Posted by I would categorise myself mostly as a libertarian in the true sense of the term; not the one abused and misunderstood by most. By this, I mean I believe in maximum individual free will and choice and minimal government intervention and control. Of course, there is no perfect libertarianism just as there is no pure capitalism or communism. Hong Kong comes close on many counts with a super small government (public spending is generally below 20% of GDP with personal tax rates capped at a maximum of15% with no capital gains, interest or dividend tax). But even in Hong Kong, there is a Mandatory Provident Fund (because they know that people aren’t saving enough for retirement), universal “free” public healthcare and hospitals, over half the population living in subsidised (i.e. low rent or low cost) housing, and even basic welfare (the so-called “fruit” money) for those who are disabled or out of work. And of course, somebody has to pay for roads, police, firemen, etc. although many things that would normally be public in most western countries are regulated private companies or semi-private companies such as the gas company, the electric companies, toll tunnels, public transport (including buses, ferries, and the subway). I really do love Hong Kong because despite the lack of true democracy, the place is still the most free and open (i.e., libertarian) in the world as far as I’m concerned.
It amuses me when people with paper-thin knowledge ask me about or they themselves comment on Hong Kong and China, the places I lived most of my adult working life. People who write things like this article in the Globe and Mail pontificating about the decline of freedom of the press in Hong Kong. This article was written by a Linda Van Der Horst, from Taipei… a bad omen of how accurate it will be. Surprisingly, this article in the Huffington Post rebutting a New York Times OpEd about the “End of Journalism” hits the nail right on the head.
In the 19th Century, when the concept of a foreign correspondent was born, there was no other way to report the news. When radio and television came along, the model was continued. We sent CNN and other reporters to the Middle East to report on events in countries where they didn’t speak the language, didn’t really know the history, didn’t really understand the culture. They were actually foreign observers, doing the best they could, which was often superficial at best. This tradition, alas, continues to day. The irony is that this parachute-into-the-war-zone kind of reporting is not only mediocre and generally inaccurate, it is now totally unnecessary.
It is like a former Facebook friend (who has now “unfriended” me… ouch how will I ever survive without her vapid and conceited libtard posts) who used to work for the Canadian Brainwashing Corporation then decided to do a stint of “white man’s (woman’s?) burden” in Sudan. When someone posted a history of European colonialism she replied with something like “the real colonialists and problem in Africa are the Chinese” to which I took umbrage (hence the de-friending). The Chinese are in Africa exploiting natural resources. They are pouring billions of dollars into infrastructure like roads, mines and ports to do so. There is no intended moral high ground here – it is simple economics. If there are unintended negative side effects (propping up corrupt local dictators with money) there are also positive ones such as jobs, investment, infrastructure and some hope for a better future for the teeming masses in the “dark continent”. It will certainly do more over the long-term to improve the average life for Africans than so-called Western humanitarian aid which has been going on for decades that merely puts a band-aid on short-term crises without solving the underlying problems. That aside, to compare this and to even consider it worse than European imperialism shows a marked lack of understanding of history. China doesn’t send troops to Africa (Europe still does). It doesn’t occupy the territory or send colonists and it certainly doesn’t engage in mass slave trade (liberals may say that workers are being exploited but that is a far different thing than outright institutionalised slavery). Those are the hallmarks of colonialism; exploitation with zero reciprocity. I’m sure, of course, that views like her’s are endemic in the Canadian Brainwashing Corporation and is part of the reason why people are increasingly tuned out to mainstream media.
The CBC, of course, just doesn’t get it. In fact, they want to double-down on their outdated statist propaganda model and have asked the government for a further $423m in annual tax-payer funded pork so they can eliminate advertising to “Strengthen Canadian Culture in a Digital World.” This is, on top of the over $1bn in annual state subsidies the CBC already receives and is being sold to us as a mere increase of $12 per Canadian a year (up from the current $34). Nowhere is the concept that maybe, just maybe, every man, woman and child in Canada would rather not pay even the $34 brought up. Andrew Coyne makes a good argument for completely defunding the CBC in this article. Moreover, saying that we spend far less per person on the CBC than the Brits spend on the BBC is a stupid argument. It assumes that Canadians should emulate the British without explaining why that model is inherently better (it’s not) while using the worn out logic of comparing us to the one guy who spends the most (ignoring all those who spend less) and drawing the conclusion that this is why are we so far behind. The economic fallacy in this logic is not dissimilar to that espoused by a recent McKinsey Report that suggests that gender inequality is costing the Canadian economy $150bn a year. To save you the trouble, essentially the argument is that if women were paid the same as men (hard to ascertain given so many variables but lets assume it can be done), there would be $150bn increase in the Canadian economy. Let’s take this logic one step further: if all African’s were paid as much as European’s, there would be no poverty problem and we could boost the economy umpteem gajillions just by paying them more. It doesn’t make sense and is patently unfair that a doctor in Ouagadougou gets paid a pittance of what a doctor in America makes. Yeah, even an economic moron can see that this doesn’t work but somehow when you put it in the context of “gender inequality” in the West it becomes a logical economic argument that cannot be impugned as it would be politically incorrect.
