Canada's media coverage of the Ottawa shooting

[Velar Fricative]

It's an opinion piece, but everything I've read so far about the differences in coverage seems to be on the mark. I don't care how CanaYAY this all is, the coverage was well done and I love Canada (despite hating its Olympic hockey teams, but I digress). Videos are at the link.

Also, I have noticed relatively little Canadian coverage about the shooter and more focus on the victim and the badass Sergeant-at-Arms. And despite this being the second attack this week on uniformed officers by Muslim converts, I also don't see sensationalist media coverage about the evils of Islam. Give us whatever's keeping you guys mellow, Canadians.

mic.com/articles/102116/canada-just-schooled-the-u-s-media-in-how-to-cover-a-shooting

Wednesday morning, news emerged that a gunman shot and killed a soldier at the Canada War Memorial in Ottawa before firing more than 30 shots inside the nearby parliament building. While police have confirmed that the gunman is dead, they described the situation as "ongoing." At this time, it's also unclear whether other suspects are involved.



Given the seriousness of the situation — Canadian MP Kyle Seeback called it a "horrific day" — and given the relative rarity of public shootings in Canada, a media circus would not have been entirely unexpected. Yet CBC, one of Canada's premiere news organizations, had other ideas.



Rather than the hysterical, high-pitched squealing of some American networks, CBC assumed a miraculously calm tone. As Media Bistro's Mark Joyella noted, "the rolling coverage was smart, careful, and absolutely un-American."



Covering a crisis with poise. Breaking news like this are exceedingly difficult to cover well, and they require astronomically high levels of good judgment and instinct. The story (which is still developing) has been full of dramatic twists and turns, and it's far from over.



But rather than play into the potential for hysteria, CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge never lost his cool. Mansbridge presented information in a calm, collected and respectful manner, and he was extremely careful to report facts — particularly as they related to the soldier's death — rather than unconfirmed information.



Take this transcript, courtesy of Mother Jones:



MANSBRIDGE: And so, the situation is, as we say, tense and unclear. And it's on days like this—we keep reminding you of this and it's important—it's on days like this, where a story takes a number of different pathways, a number of changes occur, and often rumors start in a situation like this.



We try to keep them out of our coverage, but when they come, sometimes from official sources, like members of Parliament, you tend to give them some credence. But you carefully weigh it with what we're also witnessing.



It's clear that the situation is not over. It is clear the police are in an intense standby situation and continue to be on the lookout, and until somebody blows the all-clear on this we will continue to stay on top of it and watch as the events unfold.

On Wednesday morning, news emerged that a gunman shot and killed a soldier at the Canada War Memorial in Ottawa before firing more than 30 shots inside the nearby parliament building. While police have confirmed that the gunman is dead, they described the situation as "ongoing." At this time, it's also unclear whether other suspects are involved.



Given the seriousness of the situation — Canadian MP Kyle Seeback called it a "horrific day" — and given the relative rarity of public shootings in Canada, a media circus would not have been entirely unexpected. Yet CBC, one of Canada's premiere news organizations, had other ideas.



Rather than the hysterical, high-pitched squealing of some American networks, CBC assumed a miraculously calm tone. As Media Bistro's Mark Joyella noted, "the rolling coverage was smart, careful, and absolutely un-American."


Covering a crisis with poise. Breaking news like this are exceedingly difficult to cover well, and they require astronomically high levels of good judgment and instinct. The story (which is still developing) has been full of dramatic twists and turns, and it's far from over.



But rather than play into the potential for hysteria, CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge never lost his cool. Mansbridge presented information in a calm, collected and respectful manner, and he was extremely careful to report facts — particularly as they related to the soldier's death — rather than unconfirmed information.



Take this transcript, courtesy of Mother Jones:



MANSBRIDGE: And so, the situation is, as we say, tense and unclear. And it's on days like this—we keep reminding you of this and it's important—it's on days like this, where a story takes a number of different pathways, a number of changes occur, and often rumors start in a situation like this.



We try to keep them out of our coverage, but when they come, sometimes from official sources, like members of Parliament, you tend to give them some credence. But you carefully weigh it with what we're also witnessing.



It's clear that the situation is not over. It is clear the police are in an intense standby situation and continue to be on the lookout, and until somebody blows the all-clear on this we will continue to stay on top of it and watch as the events unfold.




Contrast this with CNN's coverage, which was...well, full of raised voices and dramatic retellings:




Mansbridge was everything you want a news anchor to be in a situation like this: Exceedingly cautious but not boring and assured but not over-confident. Most importantly of all, he engendered the trust of his audience rather than beat them over the head with drama.



Canada has taught us this lesson before. In June, following the shooting of three Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers in New Brunswick, Sun News Network refused to show the shooter's name or picture.



"It's easy to report on the life of the killer, to scour his deranged Facebook page, to speculate about motive, but doing so could actually encourage the perception that his heinous acts are somehow justified," the network explained in an editorial. "We will not help give this killer his blaze of glory."



