Tag-Archive for » journalism «

Slow down and think it through

Former vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin is being pilloried for an admission that her family crossed the border to obtain Canadian health care—a system she previously said should be dismantled.

“My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse,” Palin said during a speech in Calgary on Saturday. “Believe it or not — this was in the ‘60s — we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada.”

– Canwest News Service (with files from Jason Markusoff).  “Sarah Palin’s Canadian health care link has critics sick.”  Calgary Herald, 8 March 2010. [Emphasis mine]

Some excitable journalists and commentators are trying to insinuate the stink of hypocrisy and covering the story like it’s a giant contradiction, but what it really tells us is that they have no deductive reasoning capability whatsoever.  I am no Palin apologist (my impression is that she is an earnest but incompetent politican, like Stephane Dion or John Tory), but surely the woman can not be called a hypocrite for an act she could not have influenced in any way, shape or form.

Let the record show that Sarah Louise Palin (née Heath) was born in 1964.  At the end of the 1960s she would be five years old.  Hands up, everyone who had the authority to select a sibling’s trauma treatment facility (in lieu of their parents doing so) at the age of five.  If you are guessing that Mom or Dad Heath was responsible for sending her brother to Whitehorse for treatment, you’re correct.  Now, hands up everyone whose parents made a decision in your formative years that you now, as an adult, find disagreeable.

Canada’s publicly-funded health care system was initiated by some provinces in 1961, but key federal legislation (the Canada Assistance Plan, 1966, and the Medical Care Act, 1966) did not come into force until 1968 (see timeline).  Yukon Territory set up a hospital insurance plan with federal cost sharing in 1961, and a more general medical insurance plan with federal cost-sharing in 1972.

It will not surprise you to learn that in that time, non-Canadians were not eligible for our publicly-funded health insurance, so the American Heath family would have paid for any medical services that were provided.

Palin’s father said his family probably boarded the train for the Whitehorse hospital only twice — once when a daughter had rheumatic fever, and once when his son, also named Chuck, severely burned his leg and an infection set in.

“We much preferred to use our facilities because my insurance didn’t cover anything in Whitehorse. And even though they have socialized medicine, I still had to pay the bill, being an American citizen,” Heath said.

Heath worked part-time for the White Pass & Yukon Railroad and had a pass allowing him and his family to ride for free.

– Markusoff, Jason.  “Sarah Palin heads north. Er, south. Er, to Calgary.” Calgary Herald, 7 March 2010.

If you want to drag Mrs. Palin over the coals about why the details of this story are eerily similar to another one told previously (where her brother burned his foot and went to Juneau, Alaska for treatment), you may have firmer ground to stand on.  It’s okay to dislike a pandering politician; I dislike lots of them.  But hypocrisy?  Please.  Palin was a five-year-old girl, at best, not the parent who decided where their children got treatment.  If there’s a contradiction here, it’s why a non-story is garnering so much breathless media attention.

See also:

Globe & Mail airplane, Island Airport

Photographic proof that about seventy years ago, the Globe & Mail was once cool.

Unidentified group of men with the Globe & Mail's Grumman G-73 Mallard amphibian at the Toronto Island Airport, circa late 1940s. (Toronto Archives, Fonds 1257, Series 1057, Item 2049)

The straight vertical windows on the control tower indicate that this photo was taken prior to the early 1950s, when it was upgraded with now-familiar sloping glass windows.  The Grumman G-73 Mallard was only in production from 1946 through 1951, further narrowing the possible date of origin.

See also:

Après nous, le déluge

One of my concerns about Col. Russell Williams’ stunning treachery is that it would inevitably create a self-perpetuating media cycle.  It is no surprise to anyone who consumes news—whether via newspaper, magazine, television or radio—that sensational crimes beget a lengthy media search and focus for similar events, no matter how tangental the relation.

Thus I have noticed in my “Canadian Forces” news filters a change in focus; instead of largely laudatory items regarding ISAF or humanitarian relief, I see a lot more items focusing on misdeeds and death (training-related or otherwise).

For example:

These are all, of course, quite newsworthy items on their own.  And it would be a huge mistake to infer any wider trend out of these incidents, but because the media focus is inevitably going to be on the CF, member arrests, and deaths on base, we are going to end up getting a steady diet of it until the next sensational item redirects the media’s short attention span.

Where it can create a problem is that even if the pundits and reporters do not draw any inferences themselves, they could end up creating one for the ordinary Joe and Jane just through a steady accumulation of similar articles in a relatively short time span.

It didn’t take very long for a spate of negative attention to divorce the Forces from the Canadian public back in the early 1990s, during the Somalia affair.  Subsequent to that there was a long fall-off in defence spending and atrophying of key capabilities.

