1  2  3  4  Next

<strong>Written By:</strong> BC Mary
<strong>Date:</strong> 2007-01-10 09:33:00
<a href="/article/113357293-vive-le-canada-a-noble-concept-a-truly-free-press">Article Link</a>

CanWest Global is now an empire which can make or break its own favourite political candidates and its own favourite issues, either provincially or federally. If Big Media wants to discredit a government, it can begin a "fiasco" campaign. If it wants to strengthen a government, it begins a "best place" campaign.

Two examples: the Fast Ferries project and the BC Place project. Never mind that the popular vote in B.C. is usually a 49/51 split between the NDP and the Socred/BC Liberals. In Big media terms (and this could be any big media), one = good and one = bad. Simple. Easy to remember. Easy to promote.

The two examples here involve construction projects which were bright new innovations of their day ... about 25 years ago. There was 1) the campaign against the ships, dubbed the "Fast Ferries Fiasco". Simple. Easy to remember. Easy to promote. And then there was 2) B.C. Place, a stadium covering 10 acres of prime land in downtown Vancouver. The BC Place fabric roof was held up by hot air and was applauded as the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. Simple. Easy to remember. Easy to promote. The formula worked well: Fast Ferries = NDP = bad! BC Place = Socred/BCLiberals = good!

Last week, when the roof on BC Place split open right on time (at the end of its 25-year guarantee) ... the BC Place = good campaign didn't miss a beat. Nothing to worry about, we were told. The flower show will be held as scheduled. We'll just order in a new panel, it will be here next Monday (it wasn't), and then it's business as usual. But then another rip in the weary fabric. Then another. Still, the beat goes on.

What I'm saying is that a big, big wealthy media can warp our sense of reality. And I want to pay tribute to Vive le Canada for being the direct opposite.

If we don't have a free and fair press, it's worse than having no news media at all. A corporate-model media warps our social conscience when we're asked to believe that if something doesn't pay a profit, it's bad. Something like comforting the homeless or healing the sick. It warps our democracy when we're asked to believe that one political group is good, while the other political group is bad.

Only once, to my knowledge, did Vive trip up on that point. I spoke against that, and I was attacked.

Vive le Canada, to its great credit, generally succeeds in providing a rare and wonderful gift toward the building of a caring democracy. We can thank the founder -- Susan Thompson -- and we can wish Vive well in a long, strong future.

If there's a flaw in the Vive format, it's in the Comments section, where Vive's great trust is sometimes abused. Where scatology, personal attacks and empty rhetoric intrude, the integrity of this news service is undermined by such loutish behaviour.

One lesser flaw: all comments are trivialized by the relentless repetition of witticisms.

Often it seems that Vive le Canada would be better off without any comments at all. But that would negate the marvelous openness of the site. So may I suggest that the Site Administrators use their authority to curb the worst of it?

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, in many ways is similar to Vive le Canada. Wiki has behavioural guidelines for their volunteer-contributors who come from many different countries and cultures, with different views, perspectives, and backgrounds. Wiki says that treating others with respect is the key to effective collaboration. Here are a few of their suggestions:

Principles of Wikipedia etiquette:

Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
Treat others as you would have them treat you - even if they are new. We were all new once...

Be polite, please!

Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal infliction or body language. Be careful of the words you choose - what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended.

Work toward agreement.

Argue facts, not personalities.

Don't ignore questions.

If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.

Be civil.

Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if other editors are not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than they, not less. That way at least you're not spiraling down to open conflict and name-calling by your own accord, you're actively doing something about it: taking a hit and refraining from hitting back - everybody appreciates that (or at least they should).

However, don't hesitate to let the other party know that you're not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way -- otherwise they might think you're too dense to understand their "subtlety", and you'll involuntarily encourage them (e.g. "I know you've been sarcastic above, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. However, I don't think your argument stands because...").

Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.

Forgive and forget.

Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.

Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise.

Help mediate disagreements between others.

If you're arguing, take a break. If you're mediating, recommend a break.

