----
"This is more than an arcane case of interest only to journalists and academics," said a Star editorial on Friday. "Over the years, the Canadian public has been well served by stories that might never have come to light without the co-operation of confidential sources."
Whether we're talking the Star's own investigation of restaurant inspections in 2000, which eventually led to those green signs that guarantee you're not getting cockroaches with your cocktails, or scary stories about illegal slaughterhouses in the GTA, there would be no cleanup with out some secret source coming clean.
So why do the news media seem to be talking amongst themselves about the Peters case? Why the apparent silence from the public, whose interest we toner-stained wretches believe we serve? How is it one of the biggest threats to freedom of the press didn't have the citizenry rising to the media's defence? What are we missing here?
For those of you not keeping up which seems to be the most of you I'll try to keep this short.
The case revolves around a lawsuit stemming from charges of abuse against a local nursing home made by some of its former employees a decade ago.
Now that home is suing various government officials for $15.5 million, attempting to prove that they defamed it, and breached their public duties.
Enter the Hamilton Spectator's Peters who got nailed last week for refusing to reveal where he obtained documents in 1995 alleging patient care problems at the home.
Superior Court Justice David Crane ruled that the home had no way to find out whether government officials had acted improperly except by forcing Peters to name his contacts. He ordered him to spill the details of how he got the damaging documents, which would result in identifying a source.
When Peters, a 45-year-old football reporter, family guy and hardly the Hollywood image of a crusading journalist, refused, he was found guilty of contempt.
In his judgment on Wednesday, Crane knocked the "oppressive nature'' of the news media "culture" which requires journalists "to break the law and endure the punishment."
Criticizing media organizations for being "in the business of selling the news," Crane concluded "that Mr. Peters was a pawn in a much larger game."
In other words, journalists carry the can for rich media corporations.
Needless to say, that sparked angry reaction from media corporations, as well as press freedom groups and academics.
Thundered the editorial board of the Globe and Mail: "It seems doubtful Judge Crane has ever been inside a newsroom. There is no newsroom culture that supports breaking the law ...
"It is no great revelation that news-media owners wish to make money. Last time we checked, judges and lawyers were paid for their work, too. But the allegedly oppressive culture of the news media has nothing to do with the profit motive.
"Newsrooms exist to report the news that is, what people want and need to know about."
By Friday, there were calls for a "shield" law to protect freedom of the press and journalists.
Something similar is going on south of the border where reporters are also facing the slammer for not revealing their sources. Again, if there has been a public outcry, it's been muted.
In fact, when CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight devoted almost an entire hour to the issue on Nov. 18, his online poll produced a most discouraging outcome.
It revealed that 39 per cent of respondents don't support a federal shield law for reporters.
That's huge. Although unscientific, it suggests that the public feels that journalists are seeking special rights and privileges or are not doing jobs worthy of protection.
Or maybe Big Media are seen as powerful interests, interested in only themselves.
Whatever. It's bad news.
But it should not be surprising.
As a group, and especially in the U.S. where these matters are regularly measured, journalists have long been seen as scum-sucking bottom-feeders and we're sinking fast.
Consider: All last week, as Peters was enduring his travails, and other serious news of public import was being made elsewhere, there was a lot of Big Media attention on sleaze and trivia, including the trials and tribulations of convicted wife murderer Scott Peterson and accused diddler Michael Jackson.
Unfortunately, these are the pursuits the media are best known for, not the crusades of reporters working to make government and business accountable to the people.
So, if the public can't see that the corporate media aren't interested in the public interest, it's because too often they aren't. Otherwise they'd focus more on the stories that further that interest rather than the corporate interest.
In other words, spend more time investigating nursing homes, and much less on nursing the bottom line. Do that and the public will follow.
So maybe, in one tiny way, Justice Crane got it right: We are guilty of contempt public contempt.
This should stir the public. Apparently, another journalist for the Ottawa Sun is going through the same thing over the Maher Arar case. Obviously, the loss of freedom of the press means another lost tool ensuring government and corporations are held accountable.
The public must speak out. Freedom of news-gathering without the ability to keep the source out of the press is a disturbing trend. The courts have no right to force a journalist who is simply doing a public service to put that source in jeopardy. If we allow this to continue, our rights and freedoms will be lost forever.
