PRESS ROOM - Introducing the Critical Balance Reporting Test
A quality assessment tool for Journalists and the News-Following Public alike!
Minimum Baseline Expectations for Journalism in Canada
The Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics states:
News shall not be selected for the purpose of furthering or hindering either side of any controversial public issue, nor shall it be formulated on the basis of the beliefs, opinions or desires of management, the editor or others engaged in its preparation or delivery. The fundamental purpose of news dissemination in a democracy is to enable people to know what is happening, and to understand events so that they may form their own conclusions.
The Canadian Association of Journalists Ethics Guidelines states:
We understand that journalism that is fair, accurate, and in the public interest will incorporate diverse perspectives. We also recognize that diversity among journalists and sources will lead to more informative, representative and comprehensive coverage.
The Global declaration on information integrity online states, among other things, that pluralistic media and journalism is to be promoted and respected, and that access to such a wide range of media content is to be protected as “one measure to counter disinformation.”
The Sad Current Reality
This all flies in the face of the recent focus on “combatting misinformation” by advocating censorship. In fact, in over 40 issues of Canadian Shareable News, we have demonstrated that censorship is alive and well in this country. Instead of supporting a plurality of media to GUARD AGAINST DISINFORMATION, Canadian journalists are choosing to or being pressured to actively violate the various codes of ethics that govern their industry as listed here.
As stated by Jonathan Turley, in the book The Indispensable Right - Free Speech in an Age of Rage:
The alliance of academic, media, and corporate interests with the government’s traditional wish to control speech has put us on an almost irresistible path toward censorship.
In a summary of CNN’s recent loss in a defamation case, Turley cites a finding by two former prominent media executives. Interviews with 75 current media leaders indicate that they now “view neutrality and objectivity as dated concepts that inhibit social and political agendas.” As an example of the “radical shift in American journalism that occurred with the rejection of neutrality and objectivity in favor of advocacy journalism,” Turley explained: “J-schools now teach that objectivity is a dated concept. As former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has explained, “All journalism is activism.”
There are many ways in which diverse perspectives and accurate, balanced reporting are not being presented in Canadian media. We suggest just a few here:
The journalists themselves may be suffering from ‘group think’ in that they associate primarily with others within the ‘mainstream media bubble’. Longstanding beliefs are circulated among like-minded friends and colleagues with no one thinking to question them. These may include beliefs such as “the science is settled” or “right-wingers are crazy” (in one bubble, which in another bubble might be “left-wingers are crazy”). As a result, if journalists are invited to cover a certain topic that challenges the group think they might simply ask “Why would I want to promote a story supporting a view that is the complete opposite of my values?”
IF a journalist is thinking that there might be “more to the story”, they might run into the problem that common search engine algorithms are programmed to not show content on many topics. The investment chain linking various corporate interests to information platforms cannot be overlooked. Curious journalists might not even know where to start looking for information when nothing comes up on their preferred search engines. A number of items in the CSNews Reference section might serve as points of entry for those who are interested in looking beyond the ‘mainstream bubble’ and so can the links in the post entitled: Breaking out of the Corporate Media Bubble.
IF a journalist should discover a topic worth examining, the EDITORS can end up shutting down further investigation. They also live within certain bubbles, and may suffer not only from group think, but also from the financial realities of their operation… At some point, money talks and so certain topics are off the table. Clearly, on an American news program “brought to you by Pfizer”, any bad news re: Pfizer products would not be addressable.
OR a journalist may get the go-ahead to write on a certain topic, but may have been trained/indoctrinated that to reveal multiple viewpoints is to promote a ‘false balance’. Apparently, trainees are now being told to avoid what is referred to as ‘both-sideism’. In other words, journalists are to use their own knowledge base to judge that data presented on one side of an argument can be ignored. They can pick ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ - sources that are to be trusted and others to be ignored instead of referencing arguments presented on all sides and leaving judgment up to the readers. Journalists end up doing the unthinkable: they implicitly or explicitly choose a side. They might not write in the first person, but there are sufficient clues in what they write vs what they leave unwritten that point to their biases. Gone is the ethics principle that calls for a clear distinction between NEWS and OPINION. All NEWS ends up reflecting OPINION.
