Author: Nick Fillmore

The latest water cooler chat among many Canadians this week is speculation about who will replace Peter Mansbridge as host of The National, CBC-TV’s flagship news program. He announced earlier this week that, after 30 years as host of  the program.

The long-time anchor seemed to be trying to give his departure considerable significance by announcing 10 months ahead of time that he is leaving. Also boosting his own importance, his departure also coincides with the occasion of Canada’s 150th birthday.

One wonders if Mansbridge expects an honorary star-studded tour hosting The National from CBC stations across the country, much like the retiring New York Yankees’ star shortstop Derek Jeter was honoured in every ball park during his last year.

Now CBC executives say they are going to usher in “the next phase” of The National. 

Jennifer McGuire, the General Manager and editor-in-chief of CBC News, told The Globe and Mail she sees Mansbridge’s departure as “an opportunity to reimage the program.” She said the CBC will look at increasing the digital delivery of The National.

Finding a new host for The National should not be the CBC’s main goal.

CBC should address the fact that neither The National nor any other CBC news program is trusted very much by the public. The content of CBC News programs is just like programming at mainstream media, and the public doesn’t like either.

A Statistics Canada General Social Survey of national opinions for 2013 and 2014 revealed that only 40 per cent of Canadians had confidence in media.

Canadians don’t like mainstream news because they believe it lacks balance and that it reports lies.

The public is much smarter and more skeptical when digesting the news today than it was back in the 1960s when CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite was believed to be only second to God when it came to telling the truth.

One of the reasons people mistrust programs such as The National is because we have access to excellent upstart news sources on the Internet. Many sites are run by talented journalists who have fled the mainstream.

Mainstream editors cut stories

People know mainstream media filter out stories that don’t suit the owners idea of what should be news. For instance, corporate-owned media – and even CBC News – tend to paint a negative picture of organized labour, protest groups, and some environmental organizations.

On the other hand, by the nature of its reporting, CBC News tends to endorse our current form of aggressive capitalism as being good for everyone. It seldom covers the negative aspects of giant international free trade deals for the public.

Worst of all, CBC News coverage of many international political stories is disgraceful. In May I did an analysis of the Canadian coverage of a trip by U.S. President Barrick Obama to Vietnam. Many stories were so pro-U.S. they could have been written by the White House.

The reason for Obama’s trip reported by the CBC was that it was a goodwill visit. However, from what I could determine, no CBC News program reported he was there to discuss selling weapons  to the Vietnamese that would be pointed at China.

The National needs a revolution

If the CBC wants to rebuild public support, it has to revolutionize how it approaches the news. The main goal should be to help people understand the news by reporting, as we say, “both sides of the story.”

Content, not style and not personalities, should be the focus of a re-built National. For a start, many of those 1:10 minute long stories could be left to CTV, while the National should focus more on the big, important events.

The current, one person studio set up should be thrown out the window. A new, more flexible set could be changed from night to night to facilitate the coverage of stories of different importance.

For major stories, the evening news would be co-ordinated by the person who has the most expertise concerning the topic; perhaps the person who has researched the story all day. Other people who know about the story, perhaps including someone from one of the current affairs programs, would also be on the set.

Editors would need to have the insight and skills to write complete, balanced stories. For instance, if Obama makes claims about what is happening in Syria, the story requires a response from either the Syrian government or the Russians. Both the Russian and Chinese media should be monitored for possible stories.

Very important: The National should break away from the myth that journalism can be presented objectively. The lie of objectivity was created by newspapers many years ago when rich owners needed to find a way to stop journalists from writing scurrilous articles that got their papers into trouble.

Producing such a program would require a highly skilled staff and occasional access to experienced journalists/producers from other programs and even bringing in non-staff guests.

Perhaps half of The National’s journalists have the skills required to contribute to a high calibre program. Others would have to be trained. To understand the kind of in depth journalism required, compare the reporting on The National with the journalism on BBC News.

It would take courage for CBC executives to create such a program. Any changes along these lines would bring howls from right-wing Members of Parliament. But that’s okay. They’re always howling at something.