A perceived fall in public esteem today will likely herald a fall from political grace; which will breed the perception amongst highly competitive ministerial departments that DND is a ripe target with few political defenders.  That could mean budget oblivion, something Canadians have seen and regrettably accepted in the recent past.

It will be interesting to see how things play out in the long run, because the CF’s ability to weather this media focus on its bad apples could once again decide the Forces’ future, and the types of roles and missions they are able to execute.  One hopes that the brass at NDHQ are cognisant of that possibility.

See also:

Pick only one: A sound mind, or a sound body

Mr. David Meadows, author of Rogue Classicism, links to a fascinating if depressing post in Psychology Today’s Adventures in Old Age blog.  Dr. Ira Rosofsky, Ph.D, compares the situation of Thaao, a long-lived captive Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) with that of elderly humans—also captive, in a way—requiring care in nursing homes.

Would you like to be 80 and be physically health with dementia, or with a sound mind in a ruined body?

Pick only one.

In my work, I get to ask questions from the Geriatric Depression Scale like, “Do you think that most people are better off than you are?”

The 80something, I asked this of said, “No, not most, particularly some of the other people around here, whose minds are totally destroyed,” the fairly common response from many who still have a mind that always reminds me of the first line of Ginsberg’s Howl, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness”-a line appropriate to the most garden variety of nursing homes.

I’ll call him Mr. Jones. He was a long-time, semi-prominent classicist who forsaking Herodotus–I told him I could barely finish the first book of The Histories, in English–now lies in bed when he’s not in his wheel chair, mostly watching TV. A Yankee fan, he’s happily waiting for the first spring training game only weeks away.

“If only I kind walk,” a refrain I’ve heard scores of times over the years, “my life would be so much better.”

But Jones, unlike some others or possibly me in the future, is making–pick your platitude–the best of a bad bargain and playing the hand fate dealt to him.

Jones told me that, like Thaoo, perhaps, he never expects to leave the nursing home.

“I recognize I can’t live on my own. My son says its an ordeal just to take me for a car ride. But my friends still visit.”

…Although he admitted, who wouldn’t? that he’d like the sound body as well as the sound mind, but he’ll settle for the mind.

– Rosofsky, Ira.  “World’s Oldest Condor Dies–In A Cage.” Psychology Today | Adventures in Old Age, 30 January 2010.

This is a subject very much on my mind as I have seen elders in my family age and become ever more dependent on nursing care.  They have all, almost without exception, suffered a mental decline more precipitous than that of their bodies.  While I am not related by blood (and thus have no concerns about heredity of these conditions) to all but one of the sufferers, it is nonetheless disconcerting to see such a transformation.  When a person’s body declines, you may at least maintain some semblance of conversation and inquire after their interests, needs, wants, news and current affairs, et cetera.  Managing their affairs is easy, they can tell you about the state of their health, their income and expenses, how they would prefer for things to be administered, and so on.

But when a mind declines, conversations can become circular or nonsensical.  The person has no ability to make small talk, they cannot impart useful information to their caretakers, or discuss how they want their medical, social and financial care administered.  Worse, the personality that you once knew fades into nonexistence, replaced by some new hybrid entity combining a few ghosts of memory with a childlike innocence of all that was once familiar.

Aging is a bit of a Morton’s Fork; everything tends to deteriorate, and whether it’s the mind or the body that goes, the results are rarely pleasing to those who must endure it.  Dr. Rosofsky notes further one that as we age into the senior years our autonomy decreases, and that in a nursing home “sometimes the only autonomy you have left is to say, ‘No,’ or ‘Go away.’”

See also:

The airship of the future won’t look like this

Aircruise concept ship at mooring mast.

Mainly because of a little thing called aerodynamics.  An object shaped like an enormous wall is harder to move through the air than one that’s a little more streamlined.  This is why most of our aircraft (whether lighter- or heavier-than-air) do not resemble vertical walls.

But as Dan Grossman from Airships.net points out, media outfits like CNN and the Daily Telegraph have been completely fished in by a clever PR stunt that has zero chance of being built in the real world.

What began as a fun exercise by a London design firm — to illustrate the visionary creative abilities of the firm and its client, Samsung — has been picked up as if it were a real “news story” by CNN, the Telegraph, and other media outlets.

The firm of Seymourpowell, which has previously designed vibrating sex toys and packaging for tampon applicators and cat food (but has never engineered an aircraft) recently announced “plans” for a 100-passenger, octahedron-shaped, 870-foot tall luxury airship, inflated with over 11 million cubic feet of… flammable hydrogen.  (Yes, just like the Hindenburg.)

