Truth in Media — Bend it as Far as You Can without Breaking
Trust me, I’m a doctor — of spin that is!
Did you know that more people in North America are addicted to snorting Otrivin nasal spray than cocaine? The folks at GSK-Gebro, the manufacturers of this medication, are clearly trying to control our ability to breathe. This is incredibly worrisome, and we need Otrivin to be added to the list of government-regulated drugs.
You may be saying to yourself right now, “Wow, I never knew that!” And you still don’t because it’s not true — I just made it up.
Nothing could be easier. Regurgitate opinion rather than fact, drop a few names if possible, and voila, you have created authenticity to support your agenda. Some people are really good at it. It usually works because, for the most part, the audience is almost comatose from reading crap all day. We read the headline and move on. Now that is worrisome!
In 1969, Jim Morrison of The Doors was famously quoted as saying, “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.” But he wasn’t the first. Variations of this message have been around for years. Noam Chomsky (who currently offers a MasterClass in Critical Thinking on YouTube), Julian Assange, and Gore Vidal, together with others, have been attempting to expose the manipulation of facts for years. In 1957, identical words as Morrison’s were quoted by an unlikely source — Canadian Archbishop Philip Pocock, “. . . One may say that he who controls the media of mass communication, controls the minds of men.” Why isn’t anyone listening?
Prime Example…
When I read a post about Whitney Wolfe Herd on LinkedIn, I immediately pressed the like button to show my support for poor Whitney. And then I got to thinking about my response. How did I know the story was true? The article wasn’t interesting enough for me to waste time verifying fact from fiction. But I had hit that like button anyway, confirming my acceptance of the story. How dare I call myself a critical thinker!
This article was originally posted on LinkedIn by Federica Segato, and it received over 32,000 views and 1,125 reposts. By the time I saw the reposted article, views were over 64,000!
Here’s the gist of the story:
At the age of 23, Whitney Wolfe Herd founded Tinder along with Sean Rad and three other guys. But after two years, she was forced to leave the company due to sexual harassment. The story goes that she was dating Justin Mateen, one of the co-founders, and when they broke up, he began to threaten, control, and insult her. So Whitney was forced to leave. She sued the company for sexual harassment and began receiving death and rape threats on social media that caused her severe panic attacks.
Meanwhile, being a savvy and brave woman, she starts sketching a new business idea.
The post ends with Whitney founding Bumble and, TA-DA! She is now known as the youngest self-made woman in history to become a billionaire.
Here’s my point — I, along with thousands of other LinkedIn readers, praised Whitney’s tenacity, condemned that rotter Justin Mateen, and accepted everything in the post as accurate.
Now I know for a fact that Whitney is indeed a billionaire and an accomplished businessperson. But is the story true? Until reading this post, I had never heard of the author, Federica Segato. She may have done her research — heck, she may have even interviewed Whitney, but I had no knowledge of that. I simply took the article at face value.
When it comes to the truth, it is so easy to assume that the person who created the story did the research, and we can share the story as if the facts have been vetted. I would wager that almost everyone who commented on this post gave it a thumbs up and moved on without considering they may well be spreading innuendo and sullying Mateen’s name.
In order to get more clicks, follows and likes, anyone is at liberty to say whatever they want. Personally, I do not believe in censorship. If you want to risk being sued, go ahead. But it is the audience’s responsibility to ensure the information is correct before passing it on as fact. That is critical thinking.
But it’s so hard to find the facts! Maybe this is why.
With the exception of a limited number of community broadcasters, media in Canada are primarily owned by a small number of corporations: Bell, Corus, Rogers (having just bought Shaw), Quebecor and the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
These mainstream media companies receive funding from the federal government to the tune of:
“The fund is composed of contributions made by Canadian broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) — as mandated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) — and the federal government. It funds roughly $366 million annually.” (source: Canada Media Fund)
An example of a government-funded newsroom is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. CBC received $1.24 billion in government funding in 2022. That is not a typo — billion! (source: AngusReid.org) They also handed out over $16 million in bonuses to staff the same year. (source: Canadian Taxpayers Federation) Pretty generous with the taxpayers’ money. Wait a minute! That’s my money! I can’t remember the last time I listened to CBC.
Taking sides or else…
Is it really possible to maintain unbiased reporting when your job may well depend upon what you say or don’t say? Editors have a responsibility to their owners and shareholders to keep government funds flowing into their coffers. It is therefore highly likely that even a thoroughly investigated and vetted article will never see the light of day if it should reflect negatively on a source of revenue. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
This is a sad commentary on truth in media. Outstanding investigative reporters may find themselves having to decide whether to slant a story to reflect company philosophy or lose their jobs. They may very well be asking themselves, why did I bother becoming a journalist if I have to choose between integrity and a paycheque?
In recent years I have been reading true stories of journalists leaving their comfortable and well-paying jobs and moving over to platforms such as Substack and Medium in order to enjoy the freedom of truth in journalism. Being a well-paid talking head, towing the company line, was not the career they were looking for. For readers seeking truth, this is good news, although maybe not so much for writers receiving a reduction in salary in exchange for ethics.
“Writers and journalists must be willing to risk everything in the name of freedom of speech — that’s their job.” — Wendy Richards