CTV has led The National in audience ratings for years, and they still might lead after these changes. What’s important is that a new, more in depth National would better serve the public.

The annual gathering of the World Social Forum  (WSF) – the left’s response to the elitist annual Davos World Economic Forum  – is in session  in Montreal until Sunday, August 14.More than 1,000 self-managed sessions  have act…

The annual gathering of the World Social Forum  (WSF) – the left’s response to the elitist annual Davos World Economic Forum  – is in session  in Montreal until Sunday, August 14.

More than 1,000 self-managed sessions  have activists discussing and creating progressive alternatives to traditional political, economic and social policies that they will take back to their own countries.

While as many as 100,000 people have attended sessions some years in some developing countries, perhaps 10,000 are taking part in Montreal.

Participants from the South found it too expensive to travel to Montreal. In addition, hundreds of activists from some countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Morocco, Iran, Nigeria, Haiti and Nepal, were being refused visas.

WSF Meeting – Senegal

Montreal was selected this year because it has been the site of strong social and political activism over the last few years.

Meanwhile, the federal government seems to want to censor free expression at the WSF. It has distanced itself from the gathering following complaints that its programming included anti-Semitic content. According to news reports, the WSF was told last week to remove the Canadian government logo from its list of partners after two Liberal MPs expressed disgust over what they called a “blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon” on the event’s website.

The Forum is an exciting event writes John L. Hammond of City University of New York: “The scene bursts with energy as people who work on particular causes at home—feminism, the environment, indigenous rights, economic justice, human rights, AIDS treatment and prevention and many more—compare notes and strategies.

Networking, discussing key issues, and building alliances are the main activities at Forum sessions. The Forum can best be described as a “process”, an incubator facilitating new visions and ideas.
The activism bred at the WSF has supported change and revolution in several countries.

It can take credit, in part, for the collapse of the World Trade Organization’s Doha round  in 2003, the defeat of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and exposing the harsh austerity programs of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Little impact in English-speaking Canada

Thousands of Canadian social activists have taken part in numerous WSF gatherings over the years. While this exposure has helped radicalized students in Quebec, it appears to have accomplished little in Eastern Canada. Even during the brutal years of the Harper administration, only a handful of unions and fringe radical groups advocated strong action.

The NDP and leading social movement groups, say the Council of Canadians, should have seen the need to explore alternatives to Canada’s corporate-dominated political system. But the NDP doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of neo-liberalism, the damaging centrepiece of right-wing politics.
While the Council of Canadians, the country’s largest social action group, has won praise for challenging voting irregularities in court, its “activism” is usually limited to holding protests and sending petitions to government.

In Canada, as in much of the rest of the world, the left has lost a tremendous amount of ground since the WSF was created 15 years ago. We now live in a world where the 1 per cent has huge powers, corporations dominate our lives, neo-liberal policies rein in the public, and where progressive governments have fallen in several countries.

In view of these challenges, it is time for the WSF to seriously evaluate itself and its place in the world.

The movement has lost some of its radical edge over the years. Organizers have given in to some extent to the influences of government and the corporate world – initially the group’s main enemies.

WSF not independent enough

Eric Toussaint, a Belgian political scientist and one of the ideologists of the WSF, has been concerned for some time that the movement is not independent enough.

“It worries me to arrive in Porto Alegre and see that the seminar “Ten years later” is sponsored by Petrobras, Caixa, Banco do Brasil, Itaipu Binacional, with several governments in attendance,” he said on the 10th anniversary of the WSF.

“I would much rather have seen a Forum with less financial means but more militant in nature”, he said.

The sources of funding for the Montreal event may be an issue for some participants. Organizers claim the gathering will cost $2.4-million. This includes $710,000 from various levels of government and another $287,500 from unidentified “solidarity and sponsorship supporters.”

Some of the more activist participants complain about the increase in attendance in recent years by Non-governmental organizations, which tend to be comfortable operating within the capitalist environment. Meanwhile, participation by indigenous groups, which are usually more radical, has decreased.

Where is the WSF going?