– Grossman, Dan.  “Hydrogen Airship Nonsense.” Airships.net, 3 February 2010.

Well, the basic shape would still make a pretty cool cat food bag; though I doubt that it would be any good as a tampon applicator.

See also:

Category: Media  Tags: ,  Leave a Comment

Disappointing

The heretofore reliable Mr. Michael Yon appears to be sensationally stirring the pot, claiming the Canadian Forces are engaged in a cover-up by needlessly censoring a journalist.  It appears, however, that this claim is misguided at best and counter-factual at the worst.

The fellows at Canadian milblog The Torch have discussed it capably and at length, see their posts (1,2) for the nitty-gritty details.

See also:

Category: Media  Tags:  Comments off

Selling the drama

I have some respect for the passengers of Northwest Flight 253, especially Dutch filmmaker Mr. Jasper Schuringa, who reacted quickly and appropriately to a dangerous situation.  But please, pundits professional and amateur, put aside the euphoric army-of-Davids, pack-not-a-herd rhetoric.

NWA253 wasn’t saved because of alert passengers.  It was saved because the would-be bomber was incompetent in both design and fabrication of his explosive device. The passengers did nothing to pre-empt impending tragedy; they merely restrained the bomber after his unsuccessful detonation.  It is not even on the same level as the passengers and cabin crew of American Airlines 63, who halted the attempted ignition of Richard Reid’s shoes.  The fuse leading into Reid’s shoe hadn’t been lit; let alone lit and providing an obvious warning in the form of firecracker-like noises and smells.

The moral of the Flight 253 story is not that ultra-vigilant passengers will save the day (although this is not a bad thing and sometimes, they might).  Remember that had the explosive device been properly designed and fabricated, there would have been precious little for those passengers to do except fall to their deaths.

There are instead three better lessons from NWA253. The first is that you cannot always rely upon airport screeners (whether foreign or domestic) to have and use the best possible equipment.  They might not have the equipment, or when they do, they might use it selectively—by prioritizing it for something other than routine screening (like say, narcotics smuggling).  This might require certain nations (or air carriers themselves) to have their own screening personnel and equipment at the originating airport.

The second lesson is that intelligence and law enforcement services need greater cooperation and coordination in order to effectively act upon leads given to them.  Having received a timely warning from Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father, the bomber should have been set aside for more intensive scrutiny prior to boarding, which—presumably—would have led to denial of boarding.

The third lesson is that the approach to security screening that we have today—a widely-cast net, inefficiently searching one and all for a limited range of explosives and weapons—is inadequate; it is not focused, accurate or granular enough to detect the threat.

There are other, more manpower-intensive approaches—just one example would be the behavioral profiling used by Israeli carrier El Al.  El Al interviews every passenger before boarding, relying on the experience and intution of its screeners to weed out the nervous and suspicious.  Our own airport security screeners do not tend to focus on human intelligence and psychological factors; they rely on technical means (x-ray scanners and chemical detectors) instead.  And technology, of course, is not as infallible as many would like to think.

Perhaps the best defence is a fusion of these methods; human intelligence buttressed with technical intelligence.  Surely that is several times better than your seat-mates reacting to a bomb after it’s failed.

See also:

How to try too hard and fail

Follow the Globe & Mail’s simple do’s and don’ts and presto, you too can be a formerly well-adjusted, seasoned professional trying awkward gambits to fit in with callow youngsters.

See also:

Category: Industria, Media  Tags:  Comments off

Right on

Journalist David Akin, writing on his personal blog, notes that the facts do not bear out Hu Jintao’s rebuke to Prime Minister Harper.

With all due respect, Premier Wen, when you rebuke our prime minister, you rebuke all 30 million of us – Liberal, Conservative, or NDP — whether we voted for Harper or not.

Canadians are a polite and patient people, Premier Wen, and we have some tremendous social problems of our own that we are labouring to resolve. We do that in a messy, noisy way called democracy. You don’t, buddy.

And, by the way, when are you going to pull your spies out of our country? Those spies are costing us a billion dollars a month! Frankly, that ticks me off that you send your security agents into a country that’s stood by you for 40 years.

Now, I don’t want readers of this blog to mistake this for an apology for the current Conservative government or an attack on earlier Liberal governments…  This is instead, a response, to an unwarranted slight on the government of my country, of Canada, by a country that, it seems to me, has no moral grounds for such a public rebuke of the prime minister of all 30 million of us.

