November 2, 2024
HERE'S MY TAKE
Raydio Pennings
Have you ever wished you could listen to Ray, rather than read him? Well, now you can, by hitting play on the audio version of Insights below.
Now, whether you're on a walk, cooking in the kitchen, or even commuting, you can hear Ray's Insights on demand!
You can also look back at previous issues of Insights by visiting the dedicated Insights blog right here.
The decision by the Washington Post (among other newspapers) not to formally endorse a presidential candidate in the U.S. election campaign has attracted far more attention than any endorsement they might have made. Three of their ten editorial board members resigned and 10% of their subscribers cancelled in response. This forced owner Jeff Bezos to pen an explanatory piece, arguing that endorsements “create a perception of bias” and of “non-independence.”
Bezos is probably right to suggest that “endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election.” However, I would argue that overcoming bias (which all media outlets have) is better addressed by declaring it. The failure to provide the expected endorsement of the Democrats has now led to speculation that this was done in response to pressure from the Donald Trump campaign or due to fear of reprisals should Trump win the election. Bezos insists “that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here” but most pundits seem to think he protests too much. Admitting that his non-endorsement policy just days before an election seems suspicious, Bezos insists that the decision was due to “inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.” Clearly, many of his staff and subscribers are not buying it.
Before Canadians get sanctimonious about the role of American newspaper financiers influencing what gets written (or not) on their digital pages, let’s remember that our newspapers receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies. Supporters of this policy nobly insist, as does Bezos, that they’re just protecting an industry, not catering to special interests. Occasionally, though, a stray word betrays what is really going on. Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed infamously posted on X a blunt retort to a National Post opinion article, saying “Your paper wouldn’t be in business were it not for the subsidies that the government you hate put in place.”
All of this happens within a much larger context of what relevant information gets to citizens and what stays hidden from them as they seek to make decisions about their public life together. A premise of democracy is that citizens have reasonable access to reliable information that can inform their views. That always involves considering the source and adjusting how you receive information accordingly. Media outlets have always had their biases and only the naïve believe that those who fund them never, at least implicitly, influence editorial decisions. I welcome media outlets being upfront about that. In fact, I find media sources more credible when they tell me what they think (in clearly marked opinion pieces) but then also provide reporting of information that is not supportive of their position. A reasonable position takes into account the best arguments and data against it, rather than ignoring them or hoping that they don’t come to light.
This isn’t just something that applies to news media. The impulse to suppress information has long been part of politics, although the audacity with which that’s been happening lately is extremely concerning. Canada’s House of Commons has not been able to conduct its regular business since the beginning of October because the governing Liberals are in a standoff with the opposition parties over access to government documents. In June, the House of Commons passed a motion (with all of the opposition parties in support) demanding all documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Auditor General Karen Hogan found “significant lapses” in the operation of this 2021 creation of the federal government and that it had mishandled millions of dollars in public money while promoting “green” technology. The Liberals shut down the fund in response to the auditor’s report but the opposition parties suspect outright corruption and want all of the documents related to the fund handed over to the RCMP. The Liberals say they’ve provided redacted documents and argue a Parliamentary committee should consider the need for full disclosure before any new documents are released. Since the deadline that Parliament set has passed without the documents being released, the Conservatives are using procedural tactics to prevent any other House of Commons business from being conducted.
Yes, politics and procedural games are involved but at the core, this issue is far more basic and fundamental. The House of Commons speaker is clear that “(t)he House has the undoubted right to order the production of any and all documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties.” However, the government argues that it should have the discretion to withhold certain documents, ostensibly to protect the Charter rights of individuals who might be named within those documents.
Both Mr. Bezos and the Liberal government are asking the public to believe (in admittedly very different cases) that they should have the right to decide what information is shared. Essentially, they’re claiming everyone should trust their judgement. Mr. Bezos goes so far as to suggest this will enhance our sense of confidence in the independence of the media. The Liberal government tells us it is motivated by protecting Charter rights, implying that only they and not the RCMP who would be receiving these documents are capable of dealing with these legal issues.
They’re both wrong. Withholding information will not contribute to the public’s trust in institutions. Trust is an asset like a bank account. To withhold information is to withdraw from that account. Sure, there are circumstances in which we withdraw from an account in order to invest in something greater, and Mr. Bezos is arguing that is what he is doing. However, when trust accounts are low, there’s very little trust capital left for such investments. So, the public reasonably takes the most skeptical explanation for why the information is being withheld. That’s not because they are cynical; it’s because they are not naïve and have learned from history.
I’m not simply dismissing the Bezos and Liberal government arguments; for all I know, both may be sincere. But for an institution to argue that it is doing something for the public good and not just for its own institutional self-interest is to make a withdrawal from the trust bank. It is not a deposit into it.
We could complicate the story a whole bunch more by musing about the appropriateness of various other cases. We have the Canadian government briefing American media on foreign interference, naming previously unnamed suspects even while insisting that it cannot name the 11 parliamentarians who are allegedly compromised by foreign interference attempts. We also have the prime minister testifying before a Royal Commission about information he has that his political opponents are compromised (skipping the fact that the same concerns apply within his own party) even while describing previous attempts to make this information public as “criminal.” Multiple investigative reports have highlighted how freedom of information laws officially put the onus on the government to default to sharing information, while in practice, “the process gives institutions incentives to keep records hidden” at every turn.
