Gardner opens his editorial by noting, accurately, that Canadian Conservative Minister of Parliament Jason Kenney has directed that men and women will not be allowed to wear a veil during the Canadian citizenship ceremony. Gardner also writes that this affects Muslim women who wear the Niqāb. Anyone that doesn’t take the oath, doesn’t become a Canadian.

Gardner, rightly, also points out that the Niqāb is different than a turban, a yarmulke, a hijab or “Senators jersey.” Gardner’s point is that some folks argue that the Niqāb is no different and he thinks this is misguided. I think I agree although probably for different reasons. But it’s generally an interesting point.

It is also true that human babies can distinguish between their mothers faces and a stranger’s face. Babies recognize faces and they can distinguish between some individuals and there is a growing body of evidence that these capacities are, in some sense, built into our brain. There is some controversy about the ages and the precision of these capacities, but these are generally interesting issues.

It is also true that the human brain is a pattern seeking machine. Humans can’t help but perceive and be stimulated by real and imagined patterns.

It is also true that some human facial expressions are common and shared across cultures. This is compelling evidence that these facial expressions are, in some sense, built right into our brains and are, in some sense, universal. The work of Paul Ekman and others in this field is interesting stuff.

It is also true that facial expressions can add to, shift, or radically change the meanings of spoken words. And I think it’s an interesting idea, deserving of more consideration, that women who wear the veil may be in some way restricting or changing their capacities to communicate with others and to have others emotionally connect with them.

And, perhaps most poignantly, I agree that “many of those who loudly condemn veils out of a professed concern for women are simply anti-Muslim bigots.”

Some of it has not been particularly fun. My ideas have been criticized and some of those criticisms have been effective and, er, correct. But I have also been personally attacked. And sometimes my ideas were dismissed unfairly. A startling number of people have expressed xenophobic and, yes possibly, racist views.

There have been some upsides too. There have been voices of wisdom and insight. Some folks have engaged earnestly and with humility. There have been some interesting and effective criticisms of my criticisms. There have been some who are willing to admit their errors along the way. Looking back I can see that some of the comments I have made were hasty and abrupt. I have tried to speak and write honestly and gently, but I think I have failed in moments.

But I also think that some of my concerns of Gardner’s article are really important. But ultimately, it’s not for me to judge. But I do think it’s a worthwhile exercise to further reflect on these issues. I think there are several, actually many, important epistemological and ethical issues surrounding Gardner’s opinion piece from the Ottawa Citizen. And over the next few weeks I would like to write a series of shorter posts reflecting on these issues, one idea at a time.

By way of overview, I maintain that Gardner’s conclusions significantly overreach the evidence that he puts forward. The claims in Gardner’s article that I find troubling include, but are not limited to:

• that reasonable arguments can be made in favour of Jason Kenney’s announcement that no one can wear the veil during the Canadian citizenship ceremony
• that reasonable arguments can be made in favour of banning the veil in public, as France did
• that the veil is anti-woman
• that the veil is anti-human
• that the veil is anti-social
• that the importance of the face to human psychology cannot be overstated
• that the universality of human emotional facial expressions is relevant to this issue
• that we can no more stop looking at faces than stop breathing
• that the pattern that the human brain most wants to find is the human face
• that the veil cripples integration
• that veils smother identity
• that the face is the locus of identity
• that the face is the canvas of emotion
• that the veil prevents subtle affection from being expressed
• that the veil prevents deeper trust from being established
• that women who wear the veil have no identity

In summary I find these claims problematic because they are:

• hyperbolic and total
• an effective public relations screen for Jason Kenney’s announcement
• expressed in a context that lacks nuance, caution and a recognition of Gardner’s own biases and knowledge failures
• positioned as being authoritative, because Gardner “sees the veil for what it is”

Once again, for the record. I am not an expert in Islam. I am an atheist. I do think it is possible to criticize and judge individuals, religions and religious institutions, even as a privileged outsider. I will also add that I hold open the possibility that the claims that I’ve listed above, could in fact, be true. The epistemological issues at play here is not just whether they are true or not. The issues are how they are justified. They are regarding the way these claims appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Wednesday, December 14th. And the issues at play here are also ethical issues.¹

This is not the time for quick theories and rushed claims. Gardner has suggested that I expect too much from a thousand word opinion piece. Perhaps I do. Gardner thinks that I have persistently overlooked the length constraints of journalism. Maybe I do. So I think it’s worth reflecting on this and other constraints I find endemic in contemporary journalism. These are, after all, constraints on the way we know things and on the way we communicate this knowledge to others.

