Keeping it Real…

It was part of the long, respectable history of newspapering: owners and publishers used their journals to not only inform their readers, but also sway public opinion to their particular points of view … political, social, or business.

Old newspaper owners were, in a way, the precursors of today’s bloggers … setting forth their views and agendas. And they proudly wore their biases on their pages.

But in this, the era or corporate concentration and media convergence, we face a far more dangerous situation: the impact on public opinion should not be under-estimated, when one company owns three daily newspapers, most of the community newspapers and two television stations beamed daily into the homes of millions of people.

I’m referring, in Vancouver, of course to CanWest Global.  I have written about their concentration of ownership before. (See The Province Turns 110: Readers Have Little to Celebrate” March 29/08.)

And I sense the “corporate message” creep is getting worse with time.

Those who worry about journalistic standards shoud have a look at a “news” article that appeared in The Vancouver Sun Saturday, July 26.   It sure surprised and worries me!

The story concerned a case where a 20-year employee of a company unsuccessfully sued her employer for depression, health problems that befell her after significant management changes.

First, the headline “Employers pay for stress too often” .  It would be reasonable for any reader to expect the article that followed would contain that conclusion from some expert, board, court ruling or even as the opinion of a politician or ANYONE quoted in the piece.

But it didn’t. The article said the court concluded the employer did not do anything wrong.  How does that translate into “Employers pay for stress too often” in a NEWS story???  In my view, it simply does not!

 And then there was this opening line in the “story” : “Lawyers retained by troubled employees too often issue lawsuits without analyzing whether any legal wrong was committed by the employer.”

Says who?   There was no “according to a report” or “according to an expert” or “says a court ruling”.   So says who?

The second line of the “story”, I submit, was even more editorial in nature: “Increasingly, we are seeing claims issued by the more left-wing members of my bar based on disability, gender other forms of purported discrimination, which should be more vigourously defended than they are now.”

What the Hell crap is this, disguised as “news”,  I wondered. 

 An analysis? A Commentary? A Letter to the Editor? It didn’t say that. It looked exactly like a news story. There was a byline: By Howard Levitt, and only following the “article” in finer print, there was an explanation below a “For Canwest News Service” and a note that Levitt  ”counsel to Lang Michener LLP, is an employment lawyer who practicies in eight provinces and is author of several texts, including The Law of Dismissal for Human Resouces.” 

So was this an opinion piece? Anaylsis?  It didn’t say at all. But I will tell you, he’s sure no news ”reporter”  from my point of view!! 

In his “article” Levitt wrote such “journalistic” gems as:

“A sympathetic employee and real damages do not equate to a successful lawsuit and employers should be rigorous in analyzing their legal liability.”

“”The employer chose to promote a brusque, no-nonsense woman who refused to coddle employees.”

Neither of those references either were explained as quotes from the court ruling etc. Pure personal opinion and analysis? Levitt IS, of course, entitled to his point of view. But it should be clearly stated as such.

And in the final three paragraphs… someone …Levitt??? the Court??? it doesn’t say … tells employers to remember that they are not automatcially responsible for stress and depression.  

BUT HOW can The Vancouver Sun run this kind of “article” without alerting its readers to exactly what it is???  And I’m still not sure what it was or was supposed to be.  It certainly does not, qualify on my terms, as a “news” piece.

And there, I submit, is the danger: when newspapers run editorialized points of view and interpretations as “news”.

Is this the new “standard” at The Vancouver Sun? 

The danger is that if people are not told exactly what it is they are reading (analysis/advertising/opinion … appearing like news) they can be unwillingly and unwittingly propagandized over time … especially when one company owns three daily papers and so many community papers in one city.  

Readers of this Blog will recall how,  just a few weeks ago, I revealed that the Vancouver Sun had run BC-government-paid-for propaganda as “news feature” material, without indicating the government paid for the pages in question. (See Vancouver Sun: When Propaganda Imitates News” June 18) .They admitted their mistake to me, and you read about that here too: but did you ever see a correction or apology to their readers in their own pages?  I must have missed it.

But at least those pages were more easily identifiable as an advertising feature.

What makes the Levitt “story” much more scary is that it presented in a way that does not clearly identify it as analysis (or opinion)  but makes it look like “news” … which in my view, it certainly is NOT.