Take it slow. If you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You might find that someone else has made the desired change or comment for you. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.

Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself — there are 1,573,652 articles on Wikipedia! Take up a Wikiproject or WikiReader, or lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention and Cleanup. Or write a new article.

Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity.

Remember The Golden rule - "treat others as you want them to treat you."
..................................................................................

So that's what I'm doing -- "writing a new article" -- and taking a break, working on other things, talking to others -- after being called a "c*nt" last week on Vive for enquiring what a single line of words meant.

Most of my life has been spent in, around, and with journalism. I care a lot about the honourable duties of a free press, and about good research, spelling, grammar, fairness, meaning, intent, and the issues. Only in recent years, has the lack of a free press become so worrisome. For all these reasons, I value Vive le Canada and wish you continued (perhaps even improved) success.

You're very much needed and appreciated.

BC Mary.

   

Seconding the motion!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ed Deak.

   

Thank you Vive.

   

"So may I suggest that the Site Administrators use their authority to curb the worst of it?"

We do. But moderators will not remove posts unless it is reported by a regular user, by using the 'Report Post' button that follows every post.

Regular users have this button, Moderators have this button replaced with 'Delete'. I voted the comment you refer to down, but cannot taken any further action without someone indicating it offends them. There are specific circumstances upon which moderators can remove posts, and because it is offensive (a subjective assessment) is not one of them.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

   

Thanks Vive, thanks Mary and thanks - wikipedia.

I've been watching the progress of the debate about the Erik Bornmann article on wikipedia very closely. At times, I almost threw up my hands in frustration that the mess created by manipulation of the facts would ever come to anything. But in the end, because of the actions of a number of editors - many of them NOT from British Columbia - sanity seems to have prevailed and truth is in the process of being told. Even the fact that the record of the conflict (and the obvious complicity of some participants) was posted and open to all who wanted to witness it was a revelation

Heaven help us, but we need some editors like that in the mainstream media again.

We need them desperately.
GW

   

I saw the post you're referring to, from last week. My hope is that the gentleman in question completely misunderstood your request for clarification of the garbled line at the top of another comment. The debates and arguments on these threads make this site as entertaining as the content of the articles themselves, but I agree--a certain level of tact and respect is crucial to intelligent discourse.

P.S. And regardless of whether or not the gentleman misunderstood your posts or not, his reaction was WAY over the top, and inexcusable (to put it very mildly).

   

Such editors wouldn't last 5 minutes in the mainstream media.

I have seen 2 editors fired by Black Press from a paper I was writing columns for. I was fired too by the next one who "didn't need people who think, only reports on local news". He ran the paper into the ground.

I'm now writing for Owner/ Editor Jerry West of the Gold River Record, who allows me to write anything and corrects my non existing grammar, as I write by sound and sight, without the slightest idea of the difference between verbs and nouns. Or what they really are?

Come to think of it, Jerry even beats me in freedom of speech, sometimes.

Ed Deak.

   

Good post BCM.

As one of the posters whose style often includes witticisms, and who never backs away from a firefight when provoked, I will admit to overdoing from time to time; and for that I apologize.

However, there are times when you have to deal with boneheads using the only language they understand, and all too frequently that language includes the using of fact based brute force. It's the only way to get through the shields of ignorance these people hide behind.

At other times, it requires asking the same question over and over again until they either answer or by their deliberate silence, concede they are wrong.

Maybe I'm being a bit self-delusional for saying this, but at times I think I may just be saying what others really wish they could.

We don't have to agree with each other all the time, but isn't debate the whose basis for democracy?

Keep up the good work BCM.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

   

One thing I forgot to put in my previous post is that there are NO circumstances under which gender or ethnically based attacks are legitimate.

Debate is one thing, but open attacks based on the above are NOT debate.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

   

&#8220;&#8230;after being called a "c*nt" last week on Vive for enquiring what a single line of words meant.
Au contraire, My little queen of exactitude! After all your years of a newspaper person one might hope that quotes and motive would be done accurately in the first instance and correctly in the second
More than one here has picked up on the *history* between you and I and thankfully made note of it.