Perhaps discussions held in Montreal will lead to a reinvigorated and forward looking WSF.
Since its beginning, the WSF has held that it does not intend to be a body representing world civil society, and therefor does not directly take part in political struggles. 

However, after 15 years of facilitating discussions there are concerns that the Forum could flounder if it does not move in new directions.

Pierre Beaudet, founder of Quebec NGO Alternatives, says there is “a recognized necessity for [WSF affiliated] movements to seize with both hands some major issues . . . . At this moment, the Forum could open up the self-organized convergences and go further than just producing a mixture of ideas which has characterized it thus far.

Adds Beaudet: “The difficulty, of course, is to identify the points of convergences, which is certainly not easy to do, considering the incredible diversity (which also comes with an incredible richness) of the participants from social movements.”

With its access to tens-of-thousands of activists, the Forum is the only progressive assembly in the world with the potential to facilitate co-ordinated action on a global scale on crucial issues, such as global warming, neo-liberalism, and life inequalities.

If the massive body is to begin changing direction in Montreal, it likely will have to overcome two obstacles.

The WSF’s complicated non-hierarchical system – perhaps reminiscent of the ungovernable mechanisms that laid low Occupy Wall Street – seems to prevent the Forum from moving forward.

The other potential obstacle concerns leadership. Some of the men who have been at the forefront of the WSF movement for all of its 15 years are still there. Much has changed since then. Will new leadership emerge to work with the old guard to allow the WSF to retain the best of its past and also move in a new direction?

The annual gathering of the World Social Forum  (WSF) – the left’s response to the elitist annual Davos World Economic Forum  – is in session  in Montreal until Sunday, August 14. More than 1,000 self-managed sessions  have activists discussing and creating progressive alternatives to traditional political, economic and social policies

While the banks, elites, and the super-rich have been scrambling to try to hold onto their billions following the UK’s shocking vote to exit from the European Union, the anger expressed by the leave side was another emotional cry to end the control that corporations and the elite have over

While the banks, elites, and the super-rich have been scrambling to try to hold onto their billions following the UK’s shocking vote to exit from the European Union, the anger expressed by the leave side was another emotional cry to end the control t…

While the banks, elites, and the super-rich have been scrambling to try to hold onto their billions following the UK’s shocking vote to exit from the European Union, the anger expressed by the leave side was another emotional cry to end the control that corporations and the elite have over everyday people in many Western countries.

The day after the vote, panic and fear struck at the hearts of money gamblers as their bets turned sour and markets lurched downward. The wealthiest people lost $120-billion.

On the other side of the equation, people in most part of the UK except Scotland and Northern Ireland expressed their anger over their inability to have more control over their lives. They blame the EU for the disastrous performance of the economy since the 2007-08 financial collapse. They also fear the idea of “ever closer union”, moving toward a United States of Europe, which would lessen their control over their lives.

Meanwhile, the same anger is present in several Western countries. People have seen economic policies that favour corporations and the rich that destroy their jobs, businesses and communities. Citizens began to lose control of their governments in the early 1980s when Thatcher in the UK and the Reagan in the US – without consulting the public – adopted a series of neo-liberal policies.

Multi-nationals, elites and banks firmly control Western governments through neo-liberalism, financial integration, and globalization. In 2011, a research group at a Swiss institute studied a database of 37-million companies, and identified a “super-entity” of 147 tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in a huge network.

Angry over EU membership, neo-liberalism

In the UK, millions of people feel they have suffered because of both their EU membership and neo-liberal policies.

Many well-paying jobs have disappeared due to neo-liberal policies. UK corporations have shipped their production to poor countries to maximize profits. When Thatcher came to office in 1979, manufacturing accounted for almost 30 per cent of Britain’s national income and employed 6.8 million people; by 2010, it accounted for 11 per cent and employed 2.5 million.

Then there’s the massive disparity between the rich and poor. Between 2012 and 2014 the richest 10 per cent in Britain held assets – a mix of property, cash and pension funds – worth just under £5Trillion. The poorest 10 per cent owned just £5.7 million.