Similar constraints in time are not just endemic to journalism. I acknowledge, for example, that the post I wrote in response to Gardner’s column was rushed. By the time I read Gardner’s piece, had an unsatisfactory Twitter exchange with him and thusly committed to explaining my concerns via a blog post, my work day was well underway. But I was committed, so I wrote the piece.

That is partly why I want to slow down and take more time and energy to reflect on the variety of things wrong with Gardner’s article. But the first post I write will be a reflection on what is right about Gardner’s article. That seems important.

Dan Gardner wrote the piece, today, December 14.¹ It’s not as bad as many articles written on the topic. But there are some significant failures of reasoning.

I should note that I am not an expert in Islam, immigration policies, or pyschology.² I should also note that Dan Gardner has written two books in psychology, which in his words are “books praised by psychologists.” I should also note that I find Gardner’s writing generally better than then average newspaper or magazine reporter.³ But this is also part of the problem.

First problem

The column is a total of twenty three paragraphs. Most of the article is a review of some basic psychology.⁴ Starting at the fifth paragraph, a full twelve paragraphs are committed to reflecting on human psychology, faces, brains, pattern recognition and human emotions. If the article was just about this, I would have no problem. Most of the notes Gardner makes about emotions and faces I find reasonable. You can find most of it in TED talks, or books on popular psychology or even in Skeptic Magazine. It’s worth reading and reflecting on these kinds of issues. And I’m happy to see newspapers trying to publish this kind of information.

The problem is what happens before and after those twelve paragraphs. The last of theses twelve paragraphs is this:

This work, along with a mountain of other research, has established that the face is hardwired into human psychology. It is the locus of identity. It is the canvas of emotion. We are so supremely sensitive to faces that the tiniest changes in facial musculature — even inadvertent or unconscious changes — can completely alter the apparent meaning of spoken words. Suppressed anger can be revealed, desires surfaced, lies exposed. A subtle affection may be expressed. A deeper trust established.

I mostly agree with all of this. The face is important to human psychology. It is a canvas of emotion. Micro-expressions are interesting. Emotions can be revealed. A deeper trust can be established through the mutual sharing of facial expressions. It’s all good, if a little banal.

I don’t believe, however, that the face is “the” locus of identity. I doubt any psychologist would say so. It is a locus. You can see here that Gardner has begun his descent into fuzzy reasoning. He needs to in order to do what happens next.

In the very next paragraph, a claim is made that damns the entire article. In the very next paragraph, number sixteen, he claims:

But none of that can happen if a veil is in the way.

If he had just said, the veil can interfere with this, I would be okay with that. Heck, I think sunglasses interfere with some pattern recognition and social interactions. I think hats do to. That’s why poker players wear sunglasses and hats. But to conclude that none of this can happen with a veil is unfounded. None is an absolute term. None is total. It’s rhetoric. And it’s rhetoric from someone who probably has never interviewed, or had a basic relationship with, a woman that wears a veil. ⁵

Gardner goes on to write that a woman “who consistently wears a veil in public is cut off from the people around her” – another claim that has no argument, no citation, no data, no evidence to back it up. Similarly with his claim that “she has no identity.” That’s utterly false.

A woman who chooses to wear a veil still has her words, her voice, her body, her eyes, her hands, her movements, her behaviours, her choices, and probably myriad other important loci of identity, with which to create and maintain relationships.

Luckily, a woman who has actually chosen to wear a veil wrote to Gardner to try to help him understand the topic that he was publishing on. But, unfortunately, his response demonstrated we he failed to see why her criticism crushed some of his central claims.

A second problem in reasoning

In the fourth paragraph, Gardner argues that the veil “cripples integration.” I think this is his thesis and the rest of the article is meant to be a kind of theoretical argument for it. But he actually presents no direct evidence of this. And it’s no wonder. This is actually a hard issue and I doubt a newspaper has enough interest or money to pay someone to get clear on the issue. There could be a hundred reasons with women wearing a veil might have a hard time integrating into Canada. To his credit, Gardner does mention repeatedly that bigotry is also a problem, but he never really grapples with it enough to satisfy me that he takes it seriously.

