What is News?

In the midst of the media frenzy over the Prime Minister, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, and, SNC-Lavalin I'd like readers to take the time to ask themselves the following question. Why is this news? Indeed, why is anything news?

Robert Jago, from his Twitter feed.

Wendigo?

This issue came home to me after reading an article in Canadaland by Robert Jago where he mentioned cruising a liquor store and finding a weirdly offensive brand of Gin named---of all things---"Wendigo". Jago took a picture and posted it on twitter with some witty remarks and bought a bottle of Bombay Sapphire instead (with, as he says, "the picture of the lady that stole our land on it".)

The odd thing is that after posting this "throw away" remark he found himself repeatedly asked to write a story about or be interviewed on the subject of how---as a First Nations person---he was outraged and angry about this attempt to appropriate his heritage (well, actually not his---he comes from the West Coast and the Wendigo is an Eastern woodland thing) in order to sell booze. Jago found this unexpected interest contrasted bizarrely with the total indifference he'd met when trying to get any editors interested in a story he wanted to write about the Federal government willingly dealing with undemocratic administrations who had managed to gain control of several reserves.

&&&&

I don't suppose many folks who read my blog have ever really thought about how editors decide which stories they want to put into the news---and which ones they won't. I did mention in a previous editorial how the Toronto Sun sent out memos to it's employees saying how upper management wanted its writers to attack the provincial Liberals, but that's a fairly rare and extreme case. Mostly, editors want journalists to write stories that engage their readers on an emotional level. They don't want to educate readers, because that is considered "boring". They also don't want long pieces, because they believe that the average reader no longer has a long enough attention span to spend more than about five minutes on anything. And they don't want to "waste" the time of readers explaining a context or facts that aren't already part of people's conventional understanding.

In Jago's case, the story of the big bad company insulting the heritage of our noble First Nation's people is something that easily fits into people's preconceived notions, excites emotions, and, doesn't require any deep understanding. It fits neatly into the controversies about sports teams using First Nation mascots and taps that deep, deep mother-lode of emotions that come from pitting "white guilt" against people outraged about "political correctness".

In contrast, articles about political skullduggery on reserves would require a lot of careful exposition both about the history of First Nation self-rule, and, how it collided with Indian Affairs. It would also require readers developing a bit of nuance regarding a people who still get tarred with the "Noble Savage" mythos. The outrage that sells papers and puts eyeballs on screens is a lot easier to manifest when it is Aboriginal versus greedy Gin producer rather than different factions fighting over power on a reservation.

&&&&

Jody Wilson-Raybould,
Photo by Erich Saide,
c/o Wiki Commons.

Now let's think about the SNC-Lavalin affair. We have a Prime Minister who has staked a large part of his reputation on the twin ideas that he is dedicated to redressing the way Canada has jerked around the First Nations. He has also made a big deal about creating the first gender-balanced cabinet in Canadian history. Jody Wilson-Raybould is something of a "poster girl" for both of these, as she is an aboriginal woman who was given one of the biggest jobs there is:  Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Justin Trudeau---tarnished?
Photo by, Presidencia de la República Mexicana
c/o Wiki Commons

This is a great story for a editors because most readers already know who the principle players are (Raybould, Trudeau, and, Lavalin.) It excites emotions both with "progressives" and "conservatives" because it paints Trudeau as a hypocrite. And, it plays into old prejudices in English Canada: corruption in Quebec, and, Ottawa propping up failing Quebec corporations. As I suspect some editors have actually told their staff "Dang! The story writes itself."

And, of course, once a certain number of news venues start to carry a story, it begins to become important because it is important. This tendency for editors to assign stories based on what they read or hear from competitors even has it's own name "pack journalism".

&&&&

I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone who reads this blog that I have absolutely zero interest in covering the same stories that professional editors would find interesting. (And they would probably point out that my low readership and even lower income just show how right they are to choose stories the way they do.) Instead, my concern is based more on "how important is this story?" rather than "how much will this story engage with the emotions of readers?"

I would invite people to consider the Lavalin "scandal" from the point of view of importance. Did anyone try to make money off the government? Was anyone hurt? No one is alleging any of that. Instead, what happened was that there was a difference of opinion between various members of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) about whether justice would be better serviced by putting SNC-Lavalin on probation (and thereby possibly saving as many as 10,000 jobs in Quebec) or by prosecuting the company to the maximum and potentially forcing it into bankruptcy. The whole issue turns on whether the PMO put too much pressure on Raybould to over-ride a prosecutor who wanted to go after Lavalin to the full extent. That's it.

Let me contrast this story that has eaten up Dao-only-knows how much time and space in the news versus something that really is important: climate change. Climate change is not just another story. Truth be told, future generations will consider it THE ONLY STORY. 

&&&&

I go on about subscribing through Patreon or leaving something in the Tip Jar because I think it's important to remind readers that they need to pay for the news if they want to free themselves from the nonsense that professional editors feel they have to produce in order to get money from advertisers. (Thanks for being so awesome Stephanie!) I also have expenses. I try to keep everything down to the absolute bone---second hand computer, free blogging service, etc, but there are still things I spend money on. For example, I bought a case of reporter's notebooks a couple weeks ago. (This isn't just an affectation, taking notes and putting them in dated notepads that you keep is a way of protecting yourself from lawsuits---which is why all journalists and reporters use them.) I also sent off some Euros to people in Spain who wrote a version of Linux designed for old computers that I installed on a second-hand notebook I bought from Data Matrix so I can carry work around without risking my main computer. And then there's the money I sent to Wikipedia (where I get lots of the pictures I use), and, the Internet Archive (which backs up my articles and references so they doesn't just "disappear" over night.) I also send off subscriptions to various "muses" like Adam Donaldson, "Canadaland", and, "Contrapoints" who are doing the same thing as me---only for longer and better. Eventually, I'd like to have enough money coming in so I could join the Canadian Freelance Union.

So even beyond the time I spent on these articles, there are also financial costs. These are barriers for people getting into Indie media, and I'd suggest that if you can maybe you should help share the burden.

&&&&

I know the response that editors will make about the relative importance that they should be putting on stories. Even if they understand the disparity, they will say "We can't just run stories about climate change and nothing else---people would get bored and there's only so much you can say on the subject".

There is a historical example that I can bring to reader's attention, however. There was a Roman politician in the time of the Republic who is known by the name "Cato the Elder" who had fought against Carthage and who believed that it was an existential threat to the city---just as climate change currently is to all of humanity. He made it a practice of ending all his speeches on any subject at all with this saying: "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam", or, "Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed". This is often simplified as "Carthago delenda est" or "Carthage must be destroyed". This allowed him to continue working as a day-to-day politician in Rome while at the same time constantly reminding his fellow citizens what they should be prioritizing.

"Carthage must be destroyed"
Cato the Elder, image c/o Wiki Commons

&&&&

Furthermore, I say to you---climate change must be dealt with!