Journalists need to provide balanced coverage
By Lethbridge Herald on April 27, 2023.
Editor:
You can’t make these things up and if it wasn’t so serious it would be funny.
The Herald, front page news: “Premier limits questions with election looming.” Then all the “talking heads” go on to say how terrible this is.
I have watched hundreds of political press conferences and all politicians limit the questions in some way. Then NDP leader Notley gets on her high horse and has a press conference to say “I will be holding a news conference tomorrow … I will take media questions… as I have done for 15 years.”
In this same news conference NDP leader Notley refuses to answer questions from reporters that she apparently does not like or like their questions. One reporter is actually escorted away by her security. How come this incident didn’t make it to the front page of the Lethbridge Herald?
Then on April 19, on the front page of the Herald article, our premier Danielle Smith is challenged regarding the UCP commitment to expansion of cardiac care.
In this article Shannon Phillips expounds on how her leader Notley has never shied away from taking questions from the media. What a couple of hypocrites! Why did this Herald reporter not challenge Phillips on these comments?
To the readers of the Lethbridge Herald, if you think this letter is about how hypocritical the NDP are and how they twist most things to their advantage, you would be wrong. Although, I do believe they do.
This letter is directed to the Lethbridge Herald and what I see as fair and balanced reporting, or lack of.
The Lethbridge Herald has been my news source for as long as I have read newspapers and I am pretty old.
I don’t do social media or very little TV news regarding local activity. You, the reporters from the Herald, are my local news source and I expect fair and balanced reporting. That is what I have paid for, for over 50 years.
If reporting is presenting facts, then it is easy to check, I do it all the time. If someone is simply spouting off about something, then it is fair to challenge them on their comment and you should.
Barrie Orich
Lethbridge
15-14
Very simply put Barry, they have all gone to same school, been taught what to think, not how to think. They have no idea how to question any left leaning message. They are the message.
Where is the line? At what point do we decide someone is too far gone to be considered a reporter worth spending time on? If a man in a tin foil hat shows up to a press conference asking why Danielle Smith isn’t admitting the earth is flat, do they deserve to take up time that could be used by a journalist who still lives in this reality? These aren’t rhetorical questions. There’s a balancing act between “ignoring questions you don’t like” and “ignoring questions that are blatantly insane”.
I’ve also relied on the Herald for a long time – them recently banning Yale Belanger from the comments gives me pause though. Is he fear-mongering about vigilantes and blowing things out of proportion? Probably. But is that worse than so much else in these comments? Not a chance. I think they may have more editorial bias than I wanted to admit.
Accusing someone of being a vigilante, which is a criminal offense, is very serious and can fall under the criminal code, but in the manner he and another commentor on this forum has stated about another person, is defamation.
————————————————————————————————
Libel is defamation that involves a permanent record, such as email, social media posts, online reviews, a newspaper article, or a radio broadcast. Cyber-libel specifically refers to internet defamation, an untrue statement posted online or sent via email that damages the reputation of another party. Slander is defamation without a permanent record, such as an oral statement or a hand gesture.
Defamation law in Alberta is not about protecting pride. A person has the right to free expression, even to leave an honest negative online review after doing business with you. But defamation law protects your reputation and offers restitution for those whose reputation has been damaged by defamation.
So, a person has a right to say whatever they want, but they may have to pay damages if their statement defames the party their message was about.
—————————————————————————————————
Accusations were made that would impact security clearance applications when being falsely accused of being a vigilante! It is serious and there are consequences for accusing someone of committing criminal acts.
How balanced is the U of L in free speech? They openly banned one person recently from speaking, even though I didn’t agree with it, it seems that at the U of L, free speech is only allowed when they agree with it, so it is not free then, is it.
Since you seem so eager to break out legal definitions, perhaps you could show me where Yale has committed libel? I’m not aware of him accusing any specific person of being a vigilante, which would be required for a libel charge. If that evidence exists, then by all means the person accused is free to proceed with legal action.
And, how about when they call people ‘racists’ when they aren’t! Threaten to ban their services over this false accusation publicly… isn’t that defamation of character as well??
The Herald is constantly being told they are too far to the left by some viewers. Then those left leaning say the herald is too far to the right. There is a balancing act as you say.
I’ve been informed that Yale Belanger was blocked on the herald’s twitter account. Perhaps you should be aware of what some may have considered arrogant and rude comments on that site from him. Apparently mature debate was no where insight, but childish tantrums if some people didn’t toll his line. Embarrassing for the university .