OR if a journalist does do their best to remain objective and ensure that an article contains a diversity of perspectives, as reported by a former mainstream reporter, this happens:
After you do write a story, a series of editors potentially mess with your copy. They're the ones who write the headlines, for example. They also delete things, change things, and add in things OFTEN WITHOUT CONSULTING YOU, YET YOUR NAME IS ON THE STORY - I've had editors insert entire paragraphs in my story, paragraphs that are full of errors.
Cui bono?
Who benefits and who is harmed when diverse perspectives are censored OUT of the most popular government and corporate-backed media platforms?
More clearly, WHO benefits when the rapidly expanding childhood vaccination schedule, the co-incidental (?) accompanying (?) rise of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) along with the epidemic of allergies, auto-immune & complex neurological disorders are banished from widespread media discussion? (See this US example.)
How many times can we see this process at play?
This 4-part ‘cartoon’ illustrates the consequence of widespread censorship and accompanying name-calling that is often promoted via one-sided media coverage of many important issues in our society these days.
Activating for a Return to Journalistic Ethics around a Multiplicity of Perspectives
So, assuming we choose to agree that “All journalism is activism” we can also choose WHAT TO ACTIVATE FOR in our own writing! In order to return to the critical balance that has traditionally be at the foundation of the profession, we must model a critical balance in our own writing. When we introduced the CSNews Press Room, we shared a Statement of Principles which includes:
We are against ‘loyalty to the narrative’ and for critical questioning, intellectual rigour, full debate and informed decision-making;
We are against ‘one-sideism’ and the amplification of corporate backed narratives and we call for the inclusion of expert voices, allowing them to share their areas of knowledge for the good of all;
To reverse the trend of one-sided reporting, we visited the writing of professors of journalism in Switzerland. In contrast to a “one vote every 4 years” type of representative democracy, Switzerland features an interesting blend of representative and direct democracy. In fact, binding referenda on matters of public policy are a regular occurrence in Swiss society. As a result, there is a strong focus on the MEDIA as a form of PUBLIC EDUCATION - thoroughly elucidating the many aspects of each issue, so that voters are well informed each time another issue comes up for a direct vote. In Switzerland, the quality of reporting reflects the media’s ability to present a wide range of critical perspectives and support informed voter choice.
We at CSNews adapted and streamlined some of the criteria being discussed by Swiss journalism researchers, and pulled others from Canadian media codes of ethics to come up with a simple checklist of 8 indicators. To read more about the development of this checklist and its academic foundations, please see our next post.
We propose our checklist for use by:
journalists when planning, writing or reviewing their articles.
editors to determine whether an article is ready for publication or whether any critical balance indicators still need to be addressed.
the news-following public to ascertain whether the news item they are following needs to be supplemented by additional articles that more fully reflect a critical balance.
The 8 Indicators of The Critical Balance Reporting Test (DRAFT)
(a) Independent Reporting
(b) Contextualization
(c) Source Transparency
(d) Accuracy
(e) Diversity of Opinion
(f) Data Evaluation
(g) Objectivity
(h) Professionalism
The TEST itself:
The Test for specific USE by JOURNALISTS:
The Test for specific use by REVIEWERS/EDITORS and by the NEWS-FOLLOWING PUBLC
Two Case Studies
We selected one medical news story and one political news story (with a medical angle) for analysis and presentation in this post. We believe it has validity for use with almost any kind of reporting and encourage others to try it out.
# 1 Health Canada approving Moderna COVID vaccine (September 17, 2024)
Note 1: There was a plethora of nearly copy-cat articles on this topic circulating in the Canadian media landscape at this time. The comments in orange and the evaluation below are being done on a conglomeration of these articles, not on one specific article by a specific journalist. However, for simplification, we revert to the singular when referring to authorship.
Note 2: We at CSNews propose this test as a DRAFT for consideration. We reserve the right to make improvements based on feedback received from the journalism community throughout the country. Please share widely and provide suggestions as needed.