But I think basically his argument looks something like this:

premise 1: Human faces are essential to good social functioning.
premise 2: Anything that partly covers the face, will block good social functioning.
premise 3: A veil covers the face.
conclusion 1: A veil blocks good social functioning.

premise 4: Good social functioning is necessary to social integration.
premise 5: The veil blocks good social functioning.
conclusion 2: Therefore, the veil blocks social integration.

This kind of reasoning is much more interesting if we can actually see what the arguments are.⁶

I actually think that premise 1 and premise 2 are both demonstrably false. Human faces are not essential to normal human social functioning. Nor is covering part or all of the face sufficient to blocking good social functioning. That’s why telephones work. That’s why internet chat works. That’s why veils at weddings are so great. That’s why it makes sense sometimes to wear a veil to a funeral. The poker game succeeds just fine when the superstar wears sunglasses. Scuba divers wear masks and welders too. Veils work just fine in some contexts.

In the case of music auditions, large veils, that block gender and race assignments, actually improve social functioning.⁷

The issue here is context. We live in a misogynist and patriarchal context. We live in a culture that makes jokes about rape. We live in a society where the single largest cause of nonfatal injury to women, is abuse from a partner.⁸ We live in culture that is racist towards Islamic people and brown people.

So does a veil “cripple social integration”? Good question. Maybe it does. But I reject the claim, without signifcant evidence, in a context where white men feel entitled to police the behaviours of women and racialized minorities.

It is more plausible to me that more important determinants to failed integration include: misogyny, racism and language barriers.

A third problem in reasoning (Actually it’s not a problem: update)

In the first few paragraphs, Gardner claims that veils are anti-woman, anti-social, and anti-human.⁹

Someone could plausibly construe the rest of his article as an argument (even if unconvincing) as to why the veil is anti-social. But there is obviously no argument as to why the veil is anti-woman or anti-human. To do so would require some more premises like this:

• Any behaviour that is anti-social, if committed by a woman, is also anti-woman.
• Any behaviour that impedes or changes social interactions, is anti-woman.
• Because our evolutionary forebears didn’t wear veils, it is anti-woman, for a woman do to so now.
• Because most human brains can’t resist looking at and recognizing faces, it is anti-woman for women to wear veils.

These premises are all obviously bogus. But perhaps Gardner has some better premises that he’s not telling us about. Until then, his claims are not reasonable, and his conclusions are not warranted.

[udpate]

After a considerable and difficult Twitter exchange with Dan Gardner, he expressed some concerns with my analysis. This third problem might not be a problem. He pointed out that his argument was roughly this:

They [veils] make it very difficult for women to fully engage as equals in society.

Here is the approach that I didn’t see. He claims others did. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it is a plausible approach that deserves further consideration. Regrettably, Gardner thinks of himself as a “human talking about other humans” and doesn’t appear to have a gender analysis or an analysis of power and privilege. So, there you go.

He said some stuff I agree with

I’ve already mentioned that Gardner makes many true and interesting claims about faces and human brains. Gardner also concludes the article by saying that “we must protect a stigmatized minority from bigots” and that we must “defend the freedom to dress as we wish to the greatest extent practicable.” I agree.

In summary

Gardner’s article might be contributing to public discourse about women’s rights and veils. But Gardner’s article also contributes in some unhelpful ways. The column contributes to the prevalent cultural norm that it’s okay for guys to, injudiciously¹⁰, theorize about what is anti-social, anti-woman and anti-human. When men do so, there should be an expectation of a greater burden of proof. Tacit premises should be made explicit. Personal bias, thoughts and reflections should be duly noted. Citation should be required (give me a hyperlink). And one’s recognized expertise about the issue, in this case Islam and veils, could be helpfully included.

But at the very least, the reasoning shouldn’t be fallacious.

The article overview

The title of the Abma’s article¹ had two versions:

1. Let Kyoto die, scientific journal Nature says
2. Let Kyoto die, prominent scientific journal says

Riffing off of this title, Abma leads with the idea that prominent scientists are opposed to Kyoto. He refers to two articles published recently in Nature. He gives a brief history of Kyoto and summarizes some of one of the article’s analysis of the shifting geopolitical circumstances we find ourselves in.² All the while, Abma repeats the mantra that someone, not him, thinks that Kyoto should die. ³ He makes note of a range of things Diringer wrote and closes with a couple of quotes by the Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada, John Bennet.

