Media content with just the facts, opinion omitted, would be ideal

By Letter to the Editor on February 23, 2019.

Re: “Left vs. right: Balance is healthiest,” Jan. 28

I enjoyed reading Ms. Dirk’s letter in response to Mr. McLennan’s piece on media bias. I believe Mr. McLennan is correct and there is a strong “anti-conservative” bias in Canada’s media. Ms. Dirk is also right when she writes people should be aware of their own biases when reading or viewing the news. This is an important point. Ms. Dirk is asking us to build as clear a view, on any issue, as possible before forming an opinion or judgment. If I understand her correctly, knowledge is power.

Our problem lies in access to verifiable, fact-based news. For example, when all three national networks say the same basic thing they can create an artificial view of events or a contrived narrative. Use political correctness to make this narrative sacred and you have crafted a club with which you can unfairly beat your opponent for your own best interest.

Wouldn’t it be great to have just the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts, opinion omitted. But, let’s face it, as long as news reporting is a business that makes money we are going to have agendas driven by money and politics. With the skunk comes the smell. It’s naive to say we could ever have unbiased reporting, for profit, especially political reporting. Therefore the better solution is to fund all news outlets the same regardless of political stripe.

The best solution is to de-subsidize the whole works. Let the individual news outlets stand on the merits of their own particular political bias and agenda. For example, surely those who love CBC would not mind paying the extra billion dollars per year it gets from the feds, from us. Those who don’t love the CBC could opt out and not pay. Or they could to put Sun News Network back on the air. Yeah, I’m looking at the CRTC.

You may love or loathe either network, but one is available as standard national cable TV, online and on radio. One is available only online as Rebel Media. One is lavishly subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, the other financed by more than one million subscribers. Guess which is pro-Liberal, pro-government and which is not.

I want more access to different views in a de-subsidized environment. More information gives me a larger, clearer view of events so I can better make up my own mind.

This is a model of a free and open media in a profit motivated market. That’s not what we have now.

Using my own bias, based on experience and acquired knowledge, I ask myself: If one news outlet needs billions in tax money to sell its viewpoint or agenda and another sells its service to more than a million subscribers, without advertising, which outlet’s product has more value, facts and truth?

I believe the truth sells itself.

Leath Johnston

Medicine Hat

13
-12