It's hard to get fired up when so much 'news' is actually editorializing by the media. Or, they just re-hash press releases/studies from various interest groups as though it were real news and not just someone driving an agenda. If journalists want respect from the public they'll have to earn it like any other profession. Emotional infotainment is ultimately tiresome and empty.
To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)
Stumble It!
----
"This is more than an arcane case of interest only to journalists and academics," said a Star editorial on Friday. "Over the years, the Canadian public has been well served by stories that might never have come to light without the co-operation of confidential sources."
Whether we're talking the Star's own investigation of restaurant inspections in 2000, which eventually led to those green signs that guarantee you're not getting cockroaches with your cocktails, or scary stories about illegal slaughterhouses in the GTA, there would be no cleanup with out some secret source coming clean.
So why do the news media seem to be talking amongst themselves about the Peters case? Why the apparent silence from the public, whose interest we toner-stained wretches believe we serve? How is it one of the biggest threats to freedom of the press didn't have the citizenry rising to the media's defence? What are we missing here?
For those of you not keeping up which seems to be the most of you I'll try to keep this short.
The case revolves around a lawsuit stemming from charges of abuse against a local nursing home made by some of its former employees a decade ago.
Now that home is suing various government officials for $15.5 million, attempting to prove that they defamed it, and breached their public duties.
Enter the Hamilton Spectator's Peters who got nailed last week for refusing to reveal where he obtained documents in 1995 alleging patient care problems at the home.
Superior Court Justice David Crane ruled that the home had no way to find out whether government officials had acted improperly except by forcing Peters to name his contacts. He ordered him to spill the details of how he got the damaging documents, which would result in identifying a source.
When Peters, a 45-year-old football reporter, family guy and hardly the Hollywood image of a crusading journalist, refused, he was found guilty of contempt.
In his judgment on Wednesday, Crane knocked the "oppressive nature'' of the news media "culture" which requires journalists "to break the law and endure the punishment."
Criticizing media organizations for being "in the business of selling the news," Crane concluded "that Mr. Peters was a pawn in a much larger game."
In other words, journalists carry the can for rich media corporations.
Needless to say, that sparked angry reaction from media corporations, as well as press freedom groups and academics.
Thundered the editorial board of the Globe and Mail: "It seems doubtful Judge Crane has ever been inside a newsroom. There is no newsroom culture that supports breaking the law ...
"It is no great revelation that news-media owners wish to make money. Last time we checked, judges and lawyers were paid for their work, too. But the allegedly oppressive culture of the news media has nothing to do with the profit motive.
"Newsrooms exist to report the news that is, what people want and need to know about."
By Friday, there were calls for a "shield" law to protect freedom of the press and journalists.
Something similar is going on south of the border where reporters are also facing the slammer for not revealing their sources. Again, if there has been a public outcry, it's been muted.
In fact, when CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight devoted almost an entire hour to the issue on Nov. 18, his online poll produced a most discouraging outcome.
It revealed that 39 per cent of respondents don't support a federal shield law for reporters.
That's huge. Although unscientific, it suggests that the public feels that journalists are seeking special rights and privileges or are not doing jobs worthy of protection.
Or maybe Big Media are seen as powerful interests, interested in only themselves.
Whatever. It's bad news.
But it should not be surprising.
As a group, and especially in the U.S. where these matters are regularly measured, journalists have long been seen as scum-sucking bottom-feeders and we're sinking fast.
Consider: All last week, as Peters was enduring his travails, and other serious news of public import was being made elsewhere, there was a lot of Big Media attention on sleaze and trivia, including the trials and tribulations of convicted wife murderer Scott Peterson and accused diddler Michael Jackson.
Unfortunately, these are the pursuits the media are best known for, not the crusades of reporters working to make government and business accountable to the people.
So, if the public can't see that the corporate media aren't interested in the public interest, it's because too often they aren't. Otherwise they'd focus more on the stories that further that interest rather than the corporate interest.
In other words, spend more time investigating nursing homes, and much less on nursing the bottom line. Do that and the public will follow.
So maybe, in one tiny way, Justice Crane got it right: We are guilty of contempt public contempt.
Additional articles by Antonia Zerbisias
---
Jesse
---
Dave Ruston
---
Dave Ruston