Take a look at The Independent this week and you'll see an interesting study in contrasts.
On the front page is a solid story by Stephanie Porter on the role of the media in covering criminal trials. It covers the subject thoroughly and quotes local reporters for print and television outlets here as well as news directors, all of whom refer to the need for factual accuracy and unbiased reporting in their news.
Flip over to the Indy editorial though and you see yet another example of the paper's editorial tendency to play fast and loose with the facts.
Back to that in a moment, but it is worthwhile recapping some of the Indy's other factually-challenged reporting, because it has become a fairly regular feature of the upstart little broadsheet.
Largest of all was the six-part "balance sheet" series. Their were numbers that appeared factual; problem is there were only some numbers. As many awards as the series garnered, it has not turned up as evidence in any reputable pieces elsewhere, save for this rather facile paper on the recent oil discussion printed in a mainland policy magazine. More often than not anyone with half a clue about federal-provincial financial relations look on the Indy piece as a second-rate effort at best. In these e-scribbles, I have suggested the conclusions was drawn and then bits of information were used to prop it up; anything that contradicted the pre-selected conclusion was discarded.
Then we have the clash with Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief Richard Deering over a recent investigation conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police at the chief's request. Fact is, the Indy got its facts dead wrong and may have based their front-page story on the information of one, evidently poorly informed, source. When they couldn't prove their original allegation - how could they? - they chose instead to lash the chief for his criticism and questioning of the reporter who wrote the story.
So too for its coverage of fisheries issues which often goes back for "evidence" in the comments by Gus Etchegary. Now a regular caller to radio talk shows, Etchegary is a former senior official at Fishery Products International (FPI) and chief spokesman for the "Blame the Foreigners for Everything and then Blame Ottawa for the Foreigners" school of fisheries management.
Etchegary might be a more credible witness for the prosecution against the foreigners and the mainlanders were it not for the fact that he worked at FPI in the days when the company gave orders to its skippers to "highgrade" their catches. Owen Myers, a former fisheries inspector has described the practice elsewhere, but essentially it involves tossing small but legal fish overboard in order to get a quota made up of only the biggest fish. In the process, thousands if not millions of tons of cod were dumped overboard by FPI trawlers over the years - dead as the proverbial doornail. "Highgrading" is another former of overfishing; it's illegal, in case you missed that point, and predictably when current FPI boss Derrick Rowe recently admitted his company doesn't have a lilly-white history on the subject, Etchegary speed-dialed any radio program out there to condemn Rowe.
That conveniently leads us back to the Indy editorial this week. Under the title "What is rightfully ours" the editorial discusses the current debate over the FPI proposal to sell a 40% interest in its American marketing division. To be fair, the editorial doesn't actually make a point, except that the whole vote is about "standing united as a people and protecting what is rightfully ours."
Along the way, though, it does manage to haul out some rather serious factual errors.
The simplest one has to do with the FPI proposal to sell interests totaling 40% in one of its divisions in order to raise $100 million that would invested in plants and equipment in the processing portion of the company.
The Indy seizes on this to note that in future "for example, Icelandic interests, which currently own 15% of FPI could buy out the entire 40% income trust and thereby owning a controlling interest in the company - and, consequently the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery."
Sheer nonsense.
A portion of the income trust is nothing more than a portion of a portion of the whole company, which is in turn owned by its shareholders. By law, no shareholder can own more than 15% of the company itself. These "Icelandic interests" can only hold 15% of the shares in the company as a whole and whatever bit of the income trust they eventually own - even if it is 100% - can never give them a controlling interest in the whole company nor can it give these interests "control" of the fishery offshore this province.
Simply put, the Indy didn't read the government information on this proposal, including a simple backgrounder on the FPI proposal nor did it ever read the Fishery Products International Limited Act. If anyone in the Harbour Drive offices did read these documents, they surely didn't understand the plain English in which they are written. The additional undertakings by the company, also expressly limit current shareholders from acquiring more than a defined percentage of the subsidiary. True the company agrees to secure such an undertaking from the Icelandic company, but even without it, what the Indy predicts simply can't happen. Period.
This is actually pretty simple stuff to read and understand; therefore the Indy's blatant error on these points is almost incomprehensible.
There are other errors of fact as well.
The editorial makes reference to "Ottawa's blatant mismanagement of the fish stocks" and then argues that this "fact" should, lead the federal government to pour money into the Harbour Breton plant.
When FPI was highgrading and fish plants churned out fillets, blocks and stamps, no one - not a single soul - ever accused Ottawa of mismanagement. That charge only emerged after 1992 when some people, especially those who had been involved deeply in the fishery in the 1980s, wanted to find a scapegoat.
The most basic factual error comes in another comment, and represents the false premise on which every fisheries argument the Indy has ever made is based:
"As a common property resource, the fish in the sea belongs [sic] to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Indeed, all Canadians. [sic]"
The fishery on the Grand Banks - the whole of it - is an international resource. Within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone the resources are managed by the government of Canada. They are not "owned" legally or morally by us or anyone else. Outside 200 miles, they are fished by countries from around the world based on whatever common agreement can be made. Some of those "foreign" fishermen are the umpteenth grandsons of the men who first dropped a hook into the waters over 500 years ago or the distant relatives of the men and women who the Indy claims now "own" the resources.
As side from that, though, the tragedy of the offshore fishery as it is approached from this province is indeed a tragedy of the commons. The resource is seen as belonging to everyone and therefore, it is there for everyone to prosecute. Remember teachers wetting a line and dropping a pot during the summer for a few extra dollars? The so-called food fishery is the result of this same approach - no one needs to fish in order to put a meal on his or her table except those who fish for a living. It is all a variation of the "spread" argument - spread the resource to whoever wants some of it until there is none left.
And in the end what might be left? The answer is very little. The tragedy of the commons is a simple one all are familiar with: when it - in this case fisheries conservation -is everyone's responsibility then it is no one's responsibility.
Today, there is a shortage of fish and an oversupply of people needing fish.
In the 1980s and the early 1990s, there were too many people chasing too few fish.
Same thing.
And unfortunately, the same thinking that created the problem twenty years ago still hobbles our thinking today.
Too bad the Indy doesn't actually exercise some independent thinking. If they did, they might well ponder which is more cruel:
- To close a fish plant and have people move to find other work within a year or two, while others might actually make a living from their fisheries work; or,
- To prop up the plant with cash and makework and purchased quotas and every few years go through a closure or closure scare for more than 20 years?
Which is more demeaning: A job with low wages propped up for the year by federal handouts or the chance to make a living from honest work alone?
Independent thought would require facts.
Too bad those are in short supply at the Indy.