Note 3: For the sources of the italicized descriptors used with each indicator below, please visit the next post.
Independent Reporting NO
A higher rating of media quality if the reporting focuses little on external services such as agency copy. Journalism can only fulfill its democratic functions if it proves to be independent of the external services of communicative suppliers.
We do not give favoured treatment to advertisers and special interests. We resist any outside efforts to influence the news.
By focussing solely on documentation provided by Health Canada, PHAC, NACI and Moderna, and by NOT seeking interviews with the individuals behind these documents, or individuals critical of these documents and by appearing not to have done independent research into the topics presented OUTSIDE of the communication supplied by the parties mentioned, it is difficult to see independent reporting in this article. This lack of independent verification of material provided by what may well be deemed a special interest (Moderna and those who are promoting Moderna products) has the potential to leave readers with the impression that the purpose of the “news article” is to give favoured treatment to a commercial interest.
Contextualization NO
“Journalistic contents should further be contextualized because public discourse benefits from news media that do not merely report but place information in a larger societal or political context. Besides providing facts, news media should explain and contextualize events”
“Ethical journalism demands a commitment to truth, accuracy and empathy, as well as an understanding of the broader societal impact of media reporting.”
The first mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were made available to the public in Dec 2020/January 2021. Unlike attenuated live virus vaccines, like smallpox, the COVID-19 vaccines have not IMMUNIZED Canadians against COVID-19. In fact, the scientific evidence is clear that the more often people are injected with mRNA ‘COVID-19 vaccines’ the more often they fall ill with COVID-19, and the greater the likelihood of them experiencing a host of adverse events that can affect virtually any body system and even lead to sudden or prolonged death. Additionally, there are many Canadians who are waiting to be approved to have their vaccine injuries compensated by Canada’s vaccine injury support program. Yet, financial support in that program is grossly insufficient to assist these Canadians with the costs of living, salary replacement, medical treatment etc. Many Canadians are involved in individual or class action lawsuits against Moderna, Pfizer, Health Canada or other entities or individuals. Meanwhile, Health Canada official Dr. Teresa Tam as been shown to be uttering falsehoods about the effects of mRNA ‘vaccines’ for COVID. As well, it has become clear that Health Canada’s ‘approval process’ has been severely compromised. Manufacturers no longer need to provide independently verifiable evidence that products are INDEED SAFE, EFFECTIVE or even NECESSARY. The standards of evidence required by Health Canada have drastically dropped in the past few years. Many see the influence of the World Economic Forum’s ‘Agile Regulations’ creeping into the regulatory approval process in Canada. It is well known in many circles that Janine Small, president of international markets at Pfizer, told the European Parliament that Pfizer did not know whether its COVID-19 vaccine prevented transmission of the virus before it entered the market in December 2020. By publishing this article that does not situate the news of Health Canada’s so-called ‘approval’ of Moderna’s ‘vaccine’, and of the upcoming approvals for the Pfizer and Novovax products within this larger context, the author has/authors have not met this criterion.
Source Transparency YES
“The source transparency dimension refers to journalism's professional requirement to disclose the sources that will be used for news items. Source transparency is credited when the news item's source is clearly indicated, be it with author name, abbreviation, or reference to a news agency. News items lacking these transparent indications do not meet the requirements for source transparency and are, accordingly, scored low.”
Hyperlinks to Health Canada and NACI were shared. Unfortunately, newspapers do not typically require a full reference, i.e. full names, access date, etc. These could however, be added to the online version of articles so if an organization changes its webpage and the information linked to disappears, readers have more clue to help them possibly retrieve the original reference.
Accuracy NO
“We seek documentation to support the reliability of those sources and their stories”
“We are careful to distinguish between assertions and facts.”
This indicator references how the journalist judges the claims made by the sources consulted. To comment on this indicator, we pulled these two excerpts from one version of the circulating article.
