A critique of media sensationalism

After more than 35 hours on the streets of downtown Toronto this weekend, I've gained a new appreciation for non-violent protest as a critical component of a functional democratic process. The G20 protests have left me more informed, and feeling more secure, about the ability of real, conscientious citizens to express dissent in a powerful and positive way.

Source: BlogTO, 2010

Whenever 10,000 people gather in downtown Toronto to voice opposition to a governance forum of questionable legitimacy (i.e. the G-20), that is first-page news: a hundred banners, thousands of signs, symbols and slogans expressing a common disapproval for the way our democratically-elected leaders make decisions affecting Human Rights, the Environment, and Gender Equality. So Starbucks and a few other stores had windows smashed, after the official protest was over, and by a handful of young men with their own axe to grind. That is second-page news.

Blazing police cars is an eye-catching image, understandably disturbing to many TV viewers without proper context or a perception of the miniscule scale of these acts in relation to the countless acts of peaceful free speech and collective-expression that took place over three days.

It is unsurprising that corporately-owned news agencies would lead their coverage with footage of violence and property destruction, appealing to their viewers' baser natures in a short-sighted clutch for ratings (=> advertising => profits). The corporately-owned news media, those owned (and influenced) by large corporate interests, do not, CAN not be considered independent media, the Free Press which has been a pillar of functional democracies for hundreds of years. Public news agencies, such as CBC News, are governed by a Board of Directors, who are appointed by government (CBC, 2010). In a political climate such as the one we currently have nationally, CBC loses some legitimacy as its direction comes from a government with a weakly held mandate (oh proroguement...)

Far more disturbing than the burning of police cars and smashed storefronts, are the low standards for national media reporting on the protests. Canadians deserve better; we need better if we're to have a truthful understanding of the issues, if we're to be truly politically engaged and continue to enjoy the benefits of a fair and representative democracy.

Whose roads are less safe?

One of the beautiful things about statistics is the way they can put the lie to stereotypes and popular misconceptions. If I were to ask you, which country has safer roads, South Africa a developing country with a shortage of civil engineers and weakly enforced traffic laws, or Canada?

Before you answer, consider this statement from the BBC's coverage of Zenani Mandela's death in a traffic accident on the eve of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

"South Africa has one of the world's worst road safety records, and there are an average of 42 deaths each day on roads across the country."
-BBC, 2010

See how subtly the statement reinforces perceptions of South Africa's inferior road safety next to the rest of the world, using vagaries like "one of the worst" to link Zenani's death to a general malaise of underdevelopment. I wonder whether, after Princess Diana was killed in a car crash in Paris, any journalists were tempted to make the claim "France has one of the world's worst road safety records".

Now, consider the numbers. 42 people per day is equivalent to 15 thousand annually. This represents 1/3 of traffic fatalities in the US, whose population is 6X larger than that of South Africa. This means that there are in fact TWICE as many deaths in the US (and Canada) relative to the population as there are in South Africa. Again...WHOSE country has one of the worst safety records?

I would expect that with the high proportion of pedestrian and bicycle traffic on South Africa's roads, they may in fact be safer for the average traveler than roads in developed countries.