Newsroom With a View: The CAJ Listserve By Frank Bond

Just as I was about to resign myself to another dreary evening in a multi-user dungeon observing the libidinous macho posturing of college sophomores for my online communities assignment, I received the following email message (quoted verbatim) from the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) Listserve in response to a request from environmentalists for open dialogue:

"WHY?? Environmental groups have a single agenda, that being to manipulate peoples emotions to make money. Now that the media seems to be catching on, we are being accused of bias. All single interest groups are just that...and by definition are shallow, predictable and incapable of intellectual discussion. Environmentalism is just another religious/political movement and should be treated as such. I think we have learned all we need to know from the environmental groups, thanks for the offer."

I clicked on CAJ's web site and subscribed to the listserver from which the message had come. Who needs virtual combat in a world seething with real conflict?

The list produced 30 to 40 email messages per day, mostly about how to cover the upcoming federal election. The question of how much coverage to give marginal parties led to the request by a west coast activist/journalist (and member of the Green Party) that drew the rebuke from the east coast "mainstream" journalist (and official of CAJ).

Immediately two camps formed around this thread. One woman wrote, "Thank you for validating my scepticism. I thought I was the only one who felt manipulated. I refuse to feel guilty anymore for my so-called anti-green bias." Another woman gently chided the CAJ official; "Uh-oh. Kind of a blanket statement, doncha think? SOME enviros have nobler motives. Truly, I promise."

A reporter with a Southam mailing address wrote:

"Enough with the Green Party whining and blathering! I do not feel that postings from Green Party or any other politicos are welcome on this list digest. This is a forum about journalism for journalists. I don't mind people listening in our chats, but spare us all the sermons and speeches, guys."

An independent journalist declared that such messages underscore the arrogance and ignorance of journalists in the mainstream media who have a "hand in glove" relationship with dominant corporate and political interests.

A CBC journalist diplomatically admitted there are cynical journalists, but also positive ones. He questioned whether some reporters, based on statements posted, could be trusted to give fair coverage, and whether some editors would allow and encourage balance. He also said that recognizing fanatics comes with experience and warned against letting them set the agenda.

The members settled down to a comprehensive discussion of how to cover the election with reduced budgets--whether to follow the candidates (and let them decide what is important) or to focus on the electorate (and miss moments like Kim Campbell's 1993 comment about not discussing issues during a campaign and CBC's town hall meeting where Jean Chretien got nailed to the wall on GST).

But the cordial mood didn't last long. The activist who had stirred things up earlier began a new thread: Are mainstream Canadian journalists racist? He cited the Gustafsen Lake standoff, where "there was a media frenzy fuelled by rcmp reports of machine-gun-toting indian terrorists shooting cops and terrorizing ranchers." He blamed some of the people on the list for writing those stories and asked why they weren't covering the trial now in progress. "You seem to wake up only when that 'flamboyant lawyer, known for his shaved head and space-age glasses (Globe and Mail, 22 Feb. 1997)' arrives on the scene."

The activist/reporter furnished a Ts'peten Defence Committee web site which he said documented "rcmp lies and media deception from their very own mouths in solemn court testimony," and challenged some of the younger reporters on the list to investigate.

This started a new round of accusations and counter accusations that were not only entertaining, but informative. Too often people accept what they read in newspapers without realizing they are written by humans with the same faults, biases, laziness, inadequacies, and yes, noble aspirations as the rest of us. To their credit, journalists responding on the list never lost track of the fact that their coverage affects public perception and the outcome of elections.

This type of listserver represents one of the best uses of the internet. Not only does it allow working journalists to share ideas and collaborate in a way never before possible, but it also allows ordinary people to view behind the scenes and get involved.

---

The Media is the Messenger.
Don't shoot...Reply
fbond@island.net

All rights remain with the author.