I've been aware of the absurdity of "neutrality" in media for a few years now. That has led me to seek out journalists like you who are transparent about their bias. That seems to me like a much more effective way to learn about and interpret the world around me. It's obvious to me that you're biases are very similar to mine and so I trust you to find and share information that I wouldn't find elsewhere. Thank you!
I have been a keen observer of the media for nearly 25 years, having served as Director of Communications for a major Canadian union from 2001 to 2023. To be frank, I am dismayed by the poor quality of far too many news reports. We all know the “W-5” principle, which says that a journalist must answer five fundamental questions when writing an article. Too often, some of these questions go unanswered.
Another very worrying issue is the proliferation of anonymous sources. It’s all too easy to write stories based on such sources for one simple reason: the temptation to “make up” facts becomes too great.
But what troubles me most are the angles and editorial choices made by the media. To illustrate this point, let me give you a simple example I recently experienced as a spin doctor for a nonprofit. Long story short, I have contacted media that tend to focus on sensational events (in this case, a moose inside a city hall) rather than report on the closure of a nonprofit helping thousands of women in their region.
And I have dozens of similar examples.
I believe too many journalists have become lazy, complacent. But I can’t entirely blame them: newsrooms have fewer and fewer journalists; issues pile up endlessly, and reporters are often expected to juggle multiple things at once.
And then there’s the unhealthy obsession the media have with what’s happening south of the border — but I won’t get into that here.
Although the internet, social media, and platforms like Substack bring many benefits, my overall view of the usefulness of the web has fundamentally changed in over two decades. I see far more drawbacks than advantages.
So, to answer your question about whether you’re truly a journalist, I would dare to say that you’re not, at least not in the traditional sense. Indeed, you have what could be called a left-leaning bias, but unlike some folks working for far-right "media", for example, you don’t have a political agenda. Proof of that is that you’ve raised criticism or questions about Mark Carney, among others.
You are a product of your time, with its strengths and weaknesses, like all the journalists who came before you — and those who will come after.
So how would I define you? I don’t know. But I don’t need to know, because I get my news from a multitude of sources, some different, some less so. What matters to me is the quality of the reporting. And in your case, I would say you are beyond reproach.
Thinking critically about your transparent biases prompted me to ubsubscibe from the mailing list – Thanks. Need no longer need to waste my time waiting for gems, (recognized your thoroughness and toughness) that appear, for me, about once every six months, but have seen no growth, as represented by a stock character in fiction rather than a round character. Leave others, who read this, to look up, and to consider the difference.
You are awesome! Thank you for your incredible work and expertise!
you do the work...you certainly ARE a journalist!
I've been aware of the absurdity of "neutrality" in media for a few years now. That has led me to seek out journalists like you who are transparent about their bias. That seems to me like a much more effective way to learn about and interpret the world around me. It's obvious to me that you're biases are very similar to mine and so I trust you to find and share information that I wouldn't find elsewhere. Thank you!
And this also was in my feed tonight. The death of "objectivity"!
https://open.substack.com/pub/avaduvernay/p/ava-with-terry-moran-on-the-myth?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7ov7m
I have been a keen observer of the media for nearly 25 years, having served as Director of Communications for a major Canadian union from 2001 to 2023. To be frank, I am dismayed by the poor quality of far too many news reports. We all know the “W-5” principle, which says that a journalist must answer five fundamental questions when writing an article. Too often, some of these questions go unanswered.
Another very worrying issue is the proliferation of anonymous sources. It’s all too easy to write stories based on such sources for one simple reason: the temptation to “make up” facts becomes too great.
But what troubles me most are the angles and editorial choices made by the media. To illustrate this point, let me give you a simple example I recently experienced as a spin doctor for a nonprofit. Long story short, I have contacted media that tend to focus on sensational events (in this case, a moose inside a city hall) rather than report on the closure of a nonprofit helping thousands of women in their region.
And I have dozens of similar examples.
I believe too many journalists have become lazy, complacent. But I can’t entirely blame them: newsrooms have fewer and fewer journalists; issues pile up endlessly, and reporters are often expected to juggle multiple things at once.
And then there’s the unhealthy obsession the media have with what’s happening south of the border — but I won’t get into that here.
Although the internet, social media, and platforms like Substack bring many benefits, my overall view of the usefulness of the web has fundamentally changed in over two decades. I see far more drawbacks than advantages.
So, to answer your question about whether you’re truly a journalist, I would dare to say that you’re not, at least not in the traditional sense. Indeed, you have what could be called a left-leaning bias, but unlike some folks working for far-right "media", for example, you don’t have a political agenda. Proof of that is that you’ve raised criticism or questions about Mark Carney, among others.
You are a product of your time, with its strengths and weaknesses, like all the journalists who came before you — and those who will come after.
So how would I define you? I don’t know. But I don’t need to know, because I get my news from a multitude of sources, some different, some less so. What matters to me is the quality of the reporting. And in your case, I would say you are beyond reproach.
Cheers!
Thank you for your honesty. Keep up the great work.
Independence is a jewel. You've earned more of my trust with your transparency and thoughtfulness about your craft and media in general.
Thinking critically about your transparent biases prompted me to ubsubscibe from the mailing list – Thanks. Need no longer need to waste my time waiting for gems, (recognized your thoroughness and toughness) that appear, for me, about once every six months, but have seen no growth, as represented by a stock character in fiction rather than a round character. Leave others, who read this, to look up, and to consider the difference.