MEDIA FRENZIE REPORTING EVENTS
This week's MY CANADA article will only naturally cover a few observations resulting from the terrorist attack on Paris France. The attack is well covered by every media outlet in the world as is the G20 conference in Turkey.
Media coverage of events recently is a change from the kind of reporting and editorializing people were offered in the not too distant past. In the 1990's and prior media reports covered the events happening with possibly less obvious leaning of support for a political party on any issue. As the new millennium dawned everything changed. Reporters unashamedly display outright support for a party while covering political events. News anchors for the most part, although not always, outwardly exhibit support for a political party of choice or probably more often, as dictated by their corporate network owners. If the corporation where a media person is employed openly supports a particular political party opposing or even criticizing the choices would undoubtedly have unsavory effects. More likely if a reporter or analyst personally displaying neutrality or even favoritism to an opposition party it is probably unlikely the person would be offered a position.
Political neutralism allowing the reader, listener or television viewer of news items to make up his or her own mind about issues is a past practice or at least rare in past 15 years or more. Whether the new trend is right can be argued. Rich influential media corporations seem to be in a position to virtually dictate the public opinion direction. The trend seems to be many journalists and political analysts will react to anything majority government politicians decide should be public consumption. Alternatively a large portion of the population unwittingly supports the change in media direction by not following the news. However the statement might be inaccurate since it is difficult to live in today's world without being subject to news. Every network will interrupt programming to report breaking news with a report followed by analysis of the situation often using the occasion to promote or strongly support a political party position. It is simply another way news reporting changed in recent years.
The new methodology with respect to news coverage political control hasn't really worked it appears. In 2011 with the help of reported corruption in the major opposition party and constant news coverage strongly supporting another major party, Canadians changed recent voting patterns electing a surging minority government party to majority status. In 2015 the majority government elected with the help of the media lost that majority by, it seems, trying to control media reporting. The 2011 majority government was likely surprised controlling or blocking media access to party direction resulted in the former disgraced party using the media to win its own majority.
Media followers will be offered a strong diet of what is wrong and right related to every political issue over the next 4 years. In the end voters will chose whether to keep the present party in power, give a mandate to another party, or force all parties into cooperative minority governing to retain some semblance of power. The world will undoubtedly change during the next 4 years. Decisions today based on emotion resulting from the Paris massacre of more than 100 people by a small group of terrorists might lead to a more widespread conflict in the Mid East. The alternative is more local attacks while the major powers remain ready to keep the world on edge but out of a major conflict. Any major conflict will undoubtedly make WWII seem like a skirmish in comparison and therefore will hopefully be avoided.