NACI strongly recommended updated COVID-19 vaccinations for all adults 65 and older, people living in long-term care and other group living settings, people with underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of severe illness
The statements highlighted reflect the unstated implication by NACI that updated COVID-19 vaccinations will in some way help mitigate the “higher risk of severe illness”. The author, by simply referencing NACI guidelines, is not seeking additional documentation to support the reliability of this implied claim by NACI. To ensure that this indicator is met, statements like these would be helpful. “Following a request to (NAME) to share the evidence that updated COVID-19 vaccination for those 65 and over is effective, (NAME) referenced a 2021 study o an earlier variant (LINK) indicating that later studies were not yet available to the public” [made up text as an illustrative example].
As of Sept. 8, the viral activity level of COVID-19 in this country is "moderate," according to Public Health Agency of Canada's wastewater testing data. Levels of other respiratory diseases -- specifically influenza and RSV -- in wastewater are currently “low."
A reference was made to PHAC’s wastewater testing data showing “moderate” for COVID-19. The author does not report having followed up to ask in how many municipalities testing is occurring. Nor does the author mention seeking additional documentation to support the reliability of wastewater testing as a means of illness surveillance. This is where consulting with experts who hold an alternate perspective could be helpful. They could point journalists in the direction of weak or insufficiently supported arguments presented by the first source.
By putting both the NACI perspective AND that of those who critique NACI’s findings on the table, the journalist would be informing readers that there are unresolved issues and open debates around the topic under discussion. It is not job of the journalist to select a favoured view and leave readers with an incorrect perception by omitting the existence of or nature of the debate around the issues at hand.
Diversity of Opinion NO
“when seeking expert opinion and analysis, we seek to incorporate a diversity of sources”
When authors reference only the joint MODERNA/PHAC/HEALTH CANADA/NACI point of view, there is no diversity of opinion. No effort has been made to include references to expert analyses outside of the ‘bubble’.
NOTE: Readers may wish to begin their assessment by quickly skimming an article to CHECK FOR THIS INDICATOR FIRST. In the case of paper and ink articles, they can circle each source presenting one side of the key issue in one colour and any opposing sources in another. In the case of an online article, they could start a two or three column tally on scrap paper to keep track of how many voices were cited for each possible perspective. In this way, one could see at a glance if this indicator has been met before doing a more thorough read through to test for the other indicators.
Data Evaluation NO
“Evaluating the data. Never accept a conclusion from an expert at face value. Instead, you should follow the steps that led to the conclusion, and you should make some judgment as to whether the methodology and presentation are sound. You should also find out whether somebody else has drawn a different conclusion about the same subject.”
There is no evidence that the author of the article sought clarification from the subjects being cited as to how in these fields of inquiry, the data has come about and how it its to be interpreted. Without indications that the journalist did the intellectual work of trying to understand at even a basic level how the data has been derived and what it means to the story, this criteria appears not to be met.
Objectivity NO
“The dimension objectivity captures a news item's dominant style of argumentation. A news item in the cognitive–normative style corresponds to an important measure of deliberative democracy theory in that arguments must be objectively weighed against each other.”
There is no evidence that any arguments around the subject matter being reported on are presented. Therefore, this criteria around how such arguments are being objectively weighed, the cornerstone of a functioning democracy, is obviously not met.
Contextualization NO
This indicator is considered twice in the Critical Balance Reporting Test. Above we listed contextualization with regards to the societal context in which the topic is placed — its relevance and timeliness for current coverage. This can be formulated using the two questions So What? and Now What?
And now a second time, it is understood that in weighing the argumentation shared by those being cited, the journalist once again will reflect on the context in which that argumentation is being made. Absent references to a diversity of opinions, sources and argumentation, this indicator has not been met.
Professionalism N/A
“We avoid reinforcing stereotypes and negative tropes and narratives.”
Given that “Diversity recognizes the essential dignity and human rights of individuals who experience the world in different ways” journalists exhibiting professionalism write respectfully about the views of others. They do not use ad hominem attacks in their writing. They also do not claim charges of ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ or ‘malinformation’ without clearly identifying valid evidence demonstrating errors in information being presented.
In that there have been no references in the article to people with dissenting viewpoints, there also have not been any negative references towards those who beg to differ with the information being provided.
Summary of Observations:
It appears the author is not aware of the larger context in which this news item is being reported.