…Canada has had diplomatic relations with China for — let me check — why 40 years now! No other Western country can say that. As former Liberal foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew noted today, even the arch-Conservative John Diefenbaker shipped wheat to China when that country was starving in the 50s. Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stuck with China in the 1970s when everyone else in the West would demonize the country. Canadian newspapers were among the first to put their journalists here. And the current prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been a strong advocate for supplanting (or supplementing) the G8 with the G20, precisely because he wanted China at the table.

Canada does this because of the 1.2 million Canadians who have origins in this country and because Canada has generally believed that engagement is the best way to achieve social and political change in China.

And yet, when our prime minister travels thousands of kilometres to visit, his Chinese hosts have the gall to embarrass him in a very public way. I’ll tell you something, Premier Wen: There’d be no end of the howling from the media and the opposition in Canada if a Canadian prime minister acted that way toward a guest. It’s just not done where we’re from.

– Akin, David.  “Excuse me for being impertinent but China has no right to be rude to our PM.” On The Hill, 03 December 2009. [Emphasis is mine.]

I have one minor quibble, as Britain was the first Western nation to recognise the PRC, in 1949; followed, I think, by the Netherlands.  It certainly wasn’t Canada.

That aside, this is exactly the sort of nonpartisan attitude that should be adopted when dealing with totalitarian states.  You can treat our PM like crap and we aren’t about to launch a trade war over it, but you’re not fooling anyone into believing that we deserve it.

Mao Zedong and his successors slaughtered somewhere between 40 and 70 million of their countrymen though poor economic policies and social projects like the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward.  That is an order of magnitude more bloody-minded than anything Canada has perpetrated on her own sons and daughters.  The loss of 40 million Canadians at any point in our history (including today) would have extinguished us as a nation; leaving a negative integer.

We are also somewhat reluctant to engage in what appears to be large-scale, government-sanctioned industrial espionage against major trading partners.  That sort of thing sends a strong message that maybe a nation isn’t as friendly and benign as it pretends to be.

Read the whole of Mr. Akin’s opinion piece; it’s worth it.

See also:

Category: Amor Patriae, Foreign Affairs  Tags:  Comments off

Kenya sounds like a lousy DFAIT posting; but then so is the news desk

I would sure love to know what the hell happens in our Nairobi consulate in an average week.  Maybe some intrepid news agency could get our government to agree to a ride-along there.  One of the perplexing aspects of the Suaad Hagi Mohamud case is that there is a lot more interesting reporting happening in the francophone media than the anglophone media.  For example:

  • Ms. Jordana Huber of the Canwest News Service tells us the unsurprising news that the Canadian High Commission in Kenya (in the person of Mr. Paul Jamieson) was already thoroughly satisfied that Ms. Mohamud was not the rightful holder of her own passport, and saw no reason to resort to extraordinary measures like DNA testing.  This conclusion is based, we presume, on her botched interviews in which she could not answer basic questions about the geography of the city she lived in, the birth date of her only child, her subway route to place of employment, the employer she worked for, or even the job she is supposed to have been employed at.  Well, thanks, Canwest, we could have deduced that based on Jamieson’s evidence as reported a month ago.
  • Ms. Agnès Gruda of La Presse writes that a Congolese couple in Montreal has been waiting four years for their children to be granted entry to Canada.  (Original French story here, Babelfish English translation here.)  Apparently the High Commission in Kenya—which handles Congolese files, too—has given them the runaround, requesting documents it already has on file, and coming up with new and ingenious delays.  Ms. Gruda’s report says that the High Commission is understaffed relative to its volume of work (it handles work on behalf of Canadians from 18 African nations, not just Kenya), and tends to operate in an environment of heavy suspicion.

It’s entirely possible that the Canadian anglophone media is ignorant of the Congolese couple and their plight, but I am a little taken aback that no anglophone account I have yet read indicates that the DFAIT staff in Nairobi are responsible for 17 other nations as well.  That’s an important detail, and it raises a lot of questions about how adequate the staffing levels are; especially since Equatorial Africa is the home of most of the world’s failed (or failing) states.

As I have said before, I don’t see how—given Ms. Mohamud’s meagre knowledge of her home city, job, and familial history—her particular case could have ended much differently or more positively than it finally did.  But what is also emerging is a picture of a consulate that is—to be charitable—ill-prepared to execute its duties, with some of its current clients having tales of shameful bureaucratic woe.

What is inexplicable is why our anglophone media does not seem very anxious to pry into the doings of the High Commission in Kenya, or to ferret out others with relevant experiences.  Or even to relate basic operational details (like how many countries it is responsible for) that might paint a fuller picture.  If you want to know why journalists have fallen in the public’s esteem, failing to do even a mediocre job would be Exhibit A.

See also:

Category: Current Affairs, Media  Tags:  Comments off