Some basic problems with Abma’s ‘journalism’

Some leading voices on climate science have suggested that the Kyoto Protocol be put to pasture as international representatives meet in Durban, South Africa, to discuss the environment… In a recent issue of the science journal Nature, both an editorial and separate commentary article suggested that clinging to hopes of a renewal of that agreement, or another pact with binding emissions targets, does more harm than good in achieving meaningful dialogue on how to fight climate change.

These are the leading paragraphs of Abma’s article. Abma, unfortunately, never links to the journal Nature. He doesn’t even give us enough bibliographic information to find half of the articles he refers to and uses as part of his argument. Citations are a basic requirement of anything trying to pass as reporting. And for this reason alone, this article fails to be more than public relations and advertising.⁴

The framing of Diringer’s article is false

By the time the reader gets through the first few paragraphs, they have been led to believe that prominent scientists are opposed to Kyoto and want it to fail. But this is false. It is in this sense that Abma’s article flatly misrepresents the views of Elliot Diringer, who believes that:

1. global warming is happening,
2. global warming is caused by humans,
3. it’s possible to mitigate the impacts of global warming through the regulation of industry,
4. an international agreement of some kind is required to mitigate climate change,
5. this international agreement should be binding, eventually

These are important, basic points of diringer’s analysis, that Abma leaves out. He never mentions them.

Elliot Diringer essentially argues that while Kyoto has failed so far, the fact of it’s failure is unfortunate. The Kyoto accord is failing, however, and given the changing geo-political realities we face, the “binding-or-nothing mentality” should be curbed. He argues, in short, that there should be some kind of international, binding agreement.⁵

In fact, Diringer concludes his article by claiming that In Durban, parties should work towards eventual binding commitments:

In Durban, parties should indeed set their sights towards eventual binding commitments. But they should focus primarily on the more prosaic nuts and bolts of strengthening transparency and support for developing countries. However incremental, such steps will get us further than a recurring cycle of false expectation and failure.

You would never actually know this if you read the National Post. And that’s the problem. ⁶

Structural deception by the National Post

It’s not just because they say false things. Everyone says the occasionally false thing. And the National Post writers do a pretty good job of not saying false things too often.

But the best propaganda is always true.

This is the way sales and marketing people do it. Say true stuff. Don’t open yourself up to the obvious criticisms that come with saying false things. There’s no need to take that risk. Instead, simply leave out the true things that don’t help your case.  And pay special attention to the order of facts and the emphasis that you put on the things you write or say.⁷

The National Post is trying to sell influence

The National Post wants to be seen as something other than sales and marketing and advertising and public relations. That’s why their description says “Canada’s trusted source for National news.” This way they can try to get in under the bullshit radar that folks have.⁸

The brand power enjoyed by the National Post is shared by many other news organizations that don’t deserve it. It’s a problem with modern press and modern media. Fox News is not news. Nor is the the National Post. Nor, I believe, are many other organizations pretending to be.

On my view, the National Post would benefit from taking seriously Rebecca Blood’s blog ethics.

Comments by regular readers of the National Post revealing of National Post narrative

As further evidence of the structural bias of the National Post, I present a smattering of comments by various fans and readers of the Derek Abma article. I should point out, that the bulk of comments were by posters that had anonymous handles. I make note of this because it is a common enough tactic by oil industry public relations firms to flood commenting areas with comments that appear to be from different people.⁹ I also want to note that the bulk of comments were anti-Kyoto, anti-anthropogenic climate change, and anti-regulation. So basically, the comments reflect the narrative of the National Post.