Given that the news item consists mainly of recopied company or government talking points, it comes across as a piece of PHAC/NACI ‘message amplification’ instead of as an example of journalism.
It appears the author did not try to ‘follow the logic’ of the information being provided, instead taking everything provides at face value.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:
Please consider adding:
A recognition that the information being provide touches on matters of intense debate in this country. Contextualize the article within the larger Canadian context over the past four years. Health Canada’s announcement was not made in a vacuum. There was much that preceded it. And likely this announcement has the potential for serious repercussions in the lives of at least a few people.
Expand the article to include responses to the information being shared from PHAC, NACI, Health Canada and Moderna by experts in the field who can show weaknesses in the statements referenced.
Demonstrate that the author is evaluating arguments made by the sources, at the very least to try to intellectually follow their connections. (For example, how does LOW wastewater testing justify that certain communities should or should not be interested in receiving the vaccine product? When was the Moderna formulation made and how does that compare with the evolution of currently circulating viruses? How, exactly, does this product work in order to protect the target group mentioned? Have previous iteration of this product effectively protected people in the targeted groups from COVID-19 injections in the past. How can readers access the information that demonstrates this finding?
Article Rewritten with Critical Balance Indicators in Mind
Note: In order to illustrate how this article could have been written to line up with the proposed Critical Balance Indicators, we selected one of many copy-cat versions of this article circulating at the time. Suggested additions are noted in BOLD ITALICS. Deletions are not indicated.
The key takeaway is to make it clear when something was STATED/CLAIMED by a source and not to consider that information as definitive AND to leave room for opposing viewpoints (instead of omitting them).
TORONTO - Doses of Moderna's updated COVID-19 vaccine are expected to begin arriving in Canada "within days," a spokesperson for the Public Health Agency of Canada says, although availability will depend on the immunization rollout in each province and territory. PHAC spokesperson Anna Maddison said in an email Tuesday "Canada has secured sufficient supply of COVID-19 vaccines to meet provincial and territorial demand requirements for fall and winter 2024 vaccination campaigns”. This follows Health Canada’s earlier request to provinces and territories to get rid of their older COVID-19 vaccines.
Health Canada announced Tuesday it had authorized Moderna's latest COVID-19 vaccine and claims its current formulation protects against currently circulating variants of the virus. Health Canada last updated the information it provided on this product on its website in March 2024. At that time, it claimed that the Moderna Spikevax® COVID-19 vaccine, like “All COVID-19 vaccines authorized in Canada are proven safe, effective and of high quality.”
Now, Health Canada states that the mRNA vaccine, called Spikevax, has been reformulated to target the KP.2 subvariant of Omicron. The updated version replaces the previous formulation of the vaccine that was released last year, which purportedly targeted the XBB.1.5 subvariant of Omicron. Yet, since September 8, 2024, the KP.2 subvariant has not been included in Health Canada’s list of subvariants most active in this country. The list focussed on KP.3. As well, while the product monograph for this newest formulation appears to indicate it is targeted for the KP.2 variant, Health Canada’s information on approved COVID-19 vaccines currently appears not to provide separate details on testing done on this specific version of Spikevax. As well, there is no reference to information specific to the KP.2 variant among the Moderna documentation in a database maintained by the coalition of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency.
Health Canada states it is also reviewing two other updated COVID-19 vaccines but has not yet authorized them. They are Pfizer's Comirnaty, which is also an mRNA vaccine, as well as Novavax's protein-based vaccine.
While Health Canada claims that all vaccines authorized in Canada are proven safe and effective, an examination of their own regulations shows that both the SAFETY and of EFFICACY do not appear as authorization criteria. Instead, “The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug if the following requirements are met … The Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.” In May 2023, in a legally sworn testimony to the independent Canada-wide National Citizens Inquiry, Alberta constitutional lawyer Shawn Buckley presented these changes to Canada’s regulatory approval process. Yet messaging from Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada does not reflect this change.
