ethics?

The CBC has always been considered the standard of excellence in Canadian broadcasting. Many aspiring journalists look to the examples of Peter Mansbridge, Keith Boag, and others to guide them in their career path. But last night, the CBC lost some of my respect during a broadcast focusing on the Afghan children killed by a Canadian rocket explosion. The camera technician zoomed into a shot of two children lying in a wagon, their faces covered in blood and their bodies mangled.

What gives CBC the right to exploit the grief of the Afghan people, and the families who lost their children? I highly doubt that any one will live to see the day when CBC broadcasts images of bloodied Canadian soldiers killed during war, for the simple reason that it is unethical. Exploiting the grief, and the tragedy of these children's deaths, goes against the most basic framework of journalism ethics; comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.

In no way does such an image serve the interest of the public, except to shock a nation where the majority of people already oppose the war. By broadcasting images of dead children, it seems to me that the CBC is trying to influence the way in which the Afghan war is perceived by the Canadian public. As an news institution, the CBC should be working to remain as unbiased as possible, rather than showing images that are, I feel, put forth for public consumption for the sole purpose of arousing emotion to drive the public towards a certain viewpoint; that the war is wrong. Whether or not the war is justified is not the question; rather, the CBC's aim in broadcasting these images very nearly points to a desire to influence public thought in a way that is undemocratic, unprofessional, and most importantly, unethical.

funding

Within his first few days in office, President Obama has already stirred up a considerable amount of controversy among conservative right-wing Americans. His recent decision to re-instate funding to groups that provide and/or offer information about abortions has, predictably, caused outrage among evangelicals and conservatives. This peculiar issue of funding, which has been a flip-flop issue between Democrats and Republicans in every administration since Ronald Reagan, has tuoched a nerve on those in America who feel that it is their patriotic duty to ensure that control of women's bodies falls under the hands of old white men.

Interestingly, this funding applies to groups who are offering HIV prevention in Africa. Contraceptives and reproductive technologies that can be used to prevent the spread of AIDS and HIV suffered a dramatic cut in funding under the Bush administration, which is pure insanity. Who cares about the 922 million people who are living with or touched by HIV/AIDS? Because it makes so much sense to preserve one unborn life at the expense of thousands of others.

Obama's decision to re-instate funding also opens the door for organizations to offer realistic and practical sexual health education, rather than the abstinence-only system that infected American schools under the Bush adminsitration. It's about time someone in government realized that abstinence-only education only hurts kids and teens. No matter what kind of education you try to innoculate them with, kids are going to fool around so you had better make sure they know how to keep themselves and their partners safe. As it stands, 82% of teen pregnancies are unplanned; America has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any developed state. It is twice as high as Canada and England, and eight times as high as the Netherlands and Japan! All of these countries include sexual health education in their curriculum. Clearly, there is a problem with abstinence-only education.

American right-wing politicians need to remember that it is not their right to decide what a woman does with her body. Obama's decision on funding will hopefully set a precedent for his stance on women's rights during his period in office. As a man with both a functioning brain and two young daughters, Obama differs from Bush and other conservative politicians in that he can think outside the parametres of his religion in terms of policy-making decisions. Women's rights have been a hot topic for conservatives because it challenges their ideas of gender roles and the ownership of women's bodies. After eight years of fusing religion and policy, it is high time conservatives got a kick back down to the level of everyday people and emerged from the dark ages.

racism?

with Obama's inauguration less than one day away, some people have been debating whether paying attention to the ceremony qualifies as racist thinking. personally, i think there is no basis for that judgement, but i will play it their way and explain why.

while Obama's election signifies a landmark in American history, his value as president runs far deeper than the colour of his skin. whether black, white, asian, native, or any mix thereof, voters identified with Obama because he embodies a myth that they are all familiar with; the American dream. Obama rose from nothing to something, and this level of success resonates with people across the world. if a white woman rose to prominence from poverty and became prime minister, would watching my decision to watch her take office qualify me as a sexist? i think not.

Obama's ability to unite voters around a common theme, hope, is also a huge part of the reason why this election is so prominent. rarely before has there been such a strong connection between voters, and this is because of Obama's message that we are the future, we are the change in this world. his campaign message left people feeling empowered and exhilerated, something that has been scarce for the last eight years. when Trudeau ran for the Liberal leadership in 1967, his campaign was a symbol of energetic hope and generational change. he inspired Canadians of all ages, most particularily youth, and 'Trudeaumania' took hold of the country. yet Canadians who celebrated his envigorating and exhilerating message were not criticized for electing yet another white man to office, nor did black Canadians sit idley at the table, twiddling their thumbs as he was elected. people across the nation celebrated together, regardless of race.

when people say that i am a racist for thinking that Obama's inauguration is significant, i have one thing to say; grow up. we live in a world where people of all races can hold every possible position. if you enjoy working for a company that is led by a black CEO, are you racist for thinking that his innovative ideas are significant for the company? the answer is no. Obama's election, while marking a cornerstone in American history, is significant because of his ability to connect with people and the relative modernity of his ideals. trivilaizing his significance to the colour of his skin is pointless and a waste of energy.

2008, in review

2008 has come and gone
yet still we watch with TVs on
Paris, Lauren, and the like,
while veejays yap into their mike.
MTV leads us astray
while still, we sit and greet the day
with thoughts not of Bush or bombs or books,
but of which new celebrity pic was took
by some poor slob searching for a hook.

While Mumbai hotels are blown apart
by radicals who preach their form as art,
we look to celebs who shine with glee
over Suri, Zahara, and Bronx Mowgli.
Nevermind Fritzel who in Austria hid
seven kids, his daughter's! from what he did
From such events we should have shook,
Were we not caught by Palin's look
and demands for Hil Clinton to cook.

Obama's voice called out for change
and among the people there was a range,
of celebrities like Will.I.Am
who sought to lead our attention from glam.
He won, he did it, they have their man
so why has Harper not yet got the can?
For leading us to certain debt
While Dion and Layton lost their bet
For now, the proroguement is what we get.

sex appeal

a recent article from the Globe&Mail, titled Sex Appeal noted the willingness of young, stereotypically beautiful women to work as sports broadcasters when given the opportunity. at the same time, it pointed out the fact that these women are no more than eye candy for the target male audience.

they are not hired for their intelligence or industry-savvyness. they are hired because their target demographic is one of males who have been raised in a society that sells women as objects of desire. i have come to the recent opinion that any woman who belittles herself to work in a position where she is valued solely for her beauty is either naive to the purpose of her employment or else lacking all measure of self-respect.

some might argue that these women are creatively manipulating the system to their own advantage, making a profitable contract though understanding of the market. myself, i would argue that it doesn't matter how much money they make or how stable their contract is. my journalism professor at Carleton once told us that "our reputation is sacrosanct in journalism." what possible good could come of a reputation or wealth based from a willingful exploitation of a person's dignity?

for me, no contract or paycheque could ever be worth selling myself out as eye-candy. these girls are not journalists, and do a diservice to the journalistic industry by selling out their intelligence for a three-year contract. women need to be taking a moral stance of issues such as commodificaton of the female body in an industry that is using them as bait to attract horny men. we need to recognize that while we may be physically attractive, we are worth more than our looks. but hey, that's just a piece of this mind.