The world is only warming by about one degree C  a century. And that is coming out of the Little Ice Age. Plus, no warming for the last 12 years or so. I see no need to panic. Yes, lets take Kyoto out behind the barn and put an end to this sick beast.  T-Rex,  thanks for reminding us of CLIMATEGATE 2.0   Now if only the Post would run a story on this new release of political warming science E-mails. – Paddle N. Fish (8 likes)

Sherwin Arnott is a great example of a person with an IQ of 80. – SteveDobbs (10 likes)

Nature is an AGW Mike Mann sucker with NO hope of honest reporting on anything. In fact Nature is closer to an AGW Bible accessory that a science magazine. – T-Rex (8 likes)

They just don’t get it..their science was proven wrong…made made global warming/climate change was a scam from day one…..its a huge money trail to no where…..yet its hard to wean ones self off the public teat……thats what the are crying about….// – Ken E. (10 likes)

Not only should Kyoto be buried but these eco terrorist groups who want to destroy the economy should be shut down. Look what they did to Europe, and through the EPA, the US. – Robmax (12 likes)

The Kyoto Agreement was the biggest hoax ever foisted on the industrial nations… Al Gore who lives in a mansion and drives gas guzzlers another phony… – Yusume (47 likes)

Or, if you prefer the second choice, you get a series of article tagged “climate change” by Peter Foster, Lorne Gunter and Rex Murphy:

The billion-dollar Environment department claims its work is “science-based,” but the briefing notes show that it relies for its beliefs about man-made climate change on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose credibility has been severely damaged by numerous scandals. Still, when one considers how many jobs at Environment depend on a combination of climate alarmism and starry-eyed optimism about the policy process, plus attendance at those endless rounds of international meetings in exotic places, it’s not surprising they plead for the issue to be taken seriously. – Peter Foster, “Bureaucrats offer up green misinformation” Aug 2, 2011

It is essentially to remember — and to help people sleep at night — that the temperature consequences of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are hotly debated by well-credentialled scientific skeptics, whose case has been bolstered by Climategate and the flood of scandals about the politicization, corruption and incompetence of the IPCC (even if that flood hasn’t quite washed up on the shores of the mainstream media). — “CO2 just not capable of trapping dangerous heat” Lorne Gunter, Jul 29, 2011 – Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010

It is absolutely terrible reporting. It’s not news. It public relations for the oil industry. And it’s not new. It also fits the pattern of the problem of the Conservative White Men.

The deeper brand is a set of unconscious beliefs. It is the ground on which all news outlets stand. This brand includes the notion that news outlets are responsible to our communities and our nation state. It includes the idea that news is part of the effective functioning of a democracy. The brand includes the concept that the press know the difference between opinion and fact and that by and large and in the long run, they don’t get their facts wrong.

Perhaps most important, and perhaps most invisible, the brand includes the idea that the journalists and editors know what is most important and most relevant to investigate. News is not sales. News is not public relations. News is not advertising. News is not influence on behalf of a single political ideology. News does not work on behalf of a special interest. News is not just for a small portion of the population. News is driven by values and ethics. This is the brand on which news stands. Because I like the challenge of naming brands, and because it will make the writing more interesting to have a name, let’s call this news brand, gravitas.

News outlets depend on this brand

People consume the news of a particular outlet when they trust the news from this outlet. Advertisers in turn pay to keep the lights on for news rooms when there are enough readers to justify it. But as important as readership is, it’s not the only determinant. Advertisers care about the brands of news outlets, quite aside from the readership. Yes, of course the brand affects the demographic: an affluent readership is better than a poor one: a larger readership is better than a smaller one.

But advertisers can also be understood as sponsors. If an athlete is discovered breaking the law or acting unethically, their brand equity drops and advertisers will pull their sponsorship deals. This behaviour is not simply because the athlete will have fewer fans; in many cases their fan base is not affected. As we are discovering with The News of the World, advertisers care about the brand. ² My point is simply that it’s not a straight line between a brand and readership and advertising dollars.

My broader point is that we need to pay attention to the brand of news outlets and how these brands are developed and managed. Most importantly, we need to ask ourselves if news outlets are living up to the brand they depend on.

Business interests versus press interests

Many newspapers and other outlets have been financially rescued in the last ten years by shifting in the direction of sales and entertainment. More sports, more tragedy, more fluff, more gore, more sex. FOX news is an obvious example. Some analysts, academics and historians think this is not new. The hard business of keeping the lights on has always been part and parcel with the history of the printing press. But even if we accept the weaker thesis, for generosity’s sake, that this is simply an artifact of news rooms trying to survive the growth of the internet, we can still see the dilemma that news rooms are faced with.

