Stop the biases...presses!

While flipping through the daily news section, people find that it is no longer out of the ordinary to see the astonishingly high number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq. In fact, there always seems to be a lengthy news article regarding the latest American casualty in the war abroad. These articles usually paint the picture of All-American war heroes whose lives are cut tragically short by barbaric and heartless Iraqis.

Readers are made to feel sadness, disgust, or anger over the deaths of these fallen soldiers, but hardly ever for them, the Iraqis. If anything, the Iraqis bear the brunt of the reader's disgust and anger since the mainstream media makes the public question why they should feel for them.

Well, perhaps one should feel sorrow for the glaring omission of the other side of the tale. Take, for instance, the Yahoo! news article, "US military deaths in Iraq at 3,874." The article outlines the number of deaths in the U.S. military since 2003, as well as the number of civilians killed, and those who died as a result of "hostile action." It even lists the number of deaths for the militaries of ally countries.

However, nowhere does the article mention the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians who have also lost their lives, or explain why the American military has adopted the "we don't do body counts" policy when concerning these civilians.

According to the ZNet democratic media article, "Holocaust Denial, American Style," a study conducted by doctors and scientists from the John Hopkins University School of Public Health estimated that over one million violent Iraqi deaths have actually occurred since the war's inception in 2003. But what does science know, right? The mainstream media seems to be more concerned with the number of American deaths, anyway.

Take into consideration the source of the aforementioned Yahoo! news article--the Associated Press. It is no wonder then that there is rarely any mention of the appalling number of Iraqi deaths at the hands of the American military. The Associated Press is full of news biases, most of which favour the American government and its positions. It isn't out of the ordinary for the Press to skew information in order to cast the U.S. in a more favourable light, and to make the country's enemies seem even more villainous.

The differences between the Yahoo! news article and the ZNet article lie mainly in the way the news is framed. In the ZNet article, the reader is fed the harsh reality of a war likened to the Holocaust. The victims here are the Iraqis, and the evil perpetrators are the Americans. It is the complete opposite for the Yahoo! news article, which makes no mention of Iraqi deaths, and instead, highlights those dead in the U.S. military.

When reading the news, one must first consider the sources, the apparent (or not-so-apparent biases), and the way the article is being framed in order to discern the fabricated from the truth.

In short, don't believe everything you read.

Stephen Harper promises to turn over a new leaf

In last month's Throne Speech, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government outlined their plans for Canada within the next year. The Speech was delivered by Her Excellency the Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, and delineated the party's plans to provide a more open and accountable government while reaffirming Canada's influence on an international stage.

It is unfortunate then that the Speech should suffer from such a blatant neo-liberal ideological bias. Since the greatest emphasis was placed on tax cuts, harsher attitudes toward crime and maintaining a healthy capitalist economy, there was virtually no regard for social or environmental issues. For many liberal publications, this was where the Speech failed to meet the needs of the Canadian people.

With Harper's decision to keep Canadian troops abroad until at least 2011, the government let down those Canadians who have impatiently waited for a change in direction on the war. It seems that, even now, far too many Canadians are still finding it difficult to understand why their troops are in Afghanistan, or what they plan to accomplish there. Choosing to stay four extra years is not going to sit well with these people.

Those opposed to the speech may also wonder when profit and capitalism began to take precedence over real issues affecting Canadians every day. Many average and lower-income families would benefit greatly from increased aid. If the government chose to make provisions to the welfare system and the lower income cut-off line, the hardships faced by these families could undoubtedly be alleviated. Also, from a social perspective, anti-poverty is considered to be of the utmost importance as so many Canadians are finding it difficult just to make ends meet. Similarly, the homelessness issue should have probably been dealt with considering it is rapidly becoming more prevalent.

Also mentioned in various news publications was that the government should have made clearer commitments to climate change instead of merely re-working the already re-written Clean Air Act. It was felt that new commitments should have been introduced with the enactment of more concrete plans for change. Many remarked on how absolutely unacceptable it is for Canada to have such high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, hence the sudden urgent cry for new action.

As for the media coverage on the Throne Speech, many publications such as The National Post, The Globe and Mail, and CBC.ca, followed the story thoroughly. Numerous headlines were devoted to the Speech with many articles focusing on where the Speech failed and succeeded. As expected, the more leftist publications viewed the Speech as being a "disappointment" while the more conservative papers, like the National Post, were quite pleased with Harper's new apparent readiness to govern the country.

An unworthy recipient

On October 12, 2007, Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." While Gore was "deeply honoured" by the coveted award, others were less than impressed with the decision.

For some, the choice was "undeserved" and "degraded the image of the prize." It seemed to me that the Committee was more concerned with propaganda and political agenda than actual peace.

In Alfred Nobel's will, he stated that the Peace Prize was to be awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

In my opinion, Al Gore did not meet any of these stipulations. Sure, he raised awareness on the important issue of global warming, but does this qualify as being the best work? Absolutely not.