As It the sentence you enquired after was written by me, Rightly I am the one to ask for any interpretation. This has been stated by me once already

The exact wording of blistering return attack on your passive/aggressive enquiry was &#8220;c***&#8221; Unfortunately that part of my message to has vanished c*** is quite different that c*nt and with my spelling might have be any word
Be that as it may one thing is for certain and that is your inability to behave in a manner you set down for others


This being the case,

&#8220;Most of my life has been spent in, around, and with journalism. I care a lot about the honourable duties of a free press, and about good research, spelling, grammar, fairness, meaning, intent, and the issues.&#8221;
And seeing as Vive is an open forum there are many here who miss spell, use poor grammar, are unfair in their comments, etc.

The very self proclaimed fact that you have been around the journalism trade for so long would lead me to believe you knew exactly what you were doing by asking someone other than me to explain what was meant.
Would you have the readership believe you hold to the high ground on all occasions?

Vive is not a news paper and the voluntary moderators are not editors and proof readers in the same sense as they are in journalism. We contributors come from all walks of life and capabilities
I lack the typing skills of many and yes my spelling is atrocious unless I use word and take sometimes hours to compose, revise, revise again and again to get it *just right*
I work against handicaps of the above as well as dyslexia and ADHD, and yet some how manage to make contributions that I have been appreciated for and am proud of.
For you or anyone else to play anal retentive school Marm does more damage than good to those who don&#8217;t meet up to your standards and still want to contribute.

I have No respect, Mary, for those self appointed guardians of grammar who show little , if any compassion for those of us who struggle.

Thank you Bill gates for Microsoft Office Word. Without it I would be hamstrung



If you want to keep upping the ante' Mary it is you who will loose face.

let it go!





---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

   

Your article gives me the chance to thank Vive for this website.

I visit this website just about everyday because I enjoy the variety of articles and the comments. I would agree that simple courtesy goes a long way. Name calling can be irresistible occasionally but really doesn’t advance an argument in any way.

Thanks Vive Le Canada

   

I disagree Diogenes. Having watched this little episode from the sidelines, I know which party has a face problem at the moment and it's not Mary

   

Thank you BCM for the opportuinty to wave kudos banners in the direction of Vive's openness and daring, warts and all, it remains second to none.

Came across this sign and lived to pass it on.

BEER'S CAGE - BAREeets 3 Secs Fr know
2.5 secs and counting
GO!

I'd rather not be Bear luncheon meat, that's what I know.

I should also apologise for gramatical and other offense category landmines I may have peppered the fine fabric of Vive with, I have tried.

P.S. please read this post with the requisite peace and love and mutual respect it was intended with.

   

I agree. Name calling has no place here. As a casual reader of this site, I too thought BC Mary was only asking for clarification of a fragmented sentence and not engaging in a personal attack. I too found the sentence incomprehensible. Although the gentleman in question makes the occasional good point, I often find his posts completely unintelligible and hard to follow. I tend to skip them entirely. And why is it that these posts are littered with &#8217? It only makes them that much harder to follow.

Dezzy

---
Well behaved women rarely make history.

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

   

Ah so It *IS* a popularity contest

Was mary scared and *really* scared as she claimed or was it a game?

Are there not more imporant issues here than the correction of my spelling?

with all the wisdom mary professes to have she might have let it got, the *it* being the pleadings to another as to what I miss typed?

Bloody hell! Its no wonder the politicians can paly the public like fools if this is the level of comprehension they have.


Run a poll
take a vote
post the results

the aswers will only be as good as the comprehension level of the participants.

Mary went out of her way to fiegn ignorance
TWICE when she could have just as easily ask me for clarification, But neeeeeow, as John Belushi's character would say, in stead she persisted in the *Ive got you now ,you s.o.b* game

Don*t be messin with Pandora*s box ifn ya don8t want the result
I have already stated we her and I are both culpable
wudda ya want,
me banned?


---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

   

1  2  3  4  Next