One of the first targets of oppressive regimes is the press; or more correctly, the broad dissemination of information.
Section 2 of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states; Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
Read more: Alberta makes March fraud prevention month
The American equivalent is found in the First Amendment of their Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
The bottom line here is that in both countries every one of us has the freedom to express our views without government interference. Period.
Three instances have occurred recently that bother me greatly. The editor and sports writer of our local paper was covering a protest at Lakeland College regarding their sports program. The college was less-than cooperative.
Just as a point of information, Lakeland College receives government monies. Because of that, they must follow the Charter, which clearly states our press guy had every right to be at that event.
The second instance took place during the last few days of last month. The White House press office announced that from now on, they will select which reporters are allowed to cover the President.
Up until now, the “White House Press Core,” an organization comprised of all of the various press people, have determined which of their members can cover White House news on a per-session basis. This includes sharing time between sworn press enemies such as CNN and Fox News. Now, the President will decide who can cover him, and guess who that will be.
The final issue that has my blood pressure spiking is the action of the owner of the Washington Post who has directed his “opinion section” people that they are no longer to write columns critical of the Presidents’ agenda. The owner is a guy called Jeff Bezos. You may remember him as the owner of Amazon and a good buddy of Trump.
The Opinion Editor resigned as a result. The Washington Post is the newspaper that broke the Watergate story. It was the epitome of “critical” reporting regardless of the party in power. A few weeks before this, Bezos also prevented an editorial cartoon mocking Trump from being published. She too resigned.
I keep hearing you can’t trust the reporting of mainstream media. Is the press biased?
Of course, they are! As am I! As are you! Speaking personally, to counter-balance those various reporting and editorial biases, I have access to over a dozen different daily news feeds, both left-leaning and right, Canadian, American and International.
The issue is not just the information itself, but the veracity of its origins and the credibility you decide to place on it.
The more sources you have, the higher the likelihood you will be able to develop a reasonably accurate interpretation of the events being reported.
With the camera being everywhere these days, you can often view things with your own eyes. Whether you choose to believe what you see or how you interpret the information, is another matter entirely.
As an investigator, no witness statement is absolute unless you can independently corroborate it. There are, after all, three truths: your truth, my truth and finally, the cold hard truth.
One of the lessons history has shown time and again is that any effort by people in powerful positions to reduce access to information, such as any censorship of the press, is dangerous.
As a writer and citizen, the ability to express my opinion is sacrosanct. I don’t care if you believe in Chem-Trails or that an International Cabal is taking over the substance of the Municipal Land Use Bylaw.
I don’t care if you love or hate Trump; I don’t care if you think the deep state is ruining the country. I don’t care if you believe the Law is under threat or not.
What I do care about is that you have every “right” to hold that opinion. You have every right to express that opinion. You have the right of access to information regarding what is going on. If you have the wherewithal to advance your view into political action, then good on you. That’s called democracy.
To have any leader suggest that suppressing unflattering coverage is justified is a great way to get your clock cleaned.
– Darrell Dunn
Read more: Gun owners being defended by Saskatchewan