What of the Burmese monks who risked their lives in defiance of the military junta? In the name of peace, these Buddhist monks silently protested and suffered atrocious brutalizations at the hands of the government. Yet the hundreds of deaths which resulted were not deemed the "best work."

Or, what about Oscar Biscet? The Cuban physician and advocate for human rights and democracy in his country has been in jail for the past eight years for supposed "disorderly conduct." While jailed, Biscet has been subjected to horrible living conditions while being tortured, beaten and denied the chance to practice his profession. Despite all this, however, he remains firm on promoting peaceful democratic change.

To me, both of these better embody what the Nobel Peace Prize is about. Nobel's will doesn't say anything about catering to political agendas or the politicians who speak out against global warming whilst flying in their private jets and burning 12 to 20 times more electricity in their mansions than the average family home. Sounds a little hypocritical, doesn't it?

I'm not saying Al Gore should not be commended for his efforts. The issues he speaks so passionately about are undoubtedly important and relevant to our society today; however, I feel Gore hasn't done enough to garner all the accolades he has received. Compared to the aforementioned monks and Oscar Biscet, Al Gore has certainly not risked his life for others. He's simply been a talking-head, spewing out information, and for him, this is just another day on the job.

Shelegy wants Brantford to start thinking green

Ted Shelegy is a man with a not-so-simple mission—saving the earth.

As the candidate for the Green Party in the county of Brant, Shelegy’s campaign—and life—revolves around his strong devotion to the environment and its preservation. He also wants to change the way human beings live and think.

Shelegy discussed these lofty goals, among other things, on election night while gathered with friends and family at the Vegas Bar and Lounge in Brantford. Sporting a maroon dress suit and silver tie, Shelegy mingled at ease with over two dozen colleagues, loved ones and students that swarmed him.

“I am the mystery candidate,” he announced boldly to the small group. Then with a laugh, he adds, “No, not really.”

In some ways, however, Ted Shelegy is a mystery. The organic farmer and retired high school science teacher decided not to have his name emblazoned on the signs placed on lawns. Instead, he opted for signs which simply spelled out, "Green Party of Ontario". His reasoning for this embodied all the policies and beliefs of the Green Party.

“Without my name on there, those signs can be used again,” Shelegy explains. This example of reusability ties into the Party’s two key elements: sustainability and responsibility. According to their platform, the Green Party believes sustainability is conducted by innovation and cost efficiency, meeting needs without depleting resources, promoting tree planting and preserving biological diversity. Responsibility is reached through healthy lifestyles, building healthy communities, maintaining energy-efficient homes and vehicles, buying local and supporting farmers and using resources responsibly.

Ted Shelegy lives and breathes his Party’s policies.

“Environment is the issue,” he says. “It is the environment that sustains us in everything that we do.” He adds, “With what’s happening in our environment with dirty air and pollution and one in three people getting cancer, what consolation do you have with a wad of hundred dollar bills in your back pocket big enough to choke a horse?”

It is his mindset that helps him to motivate people into thinking about the consequences of their actions and how those actions might affect future generations. Making mention of the recent changes in temperature, Shelegy is firm in his belief that people must change their ways through immediate action, but that first, there needs to be what he calls a paradigm shift. He also wishes to see the development of new technologies that are “green and clean.” Shelegy believes all of this is possible; politicians just have to have “the nerve to do it.” It is this receptiveness to new ideas that sets Shelegy and the relatively new Green Party apart from the major political parties with their set philosophies and ways of thinking.

And Shelegy knows firsthand the ways of the opposing parties. For most of his life, he identified himself as a Liberal until he became less than impressed with their handling in government of the environment and agriculture. It was not until recently that he became a full-fledged Green—a move that has been most agreeable to Shelegy’s environmentally driven lifestyle.

However, life has in no way become easier for Shelegy since making the switch.

“He’s done well with what he’s had to work with, but he’s been suffering for manpower for most of his campaign,” says his son, Michael, who was also at the Vegas on election night. He adds, “But I don’t see any reason why he would give up.”

Shelegy insists on staying positive despite his overwhelming competition and tonight’s loss. He is determined to maintain focus on what he would like to see being done. Although the responses he has received have been generally positive, he suggests it will be quite some time before the effects of any changes are felt.

On this he admits, “You have to have a set plan and be realistic. It is not going to happen overnight.” He is confident and comfortable. He knows where he wants to be and why he feels such a strong need to get there.

“We just have to do things that are good for society and the future generations. Where the heck are the kids gonna play? The streets?”

By the end of the night, though he has lost, Shelegy appears neither dejected nor defeated. He just hopes it isn’t too late.

Profile: Monica Hajkova

If you were ever in search of a self-proclaimed sarcastic pessimist, you would look no farther than Monica Hajkova. Born in Toronto, Ontario on May 22, 1989, Monica spent the majority of her life in Mississauga where she enjoyed playing tennis, singing and experimenting in the kitchen.