In May, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization issued guidance for use of updated COVID-19 vaccines this fall, pending their approval by Health Canada. In their guidance document, NACI members limited themselves to information available prior to February 2024, in which there are no references to the KP.2 variant yet. While they drew from some 2023 studies, many of the references were published in 2022. There is general acceptance that COVID-19 vaccines only provide waning effectiveness within four months following injection.
Nevertheless, NACI strongly recommended updated COVID-19 vaccinations for all adults 65 and older, people living in long-term care and other group living settings, people with underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of severe illness, people from Indigenous and racialized communities, and those who are pregnant or who provide essential community services. NACI also said all other adults and children six months or older should also be eligible for an updated COVID-19 vaccination this fall. It is unclear why NACI recommends these vaccines for those who are pregnant and/breastfeeding and very young, as these populations were not included in the original vaccine trials. The product monographs for the Pfizer/Biontech (p. 31) and Moderna (p.10) indicate that the safety and efficacy in pregnant women, breastfeeding infants and those under 6 months had not yet been established while Canada’s public health officials were claiming it had.
NACI’s guidance published in May 2024, did not address the counterarguments collected by the Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee (SMAC) of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance in response to NACI’s earlier guidance from June 2022. Already in 2022, there was evidence that there is a higher incidence of infection and hospitalization among those who had already had the infection and had also received multiple boosters.
As of Sept. 8, the viral activity level of COVID-19 in this country is "moderate," according to Public Health Agency of Canada's wastewater testing data. Levels of other respiratory diseases -- specifically influenza and RSV -- in wastewater are currently “low.” It is unclear how “moderate” levels in wastewater testing are ascertained and how they relate to the groups for whom this latest vnor is it clear how such a finding leads PHAC to encourage widespread COVID-19 vaccination.
(872 words)
Note: For the purpose of this exercise, more references were added driving up the word count. In order to respect the required word count, a judicious editor should be able to cut out a few examples while ensuring that all (or nearly all) Critical Balance Indicators are indeed addressed at least once.
For Canadian journalists to adequately cover matters related to COVID-19 mitigation measures, including vaccines, the following sources can be consulted as part of the research and planning stages of writing:
Publications on Pandemic Management provided by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance (since relaunched as the Canadian Citizen Care Alliance) and any other publications of any of the members of the CCCA’s Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee (SMAC) who are listed here.
The extensive collection of legally sworn testimonies to the National Citizens Inquiry by a wide range of Canadian and international expert witnesses. Please also see the short and long versions of the commissioners’ recommendations here and here.
# 2 BC party scrutinizes “far right” views of Candidate (October 10, 2024)
We encourage readers to ascertain whether the article contains the 8 Critical Balance Indicators or not. Note: we fully realize that without having been assigned the task of including such indicators, the author will likely not have included them. We are NOT trying to unfairly point accusatory fingers. This is simply meant as a discussion starter around ways to restore a critical balance in Canadian journalism.
Readers are invited to consider:
Is the aim of regaining a critical perspective and balanced content in journalism something the profession wishes to engage in?
Is this test a valid tool?
How can it be adapted/modified/improved?
(a) Independent Reporting
(b) Contextualization
(c) Source Transparency
(d) Accuracy
(e) Diversity of Opinion - Consider STARTING with this one, identifying each reference to one, two or more perspectives.
(f) Data Evaluation
(g) Objectivity
(h) Professionalism
How would you summarize the results of your analysis?
What related recommendations would you make for future articles?
Why?
(Note, we copied the article and reprinted it here, not to violate copyright, but to take the focus off the author and the advertisements, and to direct people solely to the content.)
B.C. United Party scrutinizes North Island candidate for far-right views
Dr. Anna Kindy's affiliation with far right influencers cited in BC United opposition research leak
The B.C. United Party has taken aim at Dr. Anna Kindy, the Conservative Party of B.C.'s candidate for the North Island riding, for being affiliated with far-right demonstrations and beliefs.
The document was posted on X, formally known as Twitter, on Sept. 26, by B.C. radio host Jas Johal, who is also a former B.C. United (formerly the Liberals) MLA for the Richmond-Queensborough riding.