As Mic's Matt Connolly wrote at the time, the decision was " a conversation that should happen in every newsroom in the wake of such a tragedy."



When it came to Wednesday's shooting, the Canadian media proved once again that it has its head on straight.

[secretlyevil]

It's definitely a stark difference to the tabloid journalism that seems to be the norm these days in the US.

[ttt]

CNN makes me weep.

[iammalcolmx]

Oct 23, 2014 10:27:45 GMT -5 ttt said:

CNN makes me weep.

I like Bourdain and Lisa Lings shows, they are fabulous. However with the recent events with the shakeup at CNN I am thinking they may get better.

[Deleted]

Mansbridge is the man I want to look to on days like that.

I heard a great interview with an academic this morning on my local CBC radio, talking about things as a Muslim and encouraging people to talk to their local mosque and neighbourhood Muslims if they're nervous, and pointing out that the tips the police/CSIS get about radicalized individuals come from Muslim people inside the community, not stealthy white men going "under cover". It was also very calm and reasoned, as was the host.

[lg28]

I watched coverage on both Canadian and American stations yesterday, and it was crazy how different it was. There wasn't much speculation on the Canadian stations about WHO did it, but the American stations wouldn't drop it.

I found the US coverage to be almost rude at times - and VERY speculative - discussion of ISIS, Muslims, 9/11, etc when we had no idea who it was.

I don't know where the difference originates. At election time, I much prefer the American coverage though because its more interesting!

[meggers5]

I had CBC on for hours at work yesterday. It was nice to hear his calm voice, to be honest.

I said in another thread that I am so glad to be hearing only the names Nathan Cirillo and Kevin Vickers, and barely hearing the shooter's.

CNN, on the other hand, was exhausting to watch.

[iammalcolmx]

CNN isn't our only news source I mainly go to NPR and they are pretty damned good. Turner is also going through alot of changes right now, so it's no wonder their programming is off and they are testing things out.

[Velar Fricative]

Another pretty interesting analysis, particularly the parts about how Canadian news actually cuts away to regular programming in the middle of a major story when there are no updates.

OTOH, it's just become human nature to want to get updates right away and it seems weird to turn away when a major story is going on. I don't know if it's due to the 24/7 news channels plus the advent of the internet, or both. Probably both, but more the latter.

And the last line here is key.

www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Voice_Of_Experience

A lot has been made of the contrast between how the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation handled the events yesterday in Ottawa, and how our own cable news networks handle practically everything. In brief, the difference was roughly the difference between the morning edition of The Times Of London and a tornado siren. However, one of the more startling things about CBC's coverage has gone largely unnoticed.



When there stopped being news, the CBC News stopped covering the story and cut away to its regular daily programming. It happened so quickly that it caught me by surprise. One minute, there was anchordude Peter Mansbridge, who's now the guy I want at the desk when the Last Trumpet blows, telling us what we knew and (most important) what we didn't know. And the next, we were back to its being a Wednesday afternoon and "Today, in Alberta..."



Imagine that. There was no Political Powerhouse panel to explain how this might have an impact on the Harper government. There was no aging M.P. representing Yellowknife hollering that this never would have happened if they'd only have built the dang pipeline, and no young opposition M.P. speculating about how this never would have happened if they'd secured the border with Quebec the way he and his ghostwriter had suggested in his recent book. There were no former generals on the dodge, speculating sadly that the shootings may indicate "a new stage" in the war on terror. There was a deplorable lack of political opportunism, and a dreadful dearth of doomsaying. There was no fancy logo. No heroic music adapted from a movie trailer especially for the occasion. There was only Mansbridge, the calmest guy in the hemisphere, who went almost two hours without a break at one point, telling us what we knew and (more important) what we didn't know, adding some historical perspective from his long career, and occasionally tossing it to one of his colleagues, who would do the same. And then, when there clearly was no more news coming, they all signed off.



(According to his official bio, Mansbridge began his career as a radio reporter in Churchill, Manitoba, which is the place where they have the holding pen for polar bears outside of town. I've been there and I can tell you, this may account for Mansbridge's cool. Once you've become accustomed to seeing a polar bear and her cub breezily walking down a downtown alley in the middle of the day -- Churchill is dead on top of the migratory route that the bears use every year -- nothing else about anything anywhere will faze you.)



It used to be that, when there were no further developments, news operations waited until there were. That was when the country looked to the three major networks, and their anchors, for the news, and these were anchors who were trained as reporters, not as television stars. But then there was cable, and CNN, and then the flood of cable news outlets, and news became entertainment, and a big story became an instant miniseries, with special-effects and theme music, and the point became keeping the story on the air, somehow, even if it meant speculating about airliner-gulping black holes, or Ted Cruz's yammering about epidemiology. And, of course, there is another great difference.