But where there is government willing to load up the feeding trough, there are pigs who will come to feast. Even private-sector media wants in on the suckling-at-the-government’s-immense-teats game. There is a proposal by newspaper publishers for the government to provide $350m in public funding to “save journalism”. Once again, Andrew Coyne (I’m starting to like this guy) goes against this (in communist China we would say he was “breaking his own iron rice bowl”) and says this about the proposed $350m Canadian Journalism Fund. “But if this is about saving news, it’s odd that the publishers should have such a narrow definition of it. Anyone who follows the news these days knows it comes from a vast array of sources: not only traditional newspapers and broadcasters, but Facebook, Twitter, online news outlets like Vice and Buzzfeed, personal or group blogs, and on and on, in every size and configuration… The one thing it will not do is save the industry. It won’t fix our problems. It will just make them easier to avoid.”
And it begs the question; is Canadian journalism (or any journalism for that matter) so inherently worthless that it requires the taxpayer to save it and if so, why should we bother to do so if it is not that valuable to the consuming public. Here’s a good example that just happened. Several months ago, the Canadian Press ran this story (picked up by CTV News) headlined “Population of metropolitan Halifax area fell behind national growth rate.” The conclusion is pretty clear from the headline and is not terribly surprising given that Nova Scotia is a place where people come from, not move to, and has been for decades. Today, I read from the exact same sources, “Welcome to boomtown Halifax, the ‘anti-Toronto’“. The article waxes eloquently that “Halifax is booming, its skyline awash with construction cranes, and Ontario native Jesse Rodgers can tell you why.” Seriously? Halifax has somehow transmogrified in four months from a laggard to tech boom town? It then goes on to report that, “The city’s per capita population growth in 2016 outpaced Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa and, just barely, Toronto, according to recent Statistics Canada figures.” I’m still trying to figure out how you calculate a “per capita population growth” because, well per capita means population by definition. The population, per capita, is ONE. Maybe instead of giving another $400m to the CBC and $350m to save journalism, we should spend the money to send the “journalists” on remedial math courses after which they can find a more meaningful and productive career. I would definitely pay $12 a year to see that happen.
UPDATE 1 (5 July 2017): President Trump is in the news again (hardly surprising), this time over a tweet of a doctored video where the CNN logo was superimposed on a staged match with Donald Trump beating up someone outside the Wrestlemania ring in 2007. The idea is that “The Donald” was taking on and taking down the media as personified by CNN. Sophomoric childish antics? Probably – and definitely not something you would expect the sitting President of the United States of America to post. Washington Post opinion writer, Kathleen Parker kind of sums up the reaction of journalists in America to the President’s tweet. But it’s not her reaction that’s the problem; it’s the follow up commentary at the end:
As an opinion columnist who draws plenty of threatening hate mail, I fear less for my personal safety than for the integrity and security of our country. I’ve covered politics off and on for 40 years, including writing a thrice-weekly column for the now-defunct Charleston Evening Post in 1980 leading up to the first Republican presidential primary in South Carolina. Never during that time or since have I ever worried that a president’s behavior would embarrass the country on the world stage. Trump’s most unpardonable offense isn’t his implied threat to members of the fourth estate but his minimizing of the nation’s stature in the world.
Well good for you and your now-defunct former employer. Hope your kids aren’t in the same field because at the rate that newspapers are going under, it’s unlikely that they will have the chance of covering politics for 40 years. But deep down the article is the real truth where she categorises the media as the fourth estate. Let’s be clear, the fourth estate is a term used to describe the media as the fourth center of POWER. In old Europe, the three estates were the nobility, clergy and commoners. In modern politics, it probably more refers to the separation of powers between the executive (President), legislative (Congress), and judicial (Courts). No wonder journalists are so mad; for decades, they have considered themselves to be a separate power base – the fourth estate – fulfilling a holy duty to act as the conscience of the country and as a check and balance to the government. And now it’s fading at an alarming pace.
Peter Mansbridge, anchor of the CBC News for decades retired recently – good riddance. Not that I ever watch the CBC News, but I am doubly likely not to watch it with him there. Not after all the ridiculous political commentary he injected into the opening ceremonies of the Rio Olympic Games last year. The introduction of every new country as they entered the arena seemed to be an opportunity for him to inject some stupid opinion or inane comment in a pathetic attempt to show how smart he is and much knowledge he has from his 50 years of reporting. Oh look, there’s global warming because of these evil bastards burning fossil fuels. Oh, look there’s Taiwan so I’ll inject some stupid commentary about the “two China” policies that is actually incorrect. I frantically tried to change channels to get away from his rambling (I really did want to watch the opening ceremonies) but alas, the CRTC covered all the American channels with the CBC coverage.
If Peter Mansbridge and the media in general were like more like Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels), the anchor of the fictional Atlantis Cable Network in the The Newsroom; I probably wouldn’t hate and distrust the media so much. It’s a long clip but the introduction of the pilot episode I’ve attached below got me hooked on the show. Of course, I am a sucker for Aaron Sorkin’s writing having thoroughly enjoyed his previous work The West Wing. If we had a smart President like Josiah Bartlet (played by Martin Sheen) who wasn’t a pussy on military and international affairs, had a clear understanding of business and economics, and had integrity and values – hell I’d be a Democrat too. Sadly, Will McAvoy and Josiah Bartlet are both fictional characters who don’t and can’t exist in the real world. Will McAvoy would never have risen to be the anchor for a major news outlet unless he was a politically correct sycophant like Peter Mansbridge. Likewise, we will never get a Josiah Bartlet for President as our choices are always between a Donald Trump and a Hillary Clinton.