I am not sure when but it appears basic fact checking and investigative journalism has been too expensive, time consuming, or unimportant. Does the Canadian media invest any time or effort in qualitative research any more?Our media are busy in pushing a Tabloid narrative that is filled with mistakes of facts and the omission of historical context.
Is it the support of our "Canadian culture" by our Canadian public broadcasters to report on marital affairs by Americans? Is this the lead story in many markets?
How many fathers, mothers, seniors from across Canada lose sleep because (insert name here), American celebrity is seen outside a bar intoxicated?
Why is the Canadian news media consumed in delivering the TMZ 15 second soundbites as insightful?In countries, a "Free Press" is expected to report on issues that matter or just capture ratings?
In Canada our media repeatedly demostrates they are not smarter than a 5th grader. They are not interested in reporting on the problems, issues that matter with substantive research and fact checking. Instead our Canadian media have chosen to sensationalize the trivial routine matters as some affront to our democracy on a routine basis.
How does China compare to Canada on the Environment or Human Rights? Has the Canadian Free Press done a good job in explaining the differences of the two systems?
unedited speaking in the London at the U.K. Chamber of Commerce on May 2008.Superpowers have “attitude”– an attitude of superiority, that is. If consensus cannot be reached, they are ready to go it alone. It stands to reason that energy superpowers would be willing to do the same. On this basis, if Russia manages to expand its markets, secure a global reach, and even rebuild its military arsenal, it will become both the first true energy superpower and a military superpower as well.
This is as far from Canadian reality as one could imagine. Canada takes pride in working towards consensus. It is a law-abiding nation, and as mentioned, it doesn’t use coercion and bullying to impose its will on others. For these reasons, labeling Canada as an energy superpower is counterproductive.
First, last year we began removing the special tax incentives brought in by our predecessors that actually encouraged and subsidized the growth of the traditional oil sands industry. We are phasing those out and replacing them with incentives for the deployment of green technology only. Second, our targets in the oil sands go well beyond the standards for other industries.
...industry accounts for only half of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. We must address other key areas of our economy. That’s why, for example, we’re mandating a five per cent renewable fuel content in gasoline by 2010. We’re imposing stringent automobile fuel efficiency standards starting with the 2011 model year and of course we’re undertaking many initiatives in the development of alternative fuels and energy efficiency
Differentiated strategies are welcome and are necessary. But if we want non-Kyoto countries like the United States, China and other major developing economies to be part of the solution, then we will have to bring them all into the solution or the reality is that none of them are going to be in the solution, and if that happens, all of our efforts, in Canada, in Europe and elsewhere, at stopping climate change, while noble, will be largely ineffective.Where do we find "consensus" in Canadian Politics, and why do we demand the Conservatives follow it?
Does the "Canadian Free Press" inform or correct the importance and the amount of Carbon emmissions Canada produces? China and the US account for over 40% vs Canada's 2% contribution. The opposition, advocate from environmental lobbies regularly praise China and the U.S. in attacking the Canada. The "Canadian Free Press", environmentalists insert "Per Capita" when attacking the Canadian record. Canada is an export nation and some suggest we should measure carbon emmissions at their use not at their extraction. Canada’s oilsands could account for more than one-third of U.S. oil supply within two decades..
Is it possible the largest polluting countries do better when you use that criteria? China places 96th place when using per capita, the Falkland Islands is worse than Saudia Arabia when using per capita by country. Why would the Canadian Free Press use that comparison so often?carbon emissions by country
Did we have a consensus for Conscription, WWI, WWII, N.E.P. or most recently the Afghanistan mission? The support from Francophone in Quebec is the lowest and support for conflict, war always diminish over time. That is expected. Does the Canadian Free Press present that facts and historical context well?
The unilateral changes to Political Party Financing that rewarded the Liberal and Bloc party with taxpayers money?
The Canadian Free Press seem to obsess on some trivial detail and ignore every other part of the story. Like Afghanistan, our free press dedicated all their resources, energy on the treatment of Taliban prisoners captured and handed over by our Armed Forces. Is this what is taking place in other countries that have a Free Press