What these unique stories have in common is a miscalculation of how to maintain public trust in institutions. The withholders of information say they are simply trying to maintain and build trust, but what many folks hear is a disrespect of the public’s ability to receive and process information reasonably.
There’s enough happening in the world that causes me to be cynical about “the common sense of the common people.” I don’t default to populism. I continue to have a healthy respect for expertise and rely on it to process information. However, I also have a healthy skepticism of power and its concentration, understanding the impulse for every institution to protect itself by limiting information that might cast it in a less than ideal light.
Mr. Bezos began his defence with the “hard truth” of distrust and bias in institutions. His argument was to withhold ordinarily expected information – the view of the newspaper’s editorial team clearly articulated on the editorial page in the form of an endorsement. Even if he is right regarding the lack of consequence from newspaper endorsements, the reaction proved he was wrong about skipping endorsements as a means of building trust. Resignations and subscription cancellations are evidence of declining, not increasing trust. Similarly, the government’s withholding of information is evidence of a posture that will only lead to further distrust and cynicism.
Knowledge is power. It’s always been so. Commitments to openness and transparency will always be compromised by those for whom some information is inconvenient. As we pay attention to what is being said by whom, we need to remain conscious of what is not being said and why. And those in leadership need to constantly remind themselves that it is often not what they say but what they are perceived to be hiding that contributes to growing cynicism and distrust. In an age when trust-building should be a priority, behaviours that ultimately undermine trust are very unhelpful.
WHAT I’M READING
Urban vs. Rural
The recent BC, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick election results all confirmed that being an incumbent government these days has its challenges. Both Premier Moe in Saskatchewan and Premier Eby in British Columbia held onto power (just barely in Eby’s case). However, Premier Higgs suffered a significant defeat in New Brunswick. But another dynamic that seemed common to all three elections was a growing urban-rural divide. Left-leaning voters appear more concentrated in urban centres while rural districts lean in a more conservative direction. Rahim Mohamed argues in the National Post that overcoming this “urban curse” is an issue that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has to navigate carefully.
Immigration and Economics
Last’s week’s federal announcement about substantial cuts to immigration targets comes in response to considerable discussion about the failure of our infrastructure, including homes and health care, to keep up with population growth. But as this Globe and Mail commentary notes, there is another side to the immigration question: labour supply. This has been muddied in recent years by relaxing the criteria for newcomers to stay in Canada. Lowering the demand may affect affordability and inflation, but the tradeoff is a diminished labour supply and a slowing of productivity which also affects us all.
Politicizing Charities
The Liberals are promising to introduce a bill in the House of Commons that would require charities that provide pregnancy counselling to disclose whether they offer or refer abortion services. This appears to be their latest attempt to use abortion as a wedge issue for partisan gain. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has been advocating for these changes for over a decade, arguing that many of the pregnancy centres are providing “misinformation.” Columnist Terry Newman picked apart the argument in the National Post. She notes that Pregnancy Care Canada, the umbrella group representing many of the pregnancy care centres, points to its standards of “honest and open answers.” The legislation lands in a political context in which the Liberals have been attempting to make abortion an issue. Already a few years ago, my colleague made the case in Policy Options that moves like the one taken this week politicize the charitable sector, aren’t really about protecting Canadian rights, and amount to political interference.
A Philosophy Song
Jeff Reimer’s review of Charles Taylor’s most recent book, Cosmic Connections: Poetry in the Age of Disenchantment, caught my attention for three reasons. Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age has been key to my own understanding of secularism; Jeff Reimer is a colleague; and the core argument regards how people come to know and believe things, which is always an important theme. Reimer suggests Taylor’s point might have made better in verse, so here’s the best I can do in response:
To detail this review would be a project that would take too long,
And to do it right would require me to sing a philosophy song.
Dividing objective and subjective is part of what it is to know
As to how Reimer and Taylor answer that, to the review you must go.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Trusting AI
National Newswatch reports on two related studies, both of which show that people in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (the so-called BRICS countries) are more trusting of artificial intelligence and willing to use it than those in G7 countries. BRICS countries are characterized by developing economies and the report suggests these populations consider AI “a means to accelerate economic progress, prosperity and quality of life.” They expect AI might contribute to closing the gap with the West. Concerns regarding AI in G7 countries are attributed to privacy and dependency worries, potential job impacts, and a concern about the social disruption it might cause.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Taking on the Bandits
Raccoons are known as masked bandits in part because of the dark fur around their eyes, but also because they are crafty creatures known for thievery. But the police were called to respond to a swarm of raccoons in Washington State a few weeks back for the opposite of thievery. It seems an elderly woman had been feeding raccoons for some time and somehow the “word got out in raccoon land.” The woman called for help after being overwhelmed by the hundreds of raccoons the sheriff says “had decided to hold a convention in a backyard.” The New York Times account suggests that the dozen or so “normal raccoons that she feeds are nice but the new ones showing up scare her.” The story ends with the woman fleeing in her car “leaving the group of raccoons – a ‘gaze’ is the collective name – behind.”
The gaze has dispersed and there is not much more to see. Nor do I have trash talk to add to the story, so I’ll leave the “take-it-to-go” bin with that. I hope your week is a great one and I look forward to being back in your inbox next Saturday.