Growing up, she lived with her mother and older brothers, but shares a tense relationship with the youngest of her brothers. Her father resides in Europe where Monica travelled to for a month last summer. She is currently living away from home for the first time as a Wilfrid Laurier University student in journalism at the Brantford campus.

Now in her eighteenth year, Hajkova has a strong sense of herself. She knows that she is a slave to punctuality and admits to being the ultimate perfectionist.

She relies on her preferred mainstream music as a form of escapism, and attributes her fondness of it to its ubiquity and catchiness. In regards to her other interests, Monica is partial to the things she can relate to. For instance, her interest in the Wicca religion segued into her love of the Sweep novel series and the mystical world of Harry Potter.

As a non-conformist, she feels negatively about politics and refuses to join a political party. To her, politics are full of nonsense and politicians who are too quick to make promises they never truly keep.

Monica upholds an active lifestyle both mentally and physically. Since she is constantly thinking, her mind is likened to a noisy maze, but she finds peace in drawing still-life pencil sketches and "creeping Facebook." At the end of the day, Monica feels that life has been good to her and, despite her pessimistic nature, feels hopeful for her future.

What's your source?

As outlined in every "How to" guide about the occupation, journalists are obligated to maintain their credibility for readers. Their sources must be carefully selected and reliable, and their articles must be concise and succint. Unfortunately, with the constant flow of news, journalists can simply get lazy.

For example, take the article, "Fatal fire guts downtown townhouse complex under construction," written by Natalie Alcoba of the National Post. In the first grafs, Alcoba writes about a Tim Baubie and his reaction to a fire in Toronto. The reader is not given any details as to who Baubie is, or why his opinions have been deemed important enough to base an entire article around. In fact, it isn't until the last few grafs when Alcoba finally slips in the line, "Mr. Baubie, a supervisor for the TTC." That's it? How is that relevant? We are forced to read through the majority of an article, not knowing who the main source is, and then, when we are given information, it just doesn't seem enough.

Along with the enigmatic Baubie, Alcoba includes another source. This time, a Captain Mike Strapko with Toronto Fire, is attributed. His place in the article seems right: a firefighter on the scene, discussing the five Ws of the tragedy. Baubie, on the other hand, seems out of place.

Here, it is evident why sources are so important. With the above case, instead of focusing on the actual news story, the reader may be left wondering, "Who the heck is this guy, and why is he so important?" The lack of credible sources, in this case, renders the article ineffective because the reader is not given a sense of who this Mr. Baubie is.

Similarily, in the article, "Darfuris face execution in beheading," the announcement of the sentencing of ten Darfuris to death by hanging for the beheading of a Sudanese journalist is attributed to "statemedia," or the Sudanese Media Centre. A specific individual is not given, and the reader is not given any information to confirm the source's credibility.

Sources and credibility are absolutely necessary in order to supply readers with the most accurate of news, and to avoid any possible backlash (i.e. lawsuits) from information that may be incorrect or offensive. Sourcing, in turn, becomes vital to an article's credibility because the more reliable a source is, the more likely readers will believe a journalist's word to be true. And is that not what they get paid to do?

Reader experiences emotional roller coaster?

After reading Jason B. Grosky's article, "Rescuer experiences emotional roller coaster," I was left with the lingering feelings of heartbreak and loss.

The article, which centred around the emotional plight of firefighter, William J. Cunningham, zoned in on the aftermath of a tragedy involving the drowning deaths of four boys. Cunningham, once named Firefighter of the Year, had thrown his life into peril in an attempt to save the lives of four young boys who, as fate would have it, chose to play on the ice that day.

Unfortunately, his valiant and heroic efforts were not enough as Cunningham heard those heartwrenching words--"all four are dead."

The article outlined, step-by-step, Cunningham's rescue efforts. From his use of a 6-foot rod with a hook to his crawling on hands and knees for 15 minutes in 36-degree Fahrenheit weather, the reader is painted a vivid picture of what happened that ill-fated day.

We are left with a sense of loss and sympathy for, not only the man who risked his life to save others, but for the families who lost their young children. We wonder why life throws such seemingly unfair and unwarranted curveballs at the most wonderful people. We ask ourselves what we would do if dealt with similar situations.

We feel.

In an article such as this, Grosky humanizes heroes and evokes emotion from his readers. We are drawn to the tragedy of the story, and we feel pain for the characters involved. I believe these are the factors that determine whether a story is great, or simply mediocre. Grosky perfectly depicts Cunningham as the hero who did everything in his power to save lives. He also successfully capitalizes on the sense of dejection and failure, which this hero ultimately feels when the outcome turns out to be a tragedy.

"You did everything you could," his wife says in the story's lead. At this, Cunningham lowers his head and tears well up in his eyes.

As a reader, I felt for him. Not only was the story wrought with emotion and heartbreak, but Grosky's words brought it all to life. We feel like we are there by Merrimack River, and we feel like we know Firefighter Cunningham. And that's what great stories are about--the reader is engaged and intrigued. We envelop ourselves in the stories and we remember it long after we are finished reading.