they have information, they must let the public know. Otherwise, what separates us from a dictatorship? Democracy is of the people, for the people, by the people, as Lincoln said it. The media has an obligation to inform the people of what is happening in the world and in their government. It has a duty to inform the public.

The view point that I take is that the media is a part of the public, and therefore, must let the public know what is going on. Government secrets or not, the public has a right to know how it's country is being run. Like I said before, this is a democracy... it is the people that run the country, not one man, with a handful of secrets.

But enough of that rant.

Whistleblowing causes quite a large amount of stress in government. With Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, the government considered him to be 'The Most Dangerous Man in America'. This being 1971, during the Vietnam War, many viewed him as a hero, much the same as some view Bradley Manning, the 23 year old Army Private that leaked hundreds of thousands of secret military and State Department documents and gave it to WikiLeaks.

Both men have many similarities. Both were willing to go to prison. Both had the nerve to do something they knew wouldn't go over well with the authorities. And it's possible that Manning may very well do just what Ellsberg did; show the war for what it really is.

Ellsberg showed the American Public that the Vietnam War was an unwinnable quagmire, and that many presidents knew about this. He showed that they had lied to Congress and the public. He showed that the killing of young men on the front lines was for nothing more than to save face.

Manning is suspected of leaking the Apache gunship helicopter video, which showed the army firing on unarmed civilians in Iraq, as well as leaking the Afghan War Diary. These documents showed the grim realities of the Iraq War, quite unlike the picture being painted by the U.S. Government.

In a sense, they are one in the same, just in different wars. This leads to Ellsberg saying 'I was Bradley Manning' to be seen as something very realistic.

Go and watch The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers , and think about it. 

Read more about Manning here.
Read more about Ellsberg here.

Facts, Values & Rupert Murdoch

Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case, a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

Value: A person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life. 

Rupert Murdoch: Likes conservatism, Christianity, expanding his business and long walks on the beach (to discuss further expansions of his many businesses). 

One's values always directly effect how one acts in their everyday lives. They are an integral part of our lives. They effect how we talk to others, who we connect with, and unfortunately for objectivity in journalism, they can effect the facts. 

Within journalism, objectivity is the act of neutrality. It is attempting (however difficult it is to do) to maintain a lack of bias. As Jay Rosen calls it, it is 'The View from Nowhere', it is remaining impartial, taking a step back and looking at the big picture.  

Values have a way of undermining objectivity. How can someone remain partial if their values are against what is being said? 

The Documentary 'Outfoxed: Rupurt Murdoch's War on Journalism' (which you can watch here) paints Murdoch and Fox News in a light the suggests that their Republican viewpoints and values are altering the facts that they are presenting. 

Is this fair? Having watched the video, I have to agree that it seems to be. Conservative values are leaking out of every Fox News broadcast like oil had leaked into the Gulf of Mexico. It seems prudent to assume that Murdoch's values alter the facts to better serve his ideologies and values. 

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), which is featured heavily in 'Outfoxed', calls Fox News the most Biased Name in News, and then goes on to describe their heavy right wing leanings. 

Most argue that there is no objectivity in Fox News. It is a station that provides right wing, conservative viewpoints and values, and the 'liberal' viewpoints it presents are presented as 'stupid' or 'weak'. It is not objective in the slightest. The idea of balance (where Fox News presents itself as 'Fair and Balanced') means allowing allowing all sides to state their points. Fox News doesn't seem to be accomplishing this balance.

It all comes down to popularity. Look at Dana Milbanks' comments here (and read the rest if you haven't yet). It shows how by presenting the truth, and just the truth, you can become hated by everyone, the left and the right. 

Maybe it makes sense why Murdoch and Fox News stick to their values. Values sell. 

Oil & Rebellion in the Middle East

With the price of oil in the United States passing $100 a barrel on Sunday, March 6th,  the world is reminded once more of how the turmoil in the Middle East affects even our ‘first class’ society. It doesn’t take much to cause the price of oil to jump dramatically, it could be something as meaningless as a sandstorm in Egypt to something as intense as a war, a Saudi Prince dying, or rebellion in Libya. 

What is unfortunate is that this is the only way many of us feel affected by the situation in the Middle East. We as a society are so far removed from even the wars we are currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the rebellions in Egypt and Libya are seen with even less importance. All we notice are the dents left in our wallets after filling up our gas tanks. 

As Barack Obama’s chief of staff told the press that the nation is considering opening up the federal oil reserves, something that is rarely done, according to William Daley. Daley told NBC’s Meet the Press that they are “Looking at the options” and that there are a “bunch of factors that have to be looked at. And it is not just the price”. 

In a time of crisis in the Middle East, as dictatorships are toppled and democracy is being spread, the long time forerunner in promoting democracy across the world is mostly concerned with keeping oil prices low, and with good reason. Economically speaking, the United States is facing more trouble. Trying to save itself from another drop in the stocks means squeezing every drop of oil from the barrel. 

But what about the morality of the issue? We are watching as a madman is dive bombing his own people, ignoring that it occurred, and we sit and do little to help. What are we concerned with? How much gas will cost. Even on Facebook there are ‘events’ popping up asking people to protest the high gas prices  by avoiding the gas pumps for one day. 

Is this really the important issue? Are gas prices really that important when we compare them to crisis in the Middle East?

One would wonder why it seems as though people more concerned with oil prices then the killing of protesters, and when it really comes down to it, it’s because gas prices are a tangible reality in our lives, whereas situations in the Middle East have long been removed from our everyday lives. We have become desensitized to violence and war in the Middle East. Have we become blind to the horrors that occur daily across the ocean? 

The idea of this shocks me. Even in the Media, we notice how issues in the Middle East are played down. Headline news of the day includes Stephen Harper’s acceptance of an invitation to the Royal Wedding and Hockey injuries. Why is this? Is it because these stories hit closer to home? Do we feel more connection with these kinds of stories than ones that occur thousands of kilometers away?

The United States Government is concerning itself with it’s Oil Barrel Reserve  which contains 727 million barrels of oil. One would say that this seems to be plenty to hold the United States over until they can find a new source of oil. In fact, it calculates down into 24.2 Million Barrels of Oil per person in the United States. So is this even an issue the United States Government should be worried about? Should they be fretting over whether or not they need to break out their own oil, or should they be throwing their support behind the rebels in Libya, fighting against a ruthless dictator? After all, it was one of the reasons the Bush Administration gave when they invaded Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom).

Of course, as I stated above, the people are just as quiet about the situation as the Government. Oil seems to be the most pertinent issue in many people’s minds. What have we become? We are no longer concerned with worldly affairs, at least not while we have some issues of our own. Oil and gas prices have always been a concern for the people, as it effects their day to day lives. A situation in the Middle East takes a back seat to even the most meaningless of problems we have in our own countries. After all, situations in the Middle East have been occurring for almost a decade. Is the Media tired of filming countless shots of sand and guns? Or are the people tired of watching them? No one is truly to blame for the lack of giving a damn. After watching hours upon hours of footage dedicated to the Middle East, and after reading more journals and news stories, one can hardly expect the world to think of it as breaking news. It has become the background, and dull sound bites about Gaddafi won’t capture people’s attention. We will be more concerned with our own lives before the lives of others, as sad as it is to say. We as people have tuned out and been turned off world affairs. Our apathy has reached a new high. Who even reads the news anymore? 

With the price of oil on a constant increase, it seems as though our thoughts and concerns about the Middle East are on a steady decline. We, as a first world country, and our neighbors the same, will focus on themselves first.