Any given news room relies on it’s brand, on it’s gravitas, to sell advertising, keep the attention of readers and meet it’s social responsibilities. On the other horn, business interests are requiring that news outlets have fewer experts on staff, have less time to understand and contextualize issues, do less serious reporting, and move in the direction dictated by the surveys and metrics of the sales and marketing department. And you end up with something pretending to be news, but ultimately failing to be news.³

Three techniques to maintaining the news brand

One classic technique has been referred to by some as bundling. Newspapers could retain their gravitas despite the large section of sports, the large section devoted to cars, and the large amount of advertising, because these portions of fluff and public relations and , well, advertising, were physically bundled with some hard hitting, socially responsible, reporting on business and arts and politics.⁴

A second technique is to keep a few reporters around that actually do serious reporting. Call this human resource bundling. News outlets need entertaining, business savvy “journalists” and they also need some actual journalists to maintain the brand. Of course it’s not black and white. This phenomenon is a spectrum and it’s context dependent and a particular reporter can write pieces that have more and less gravitas. But it’s worth identifying this as a seperate phenomenon from bundling because there is sometimes a difference in the quality of individual reporters and it’s important to understand that journalists are kept around by news outlets for the same sort of strategic reasons that baseball players with different virtues are kept around by professional baseball teams.

Let’s not overlook the importance of the logo and tagline and look and feel of the whole package. It needs to be observed that there is an institutional look and feel to quality news. We soak this up in myriad subtle ways and the authority of any newspaper or television news anchor, in the mind of an average consumer, is enhanced by the music intro, the official titles, mission statements and typefaces. Don’t want this to be true? Me neither, but just imagine if the Guardian published in Comic Sans.

A fourth technique: appearance of political balance

I mentioned in my introduction that part of the invisible brand of news is that they do not serve the interests of a particular political party or their ideology. I think it’s worth identifying a fourth technique for managing the brand that focuses on the question of political leaning. A news outlet like FOX is obviously strongly leaning towards right wing political ideology and support the Republicans heavily. Sun Media obviously have a right leaning political analysis and favour the Conservative Party of Canada. But what about the National Post? What about the Globe and Mail? They have, I think, so far effectively retained their news brand. They are both recognized as institutions with gravitas. But how?

Noam Chomsky and others have steadfastly contended there have always been loud and public accusations that the media is too liberal. ⁵ Ongoing public debate about whether the press is too liberal effectively frames the issue and stops inquiry into whether news outlets create a right leaning distortion or slant. This is the myth of the liberal media, and it’s an important part of how news outlets manage their news brand.

Defenders of the myth point to the likelihood of journalists to vote for center left political parties, which really shows nothing at all. Chomsky says the real question is, are the journalists free to report what they want, and what they think is important? Two recent defectors answer this question in the negative.

There is also a common belief that because news outlets generally anger all political parties equally, the news must not be serving the interests of a particular party. The assertion that the news equally angers all parties is, of course, never evidenced.

A fifth technique: firewall

In light of the phone hacking scandal of The News of the World, we need to mention firewalling. When a portion of a news empire is exposed as having lacked the right values and ethics, then the brand of the entire organization is in danger. A firewall is raised between the toxic portion of the empire and the remaining healthy portion. The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, but so far they seem mostly untouched by the tainted brand of The News of the World. But people are noticing who is coming to the defense of Murdoch‘s news outlets. So the success of the firewall remains an open question.

Final word to Jay Rosen

In a recent article by Jay Rosen in the Guardian, Rosen argues that “Rupert Murdoch’s news organisations are not in the news business. What they crave is influence.” It should be noted that Jay Rosen has high standards for the use of words like “press” and “news” and “journalism.” So when he says that News Corp are not news, what he is really saying is that they fail at being news. So while News Corp may hang on to some remnants of the news brand, they have not performed at the required standard. So they’re a glorified public relations firm. They’re a lobbying firm:

News Corp is not a news company at all, but a global media empire that employs its newspapers – and in the US, Fox News – as a lobbying arm. The logic of holding these “press” properties is to wield influence on behalf of the rest of the (much bigger and more profitable) media business and also to satisfy Murdoch’s own power urges.

But they’re not the only ones posing as news. In my humble opinion.

But my intent is not to extoll the virtues of DePape or her act of protest. Instead, I want to say why David Akin,¹ of Sun Media, has written so poorly on the topic.

