Sudbury Star

cowardice and irrelevance in journalism

/ andyveilleux / 2 Comments

Today a speech by Russian journalist Leonid Parfyonov at a Russian media awards ceremony was brought to my attention. He speaks about the state of Russian journalism, and the lack of a free press in Russia. These journalists are risking their lives to perform their public duty, and here in Sudbury, many journalists and editors don't seem to care either way. I quote (at length), from Parfonov:

"I speak with bitterness, having worked for Russian television full-time or freelance for 24 years. I have no right to blame any of my colleagues: not being a hero myself, I cannot demand heroic deeds from others. But the least we can do is call a spade a spade.  Current affairs programmes on television are doubly embarrassing when compared to the obvious successes of big TV shows and our homegrown school of soap opera. Our television is getting increasingly sophisticated at providing thrills, fascination, entertainment and at making us laugh, but it hardly deserves the title of a civic social and political institution. I am convinced that one of the main reasons for a dramatic fall in viewing figures among the most active part of the population is the fact that people from our circles are saying: why should I turn on the box, they’re not doing it for me!

What is even worse is that most people no longer have any need for journalism.  He got beaten up, so what?  All sorts of people get beaten up these days, so why all this fuss just because of a reporter?  Judging by this type of bewildered response millions of people in our country do not understand that a journalist takes professional risks for the sake of his audience. A journalist does not get beaten up because of what he has written, said or filmed. He gets beaten up because it has been read, heard or seen."

I hear about journalists being threatened and beaten, and sometimes even dying, in their attempts to bring people the truth around the world. At the same time, I watch North American journalism, and become sick to my stomach. Much of it is fat, complacent, and irrelevant. Articles about line-ups at Best Buy, a survey saying Sudburians are happy, and a fluff piece about Cambrian cutting programs run as top stories in the local media.(The Cambrian story is important, but the article is such a College-PR perspective that it's impossible to take seriously.)

These types of stories are what our city has come to expect from our print journalists. Could it be a slow news day? Certainly. However, this is not uncommon. I wish it were. I read an article by a sports editor, which contained at least four major grammatical errors a spell-checker would pick up without difficulty. The citizens of this city, and this country, should demand more of their journalists. what happened to being proud of one's work?

Journalism is a public duty, which is now treated as if it were purely entertainment. It's not meant to be all flashing lights and laughs, it is meant to be hard to swallow at times. I'm not saying journalism shouldn't include features pieces, sports, an entertainment section, or anything besides hard news. I am saying that media personnel have a responsibility to their readers to not simply take a squat over newsprint and publish the results. Quality is important, despite the decline in it we've witnessed over the years.

Around the world we watch journalists dying and being beaten to bring the public the truth. At home, we watch some journalists who are too lazy to get out of their desks to find a good story, and are all too happy to eat press releases and spew out articles that even a student journalist should not be proud of. I wonder what it feels like to look in the mirror. At home, we seem too willing to step onto the treadmills provided for us by public relations and communications professionals. We are unwilling to put foot to pavement in order to dig up real stories.

In Mexico, some journalists are getting shot in the head to report the truth. Locally, we have journalists unwilling to ask difficult questions or take the time to balance their articles, even though they are protected by the force of the law. To put it simply, we have become irrelevant cowards, unwilling to stir the pot, most likely due to fear from corporate masters or flat-out laziness. This is unacceptable. We are failing the public, and failing each other.

Who will speak up for those without a voice if we remain impotent?

Sudbury Star’s failure with the 2010 municipal election and what it means

/ andyveilleux / 35 Comments

To say I am disappointed with The Sudbury Star’s unapologetic stance regarding their “City misled public…” article would be an understatement. The article was released on the Saturday before the election, which took place this Monday, and may have affected the results of the election. This is more than a case of poor timing.

The article begins: “One of the first things this council did four years ago was to authorize senior city managers to mislead the public about the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of a former employee, a Sudbury Star investigation reveals.”

By “Sudbury Star investigation,” they mean brown envelope that mysteriously showed up in their office at the beginning of the week, containing information only employees in City Hall knew.

Marianne Matichuk worked  for the city for 17 years. The Star supported Matichuk in an editorial on Friday, even using her buzz-word in their headline (“Change;” her website is realchangenow.ca, and she’s campaigning on the idea of change in council).

The article has NO sources in it that are current, and did not allow any balance whatsoever. I have a serious issue with their “attempts” to contact John Rodriguez, and any other relevant sources for the article:

“Calls to Stephen and Mieto were not returned. E-mails asking for response sent to Mayor John Rodriguez and all city councillors were not returned.

CAO Doug Nadorozny did respond, asking for more time in order to contact Stephen.”

So you can’t pick up the phone and call John Rodriguez, the man whose campaign you just torpedoed? Don’t give me that. No journalist or paper, with integrity, would launch a story like that at a candidate, and then not even make a decent effort to contact them.

Brian MacLeod, The Star’s Managing Editor, was on CBC’s Points North with Jason Turnbull earlier today, and his interview failed to seriously respond to any of these issues. He defended the article’s timing by revealing how the brown envelope showed up in their office at the beginning of the week.

I don’t know why it would take an entire week to write a story, which did not use any sources, or how in one week’s time a city council reporter as seasoned as Mike Whitehouse could not contact John Rodriguez. Whitehouse is a better reporter than that.

MacLeod also defended the paper’s editorial, stating that they always backed a candidate. I understand their practice of backing a candidate in an election, although I personally don’t believe journalists should publicly back any candidate. I will agree to disagree with that issue.

I am not willing to let their other irresponsible behaviour in this election go, however. When you support a candidate on Friday, and then torpedo her main competition on Saturday, without letting the competition respond, that is inexcusable.

Rodriguez responded to the article, after he was defeated in the election, claiming it was something one would typically see in the southern United States. He is right. It was gutless, and to shrug off his comments as the emotional response of a defeated politician is irresponsible, and childish, but that was the Star’s response anyways.

I was pleased to see Turnbull ask some hard questions about the issue, but it’s not enough to have one interview about it and then let it disappear. As journalists, we must police ourselves when it comes to ethics and responsibility. Most importantly, we must watch for bias.

I agree with Hunter S. Thomson that objectivity is impossible, but that does not mean we can absolve ourselves from the pursuit of it. We must be vigilant to watch our biases do not interfere with our coverage of the news, and be sure not to negatively affect matters we should merely observe and report on.

The Sudbury Star has failed the public, and tried to absolve themselves of responsibility for doing so. It will likely be shrugged off by the masses, but I hope people will take notice of how important a failing like this is to democracy. Their poor judgement may have affected the results of a democratic election, and that is a more powerful failure than any ordinary slander.

Maybe shoddy reporting like this has something to do with the public’s distrust of journalists? (the three links included here are from the UK, USA, and Canada, respectively).