The CBC is a Canadian crown corporation. This means it is publicly owned. It runs commercial announcements, but not many, and only to supplement the money from its federal funding. Peter Mansbridge was telling us the news, not selling us Cialis, and that makes all the difference.

[ttt]

Oct 23, 2014 10:46:15 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

Oct 23, 2014 10:27:45 GMT -5 ttt said:

CNN makes me weep.

I like Bourdain and Lisa Lings shows, they are fabulous. However with the recent events with the shakeup at CNN I am thinking they may get better.

I like their shows too, but I turn on CNN to see news, you know? As far as Bourdain, I have a zillion other channels to watch travel shows on - I don't really want to see it on CNN. I'd rather see some more in-depth exploration of issues in the news (and I DON'T mean going in depth on sugar daddies!!!). I'd like to see them do shows explaining, for example, the origins of ISIS or other things that people don't really understand and ought to know about. 

[iammalcolmx]

Oct 23, 2014 12:33:51 GMT -5 ttt said:

Oct 23, 2014 10:46:15 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

I like Bourdain and Lisa Lings shows, they are fabulous. However with the recent events with the shakeup at CNN I am thinking they may get better.

I like their shows too, but I turn on CNN to see news, you know? As far as Bourdain, I have a zillion other channels to watch travel shows on - I don't really want to see it on CNN. I'd rather see some more in-depth exploration of issues in the news (and I DON'T mean going in depth on sugar daddies!!!). I'd like to see them do shows explaining, for example, the origins of ISIS or other things that people don't really understand and ought to know about. 

You should know better than the bolded, LOL!!!  Are you speaking against Bourdain??? Parts Unknown is like no other show!! Hmmmmppph!!

You also know about the turmoil happening there now, as do all residents of Atlanta. Give them some time.

[ttt]

Oct 23, 2014 12:36:09 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

Oct 23, 2014 12:33:51 GMT -5 ttt said:

I like their shows too, but I turn on CNN to see news, you know? As far as Bourdain, I have a zillion other channels to watch travel shows on - I don't really want to see it on CNN. I'd rather see some more in-depth exploration of issues in the news (and I DON'T mean going in depth on sugar daddies!!!). I'd like to see them do shows explaining, for example, the origins of ISIS or other things that people don't really understand and ought to know about. 

You should know better than the bolded, LOL!!!  Are you speaking against Bourdain??? Parts Unknown is like no other show!! Hmmmmppph!!

You also know about the turmoil happening there now, as do all residents of Atlanta. Give them some time.

Don't get me wrong, I  (heart) (heart) (heart) Anthony Bourdain!!! I just don't want to see him on CNN - I wish he were still on the Travel Channel. 

I really hope they manage to get things together. CNN used to be such an incredible network and such a source of pride for this city. I would love to see them get that back. 

[Velar Fricative]

I had no idea Bourdain had a show on CNN.

[onomatopoeia]

Oct 23, 2014 12:32:21 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Imagine that. There was no Political Powerhouse panel to explain how this might have an impact on the Harper government. There was no aging M.P. representing Yellowknife hollering that this never would have happened if they'd only have built the dang pipeline, and no young opposition M.P. speculating about how this never would have happened if they'd secured the border with Quebec the way he and his ghostwriter had suggested in his recent book. There were no former generals on the dodge, speculating sadly that the shootings may indicate "a new stage" in the war on terror. There was a deplorable lack of political opportunism, and a dreadful dearth of doomsaying. There was no fancy logo. No heroic music adapted from a movie trailer especially for the occasion. There was only Mansbridge, the calmest guy in the hemisphere, who went almost two hours without a break at one point, telling us what we knew and (more important) what we didn't know, adding some historical perspective from his long career, and occasionally tossing it to one of his colleagues, who would do the same. And then, when there clearly was no more news coming, they all signed off.

I love Peter Mansbridge.  This is how news should be done. 

[lg28]

I really am very curious as to why there is such a difference in the way news is reported. Perhaps because we don't have a 24-hour channel like CNN where you need to MAKE something news even when it isn't?? Like, I always find there is a lot of "OMG! This could have been SO MUCH WORSE" with CNN type stuff. Or the Detroit news at 4 on ABC, which I LOVE, is very "coming up next. the hidden danger in your neighbourhood!" It also seems to report shootings/gun stuff every.damn.newscast.

Our news at 4 is more along the lines of "will the snow be bad, or terrible this year?" or other funny "only in Canada" type stuff. I don't know why.

[elleblue]

Oct 23, 2014 12:48:09 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I had no idea Bourdain had a show on CNN.

Me either. I figured this was some other person with the last name of Bourdain. Huh. 

[anastasia517]

I watched CBC for hours yesterday. Peter Mansbridge not guessing and taking things as they came was very reassuring, especially with his deep voice. At the time, that was definitely what I needed to hear vs. the hecticness on some other news channels.