The only reason I even read the posting by Akin, is that Mike Moffatt tweeted a link to it calling it brilliant. Looking back now, I wonder if Moffatt actually read it.²

I find two glaring problems with Akin’s analysis. He thinks acts of protest are too often shortcuts that lack impulse control and that DePape is not committed to making long term social change. Most importantly, he doesn’t understand what democracy is.

Akin fails to understand the concept of democracy

Democracy is not simply about having national elections. Many countries have elections, but fail to meet a basic threshold of democracy. Democracy is not simply yes or no, on or off, black or white. It doesn’t work that way.

Democracy is a matter of degree. Most people get this intuitively. When more people vote, we have more democracy. When the electorate is better educated on issues, we have more democracy. When people’s human rights are protected, we have more democracy. When the power of corporations and rich people to spend money on elections and lobby government is curtailed by regulation, then we have more democracy. When people who wield power are expected to account for and justify their power, then we have more democracy. When citizens are able to elect representatives that reflect their values and interests, then we have more democracy.³

Seriously, Akin, are your following this? It’s not brain surgery.

When DePape called for a “Canadian version of an Arab spring,”⁴ she was calling for democratic renewal. She was saying that we need more democracy.

She thinks this, and I think this, and most Canadians think this. And in part, we think this because Stephen Harper wants less democracy. The Conservative Party of Canada wants less democracy because it is bad for some businesses. Democracy is bad for Big Tobacco. Democracy is bad for Big Oil. Democracy is bad for any business that knows that the community wants to make them accountable. Part of democracy is regulatory oversight on behalf of community interests. But regulatory oversight is bad for many business interests; notably, interests from Alberta that pay for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and the business media that cheerlead for them. The speech from the throne didn’t even mention climate change.⁵

Akin pretends to not to understand this. It is, after all, his job to not understand this.

Akin’s article gives no evidence and yet frames DePape as being not interested in hard work or commitment

Akin’s entire article works to frame Brigette DePape as someone who prefers shortcuts. But a protest is not, as a rule, a shortcut. To say so reveals just how out of touch Akin is with the challenges of making social change. A protest, is the symbolic nub of a larger analysis and commitment to progressive social change. This larger analysis and commitment to social change, Brigette DePape has in spades.

That said, some protests fail to be effective. This one has not failed in it’s symbolic power. Akin certainly has not provided any evidence that it failed. He has written at length about the virtues of diligence and perseverance and the value of taking the long view. Great. DePape probably, and I certainly, agree with these virtues. By simply asserting otherwise, without evidence is inappropriate.

If Akin simply disagrees with her claims, just say so. If Akin simply thinks she shouldn’t have stood up to Harper this way, just say so. Akin is, I believe, a Libertarian. He probably doesn’t believe in climate change. And, like other rich people, he probably hates paying progressive taxes. But if this is his problem with DePape he should just say so.

Instead, Akin employs rhetorical devices to make DePape out to be less courageous and less hard working than she is. He even refers to DePape by her first name. This is a patronizing move that coheres with his overall undermining tone. Yes you have a better paying job and you are an older, taller, white, right wing, middle age man with Big Oil cheering for you and lots of privilege. And yes DePape is a younger, less well paid, woman that is standing up to, among other things, Big Oil.

But more than that, he argues that DePape and her supporters think that symbolic protest is the only way to make change:

“Brigette DePape may despise Stephen Harper’s politics but showing up in the Senate — or anywhere else in Canada — with a sign that says “Stop Harper” and issuing a press release after the fact is so not going to change things, one feels pity for her and her supporters for, if this is how they believe change will happen, they will never know it.”

I see no evidence that DePape has not considered that there are other ways to make progressive social change. She votes. She no doubt has canvassed. She no doubt participates in committees and other democratic forums. So do I and I’m a DePape supporter.

Did I already mention that the throne speech didn’t even mention climate change? Harper has committed to a balanced budget in 2015. Good one.

premise 1: Canada’s newspaper of record would only endorse a centrist political party.
premise 2: The Globe & Mail is Canada’s newspaper of record.
premise 3: The Globe & Mail endorsed the Conservatives.
Conclusion: the Conservatives are, therefore, a centrist political party.

