It's the news damnit...

 manipulating the media.

 The subject matter is daunting, but let us just skirt the issue and provide issue specific examples.

The most recent article on the CBC broadcast network comes to mind.

If you are not made aware of it, Furlong | Trouble in Natuashish comes from the top is a news article published on cbcnews.ca’s website on October 6th portraying the economic, cultural, and health conditions in Natuashish.

John Furlong is a host on CBC Radio One in St. John's.

“Perhaps they have all lost hope. Perhaps that's why they present themselves the way they do. Expressionless silent, brooding, uncommunicative. It comes across as menacing and arrogant, but it's just the way they are. It's not the way we are. It's just the way they are.”-Furlong.

This is just an excerpt but you can examine this at your leisure on cbcnews.ca

 Furlong clearly manipulated issues which continue to plague Innu people in the North.

What is most troubling in my view; are Furlong’s denigration of a people and simultaneously stating that colonizing the upper northern territories--to be one great giant blunder in which Canadians continue to pay for to this day.

Another editorial which was published in the Nanaimo Daily News (NDN) on September 23rd by Bill McRitchie spoke of,

“First Nations in Canada have tenaciously clung to their tribal system, refusing to evolve as equal Canadian citizens and perpetuating the perceived notion that they remain under the heel of non-aboriginals.”

McRitchie’s editorial while offensive to some; is not racist as was inferred by many who wrote angrily to the NDN.

McRitchie’s point of view is shared by many mainstream Canadians.

Under the Charter I believe that Freedom of Speech still applies; and in this case McRitchie is free to share his point of view with the public.

Simply stating that it smacks of “racism” is too easy, and in this case wrong.

McRitchie argues the validity to continue to “hold to account” predominantly Caucasian multiple ethnic groups by indigenous peoples in British North America (BNA).

I use the term (BNA) as it best represents what we understand the North American continent to be at this present time.

This is not a new phenomenon, it still exists today. If we examine pre 1925 and post 1963 Germany; the conditions of responsibility as a nation holds true.

Of course in the McRitchie example, no one nation is attributable to what the author describes as, “not the only ones to suffer from the encroachment of foreign powers.”

The argument to be made is-should Canadians be made to shoulder the consequences of one hundred and seventy-three years of true racist, genocidal, assimilative federal governmental policies towards indigenous nations living within the BNA?

McRitchie argues not; and this is where true racial tensions lie.

It is clearly stated in the article published by the NDN. 

Manipulations of this sort negate any balanced approach to gather and disseminate truthful reflections of what citizens truly believe without fear of reprisals.

I often hear the analogy, “It is what it is,” or “why stick my neck out.”

In reply I give some analogies that stand true to this day.

“News, which was defined by a young reporter as: “something someone does not want you to print,” is not the whole story. There are also those two: record and interpretation.”-author unknown.

Here is what we commonly refer to in journalistic circles as Hearst’s Truth.

“Truth is not only stranger than fiction, it is more interesting..”

 Have you witnessed someone speaking for hours or writing a plethora of words without actually saying anything?

Why standing for something is definitely more dangerous than standing for nothing.

I was taken to task by “others” god forbid I should actually refer to someone...that writing “negative” stories to be counter-productive.

Honestly I do not subscribe to this point of view.

In a democracy, a newspaper has the duty to present the facts, and give a voice to those that are willing to make observations “on the record”...even naming people...

It is not the business of the media to censor who can and cannot voice an opinion in the printed word; as long as it addresses the concerns of a community.

Of which can be best described as being impactful, within a period of time, prominence, (within proximity of a region).  It also includes conflict (Conflict reveals underlying causes of disagreement between individuals and institutions in a society), currency, and human interest.

If you recognize these qualities in your newspaper, then rest assured they are doing their upmost to keep you informed.

In addition, those who are in positions of authority in whatever capacity; and purposely silence those who dare speak up- giving a dissenting opinion contrary to their own or their place of employment- is reprehensible.

You want to be heard? Great, go “on the record” and speak you peace. Have the courage to stand for something, even if you think it might bring you pause to do so.

Speaking you mind should never be hazardous to your health, or cost you your job.