He apparently went whining and fear-mongering to the cops before he knew hardly anything about this group he labelled vigilantes. He made himself look foolish and has apparently been backtracking on his statements. If an Indigenous and a Me ti man are vigilantes for discussing the drug problem in Lethbridge in a respectful fashion, then he must be a anarchist?
Well said! Having a disussion about the issues on our streets and planning to lobby government and to protest more needs to be done is part of our rights as Canadians.
Many have not seen how our rights have been slowly removed over the last several decades. Progressivism has exploded in colleges and universities, with calls to defund police and reduce our military, and to pamper criminals, and while some of the basis of progressivism look great, such as wage equality, ending poverty, etc., they miss some of the other points such as a right to organize, legally! Can you imagine in a world facing WW III, not having a military, or less police?
People are dying on streets, needlessly . . . the safe consumption sites (SCS) only supply the paraphernalia and give addicts a false sense of security that they have someone watching over them as they do their drugs, but across Alberta and BC, many die within a block after leaving a SCS, even in Lethbridge. Most do not go to a SCS to do drugs and when the SCS opened in Lethbridge the numbers of addicts openly doing drugs on our streets increased exponentially, as I personally witnessed.
The answer is taking a hard stance on drug use, using drug courts and police charging addicts so they have the option of drug court and if treatment completed, no criminal record, or jail/penalties. Drug courts have been proven to have high success rates and involuntary treatment for mental health and drug addiction will be the only way we can reduce the senseless loss of lives and pain/suffering families endure for this crisis.
It has worked well in the areas of the US for years with long term success rates of over 50% and initial rates of 83%.
We need to stop enabling and encouraging the addicts by supplying all of their needs to keep killing themselves on these drugs. Some only last a few months after ending up on the streets while others up to 5 years.
To have a discussion on these matters to hear other citizens concerns and to observe, report the issues and pressure goverments for change is not being a vigilante . . . it is someone trying to end the carnage on our streets!
There has been an abuse of power by a few people in various levels of government to attack people trying to exercise their legal rights lawfully and even by someone on local council who tried to have out venue for the discussion shut down by phoning the manager.
It has been duly noted! When people are dying at such a high rate and the current policies have proven to fail . . . change is needed and it is very sad that we could not have a legal discussion, open to all about the crisis!
Yes, drug courts work as does the Portugal approach. In both cases they work because of a significant incentive paired with a significant penalty: receive treatment or go to jail for drug courts and receive treatment or pay a large fine &/or lose your welfare payments in Portugal. Our current ‘safe supply’ and ‘safe consumption’ approaches in the absence of incentives to access rehab is naive and actually makes the problem worse.
you cannot force anyone into treatment, not if you want freedom. using drugs cannot be a criminal offence, either. however, if someone has committed a crime that can reasonably be associated with addictions, then offering treatment as part of a sentence where appropriate might prove useful.
your figures require substantiation. otherwise, they come off as hearsay. but i will suggest this much: it seems most of those on the street addicted to big pharm synthetics are highly unlikely to stay off the stuff, no matter how much you force them into “treatment,” that is unless you do not keep them prisoner.
I’m not commenting one way or the other about embarrassing statements, mature debate, looking foolish, childish tantrums, or the contents of his statements at all. If those are grounds for being shut out from these comments, then I suspect the comment section will be very quiet indeed.
As I said above, if he accused specific people of being vigilantes, that is perhaps more serious. I read his blog post and I read the comments here – I haven’t seen it. You’re welcome to provide your evidence.
I have the documented statements starting almost a year ago and will not bring them up on this forum. I will state that the comments do have to be directed at a person only, but if directed at a group can also be a breach. One of the comments specifically singled out “Dennis Bremner and his group”: there are many other statements made documented.
Some from April 14th of this year! Do your own research, I don’t have time to argue with you.
You won’t bring them up because they don’t support what you’re saying, instead you’ll have a tantrum and storm off. Perhaps improving the comments here doesn’t require banning dissent, instead I propose we make it adults only!
Yale has also not singled out a specific group, only made vague unhelpful statements about vigilante sentiment.
For the adults reading who are interested in more than childish “nuh uh I’m going home”, the “Dennis Bremner and his crew” comment is from here: https://twitter.com/ydbelanger/status/1646881779444506625
You’ll note it mentions nothing about vigilantes – it is critical of one proposed plan for homelessness, but that is all.
Nice try at smoke and mirrors, but you failed to read beginning of your thread where you even state that you adding LPS to your thread. April 13 you state ‘A move towards vigilantism directed at houseless . . . . .’ and your blog!
Just like people try to take part of a video of incidents and try to turn it into something else, we see you only taking the parts you think will make your point.
