Inside Journalism
a NEW IMPROVED HEAD special report
March 7, 2007
Welcome, everyone, to this refresher course on Advances in Journalism. Now, I know many of you have been having difficulty with your editors, who have sent you to take this course because they think you’re a little out of date when it comes to modern reporting techniques. Let me assure you, though, that if you disagree with what we’re teaching you in this course or for some other reason fail to apply its precepts in your work once you’re back in the newsroom, your sorry newshound ass is going to be fired faster than a twelve-gauge shotgun on opening day of duck hunting season. It’s not as if we haven’t conned the universities and colleges into turning out so many journalism graduates that we can take our pick.
Okay, now that that’s clear, let’s move on to the class rules. First of all, in this class you will never talk about the occupation of Afghanistan. What will we say instead? How about you, Menand, do you know? That’s right, we don’t talk about the occupation of Afghanistan, we talk about the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. We talk about the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Do you think Stéphane Dion could have got away with saying that the Afghans should play a bigger role in occupying Afghanistan? Put your hands down, eh, that was a rhetorical question. Of course he couldn’t have got away with saying that, because it’s asinine. They were already occupying Afghanistan before we – before we what, class? No, Tourette, not before we invaded – you go to the back of the class, young lady, and stand in the corner with your face to the wall. No, they were already occupying Afghanistan before we sent our mission there.
Anyway, because Mr. Dion is somewhat smarter than you bozos, he said that the Afghans should play a bigger role in reconstruction. And none of your mainstream Canadian media said a word about it. After all, eh, it seems only fair – we did the deconstructing for them, they can do the reconstructing.
And above all, when talking about Iraq and Afghanistan the only deaths we are worried about are the deaths of people in the missionary forces. If the deaths of Iraqis and Afghans must be mentioned, they should be mentioned as if they happened only infrequently. If possible, the dead person should be depicted as a terrorist or insurgent.
By the way, what do you call a Muslim suicide bomber who kills dozens of ordinary citizens? That’s right – a terrorist, an Islamist, an Islamofascist. Good answers. Now what do you call a Christian evangelical who kills thousands of ordinary Muslims with bombs? Come on, this is an easy one – you call him President Bush.
Okay, moving on. In this class we do not talk about global warming but about what, Dickinson? Finally, someone who’s studied the course outline! That’s right, we don’t talk about global warming, we talk about climate change. And above all, when we run stories about climate change or about the environment in general, and we’re running another story on the same day about the price of gasoline, we make absolutely no connection between the two.
Sure, some extreme environmentalists think the price of gas should be twice what it is now to stop people using their cars, but they don’t work in media, do they? Have you ever checked who is continually getting your employers to run commercials and advertisements? Who is it, class? That’s right, it’s the automobile industry! Those great big flashy ads from the car companies, the big display ads from the dealers, the thousands of small classified ads from individual sellers – that's where your employers get the money to pay you to write about freaking lifestyle trends or the latest instalment of Survivor or your latest homoerotic crush on some professional athlete. Do you think the automobile industry wants to hear about how it might be a nifty idea to stop people using their cars? Of course not. Well, at least you understand that. There may be hope for you yet.
Okay, well let’s move on to our first general principle. It is: Canadian journalism is not about facts. Okay, now does anyone know what Canadian journalism really is about? I thought not. I guess that’s not too brilliant a deduction on my part, though, because you’re here precisely because you don’t know what journalism is about.
Okay, two words – moral posturing. That’s what Canadian journalism is about. Take health care as an example. When Roy Romanow issued a report about health care which was nothing but a long, long sermon, the country was thrown into an uproar. People sprang to Romanow’s defence, people sprang up to attack him. A splendid time was had by all.
Now, what happened when the Commonwealth Fund published a report which contained information which might actually have helped to improve Canadian health care? Hm? Well, you should be able to tell by the blank looks on your clueless faces that exactly nothing happened. No one paid the slightest attention.
Same thing for Quebec nationalism. People don’t want to debate the benefits, disadvantages, or even the feasibility of different plans for increasing Quebec sovereignty. If they’re English, Canadians want to rave on about Quebec nationalists being traitors who shouldn’t be allowed to take their seats in parliament. If they’re French, they’re quite likely to prefer raving on about other Canadians as colonial oppressors who get their kicks out of repeatedly humiliating the people of Quebec.
Whatever they believe, the key thing is that they really don’t want to know anything about each other. Outside the CBC, the correspondent of a Quebec newspaper or of a Quebec television network is an extinct species in any province but Quebec. And English Canadians can’t even speak French!
The key is that it’s hard to feel morally superior to anyone else if you know anything about them – or if you know anything about yourself. Since we’re in the business of pleasing people, that’s a fact we must keep in mind at all times. So our readers can feel morally justified about Afghanistan, we talk about having a mission there, and we ignore the Afghans except when we can depict them as ingrates or fanatical murderers. So our readers can feel morally justified about health care, we avoid looking at difficult choices we might have to make to improve it. So our readers can feel morally superior about Quebec, whether we live in Quebec or out of it, we avoid learning anything about the people who disagree with us.
And we don’t talk about Christianists or Christianofascists because that Pat Robertson’s got a mighty itchy trigger finger.
Inside Journalism © John FitzGerald, 2007
Click the banner or click here for ACTUAL ANALYSIS
Commentary | Home