The biggest issue for the leave side was the massive influx of migrants from the rest of Europe and refugees from Syria and other countries. While mainstream media has focused on the racist element, the deeper issue for people is that they have no control over EU-regulated migration and illegal immigration. The government says the UK experienced net migration of 330,000 people in 2015, but the Express newspaper says the figure does not take into account 1.1-million illegal immigrants.

Some of Britain’s elite finally get it. Considering the vote, veteran Conservative Ken Clark observed that citizens increasingly feel the institutions of government are making their lives worse, not better.

“There’s a strange, angry and uncertain mood out there…”, said Clark, “(an) anti-establishment, anti-political class feeling. The discontented older generation of every social background and class are angry about what’s happened in their lives.”

If the UK were a more equitable society, it likely would still be in the EU today.

Democracy no longer functions

Elsewhere, in several European countries, tens-of-millions of everyday people realize they are powerlessness when it comes to influencing major decisions that affect their lives because of neo-liberal policies. Democracy, whereby governments look out for the interests of people first, no longer functions in many European countries, Canada and the United States.

Working people in several European countries, including Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland have suffered greatly at the hands of a vicious neo-liberal policy component – austerity.

The most severe austerity abuse has been heaped upon the people of Greece. When the government was unable to pay its debts, the big money guys at the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank – instead of acting like humans – put the neo-liberal screws to the Greek people. They were forced to reduce spending on everything, including health, social services, education, etc. Wages and pensions were slashed.

A bitter irony is the fact that, having caused trillions of dollars of hardship to ordinary people in many countries – including Canada – the International Monetary Fund has admitted that austerity does not lead to economic revival.  However, it does enrich banks and corporations.

We should not forget that Canadians revolted against the neo-liberal and austerity policies of Stephen Harper. At one point Canadians were so desperate to get rid of Harper that they were prepared to vote for the New Democrats, traditionally a left-wing party.

Canadians have no say in trade deals

Canada is locked into the neo-liberal way of doing things. Most controversial are the two possible trade agreements the government wants to sign, CETA (The Canada and European Union (EU) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement), and  the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The deals have been negotiated in secret and favour corporations and trade over the interests of government veto power, labour, and the environment.

Because Canadian corporations and the wealthy are so powerful they get away with hiding their money in tax havens, making it more difficult for the government to provide services. Instead of creating its’ own bank that could issue interest-free loans to itself, the government will continue to be financed with loans from for-profit banks.

In the US, traditional politics is in a state of crisis. People are revolting against the Democratic and Republican parties over many of the same issues that anger Brits: trade-induced job loss, stagnant wages, and a vanished sense of prosperity.

Of course the election of Donald Trump as President would be a serious setback for democratic government. But he is advocating changes that appeal to some of those folks who are discontent: ripping up existing trade deals, slapping high tariffs on imported goods, and punishing companies that move production overseas.

If Hilary Clinton wins the election, ordinary people will continue to suffer while she gives a free rein to corporations and spends $596-billion a year on various wars.

Change could come in US

But, because of its revolutionary history and chaotic nature, perhaps the US is the country where we might see a change in the form of government.

Perhaps after the November election, the dedicated forces behind Democrat Bernie Sanders, many of whom support a more progressive social democracy, will split off and form a third party. However, this has failed in the US in the past.

Radical US journalist Chris Hedges believes that, because the corporations and elite are so strongly entrenched, significant change is going to come through some form of revolution.

“There are all sorts of neutral indicators that show that’ says Hedges. “Low voter turnout, the fact that [the US] Congress has an approval rating of seven per cent, that polls continually reflect a kind of pessimism about where we are going, that many of the major systems that have been set in place — especially in terms of internal security — have no popularity at all.

“All of these are indicators that something is seriously wrong, that the government is no longer responding to the most basic concerns, needs, and rights of the citizenry . . . . But what’s going to take its’ place, that has not been articulated. Yes, we are in a revolutionary moment; but maybe it’s a better way to describe it as a revolutionary process.”

Control of society by a self-appointed superior class using neo-liberal policies is incompatible with any true form of democracy. As we have seen in history, people will always rebel against tyranny. Will there be radical change in the US? As the cliché goes: Time will tell.