Since the conclusion is absurd, and the argument form is valid, at least one of the premises must be false. But which one?

Some of you are no doubt laughing right now because you tend to disagree with my analysis anyway. But seriously. I was listening to cbc radio tonight, hoping to hear something intelligent about the American midterm elections and I was lucky enough to catch most of an interview with Chris Hedges. He’s a well credentialed journalist from The Nation Institute. It’s worth noting that he wrote for the NY Times which he refers to as an elitist newspaper that lies and has contributed to the mass sellout of the working class.

I recommend listening to the interview here. It has left me re-examining my mish mash of political beliefs.

Lately I find myself in conversations with folks where I seem to oscillate erratically in my opinions about when to act in principled ways and when to act strategically (read: expediently). Has Obama done a good job? Is he a hypocrite? Are the Democrats worse than the Republicans? Are they the same? Oi.

Here’s an article that I haven’t read yet, but I will: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_world_liberal_opportunists_made_20101025/P100/

Well the answer to that question is too long ¹ for this post. So instead what I’ve tried to do here is outline a few of the challenges facing the modern journalist by summarizing six challenges of publishing in this modern context.

Six challenges

First of all, newspapers are a businesses. They have clients. And their clients are businesses that want to advertise. But they lose these clients when the newspaper promotes views and says things that don’t align with the bottom line interests of said clients. So an oil company based out of Calgary, for example, has a fiduciary duty to be opposed to policies that limit their profitability. That in turn means that they can’t spend money on advertising with broadcasters or publishers that promote policies that hurt their profitability. And that means that journalists have to write in ways that don’t make their editors choke on their ties.² I call this the challenge of compliance.

Second, this is happening in an internationalized context where newspapers are losing market share and profitability because of “the google”, or the “interweb”. So the pressure on journalists to say something of more interest and value than say, a blogger, is immense. I call this the challenge of attention.

Third, issues are complicated. Climate science is complicated. Social policy is complicated. Police brutality is complicated. Did so-and-so “die”? Or were they “killed”? This is sometimes a very tricky business. And given the possibility that someone with money or an agenda might sue you for libel, it’s easier to just write about the sports. In a complicated world it can be very hard to find out the truth or reasonable approximations of it. I call this difficulty, the challenge of integrity.

If finding the truth and understanding complex situations is difficult, try doing it on a timeline. And that’s the kicker: publishing for a newspaper means saying something on time. The traditional newspaper has a press that runs on a rigid schedule for economic reasons and reasons of scale. And because newspapers, and the old people that read them, hate trees and don’t understand the interweb-thingy, they still produce content on this rigid schedule. This is the challenge of production.

Fifthly, the pressure for journalists to understand a situation, produce some engaging copy, say something non-threatening for their advertisers, not get sued by a person in the story, get it to print on time all the while bearing the weight of the future of the newspaper, is intense. The financial future of all the staff is on their shoulders and the weight must be spine-crushing. After all, if Canwest fails to avert their bankruptcy and the whole empire tanks, the Aspers won’t lose their retirement savings or their house. Contra a common capitalist myth, it’s actually the employees that bear most of the real risk of the Canwest empire crumbling. Employees that have moved their families and invested in mortgages or are carrying the debt of their journalism degrees can’t afford for Canwest to go broke. So all of the myriad staff that it takes to design and print a newspaper, distribute it and find advertisers all rely on the content produced by the reporters. That’s a lot of pressure. The reporters are accountable to their fellow employees in a major way. I call this the challenge of positive-thinking-will-hopefully-keep-this-boat-floating-until-we-all-pay-our-mortgages.

And finally and perhaps most significantly, journalists need to worry about their own jobs. I actually don’t know this for certain. But this is the word on the street. Journalists, apparently, are losing there jobs. And, apparently, it’s not just Canwest that has been losing employees. So it turns out that reporters need to keep their editors very very happy. So, in deference to the first challenge, I also call this the challenge of compliance.

In Summary

1. The challenge of compliance (for editors)
2. The challenge of attention
3. The challenge of integrity
4. The challenge of production
5. The challenge of positive-thinking-will-hopefully-keep-this-boat-floating-until-we-all-pay-our-mortgages.
6. The challenge of compliance (for reporters)

This guy knows things about the future of journalism. Actually, he also has some good tips on just writing a blog. ³