I will not waste my time on you failed argument further!
Do you think I’m Yale? What are you even talking about? If you want to know what’s going on, you can’t just read the first and last message – the first message is a vague blog post about vigilantes, but the “Dennis and his crew” comment is his response when someone else brings up lethccc.com. I swear half the people I talk to in these comments are stumbling through life in a stupor only vaguely aware of what’s going on around them, but they’re pretty sure they’re mad about it.
No PD, I think she is right, I think YQL Dude is actually a woman and is Kelti Baird, since she was one of the commentors on that thread and has in the past attacked those of us who protest to protect our city. She also supported the SCS . . . I wonder how many people leave her bar who have had a few too many to drive? Maybe that is why she wants a bike path to her door? Although you can still be charged for impaired on a bicycle can’t you?
Either way, don’t waste your time arguing with them . . . you are talking to a wall!
Another active imagination I see. Lots of people support supervised consumption sites, and bike lanes, because the benefits are well supported by evidence. Maybe pretending everyone who calls you out on your hateful delusions is the same person makes it easier to pretend you’re not the one who’s out of touch?
My point remains, Yale has not accused anyone of being a vigilante, and it’s telling that in place of evidence I get childish tantrums. If the Herald is interested in banning questionable behavior, you randomly attacking a person you don’t like over my comments is a much more appealing target than some vague blog posts.
great work, batman! have you uncovered yet another im-poster? stay tuned…same bat time, same bat channel.
as for your insinuating that her brewing company turns a blind eye to drinking and driving – do you have some evidence, or are you, again, just tossing out whatever you feel serves your lustful desires for controlism/law and order?
I am not a coward hiding behind phony names!
how do you know my name is not in fact, biff? as for coward, the biggest cowards i have ever met are those that are so fragile they need to control everyone else.
Easy to fix – – All people who want to comment have to comment under their first and last names.
You are not anonymous and a court order can easily get your name.
great comment!
hard to determine whether you are thick, or just thin-skinned…could it be both? there is nothing in the thread that seems even to come close to anything illegal.
BIFF, I believe you have forgotten about your oomments attacking me in December after I mentioned how afraid my daughter was when an addict bothered her in the women’s lavatory at the bus station.
Perhaps you need to be reminded of your cruelty?
https://lethbridgeherald.com/commentary/letters-to-the-editor/2022/12/14/civilization-is-doomed-if-criminal-behaviour-isnt-stopped/
I think the Herald has been great at printing both sides of the issue. It’s guys like buckwheat who can’t understand what these Reformers are doing to us, although it’s as plain as his nose on his face. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. It’s no secret that Albertans have been cheated out of hundreds of billions of dollars by these fools helping the rich, in an effort to buy votes, and the facts prove it. Now Smith is piling up the debt as fast as she can to try to buy an election and buckwheat is there supporting it. He doesn’t give a damn about what it will do to our children’s future.
Can you prove your comments Barrie? We haven’t seen any of it in Edmonton, the NDP tells it as it is which is why we support them. We trust her a lot more than Reformer Smith, who holds the record for the worse political record of defeats in Alberta history, so why are you defending her? The conservatives in my world aren’t, there is nothing conservative about her.
For those of you who weren’t supporters of what the Truckers Convoy did to Alberta and Canada, costing taxpayers $65 million, make certain you google ” Alberta Politics” and see who Danielle Smith’s pals are. The woman has made it crystal clear she like right-wing extremists and criminals. In other words the vast minority of people. With 76 % of Canadians not supporting them why would Smith be dumb enough to support the remaining 24% ?
balanced journalism would be great, but the majority of news sources the majority of the time have always had their preferences/agendas. the phrase, “yellow journalism,” has been around for many generations. things have become worse as news sources ownership have ever become more concentrated, and do very well to under report significant information while doing very well hitting us with lots of rubbish. investigative journalism is rare. mostly, news media are about pushing the corporate agenda – hello folks on the “right” – and ignoring and whitewashing the sleazy relationships between govts and big corp. the so-called “left” they pronounce falls under whitewash, as they support the “green” push, which, sadly, is a lark. while we need green/sustainable approaches, what has been happening is yet another load of siphoning away public monies into the private hands of the already uppermost ultra wealthy folk and entities.
as for the herald, they are more balanced than most sources. sadly, while they have every opportunity to increase their readership, not by echoing all the controlled rubbish coming down the pipe from the concentrated few news sources, but by really digging into what goes on more locally, such as at our dear city hall (never an audit). that said, news papers in particular have been facing very many challenges, not least of which are readership and revenue.