The majority of the leak details Kindy's association with far-right figures and organizations but also cites two complaints from former patients between 2016 and 2019 about her conduct as a doctor. In total, there are 16 reviews for Kindy on the website, which allows patients to rate their doctors out of five stars. Kindy averages 3.7 stars.
Two reviews from RateMDs.com are shown in the document. Both complaints are related to methadone, claiming Kindy was pushing the person to be prescribed the drug, most often used to curb substance use disorder. One of the reviews was published on Sep. 19, 2016, and another on April 11, 2019. Another complaint not cited in the research was published on March 29, 2019. Again, it is a complaint related to methadone.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons could not verify to the Campbell River Mirror if any investigations regarding this took place due to privacy laws.
In the document, Kindy is photographed at a Stand United rally and appears in front of posters calling the media a "virus." The rally was at the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons on June 22, 2022.
Stand United is a far-right group who have campaigned against SOGI, climate change, pandemic mandates and "the great reset." The 'Great Reset Iniative, a World Economic Forum response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been hijacked by conspiracy theorists claiming that the pandemic was created by a secret multinational group of global elites to sieze control of the global economy and a "new world order."
Kindy spoke at another Stand United rally on March 18, 2023. Far-right activist Harm Bomm was also there and spoke before she took the stage.
There, Kindy took aim at provincial law changes that mandated vaccines for COVID-19 , invoking Holodomor, a man-made famine in the former Soviet Union from 1932 to 1933, which killed millions of Ukrainians through starvation and disease.
"This is what Bill 36 does... I don't want my children to live in a country. And to be honest, I have a father who was from Ukraine. Stalin Ukraine. And I think in Stalin Ukraine you had more choice in terms of healthcare," the document cites her saying during the rally.
Her association with Bomm is also detailed. Bomm has posted on Instagram messages claiming Dr. Bonnie Henry murders babies with a bioweapon and claims of a "Vax Genocide."
His website, WikiActivism, also parrots "the great reset" and "new world order" theories.
Bomm has also claimed United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is "handing over 97 per cent of B.C.'s land to the UN".
Kindy also attended a What's Up Doc? conference in Victoria in February 2023. The report says she agreed with panellists that terms like "white supremacy" and "misogyny" should be looked at with suspicion. She also reportedly argued that "misinformation and disinformation are not medical terms" but are "political terms."
Kindy has received disciplinary letters from the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding misinformation surrounding COVID-19 vaccinations.
At this conference, Kindy again spoke on Bill 36.
"Bill 36 creates a backdoor for bringing in, you know, policy or legislation from other jurisdictions that were mentioned. But what that essentially means is, it's done without any democratic oversight," she said.
Kindy attended the WeUnify Conference in 2022 with Malthouse. While there, she claimed the COVID-19 vaccine was "leaky" and ineffective compared to natural immunity.
Conservative Party leader John Rustad was also there, as was Jeremy Maddock. Maddock is a failed Victoria council candidate who claimed Nazis "might just serve a useful purpose." He was also previously involved in litigation with the Law Society of British Columbia about the extent to which non-lawyers can provide affordable legal services. His petition was unsuccessful, but was approved as a participant in the Law Society's Innovation Sandbox initiative.
The 2024 WeUnify Conference featured Lauren Southern, a media figure on the alt-right political spectrum who has voiced racist beliefs.
In 2023, Kindy embraced the WeUnify Conference saying that "reclaiming or renewing this country has the potential to show the world we are the solution that everybody thinks we are."
Kindy did not respond to the Campbell River Mirror's request for comment by deadline.
Here we share our assessment:
Independent Reporting NO
A higher rating of media quality if the reporting focuses little on external services such as agency copy. Journalism can only fulfill its democratic functions if it proves to be independent of the external services of communicative suppliers.
We do not give favoured treatment to advertisers and special interests. We resist any outside efforts to influence the news.
It appears that the entire article consisted of excerpts of the leaked party document. Clearly, the negative views in the BC United Party re: Dr. Kindy were given nearly 100% of the airtime. Readers are told the author reached out to Dr. Kindy to provide some balance, but there is no indication of how much time Dr. Kindy was given prior to the publication deadline. As a result, readers cannot ascertain whether she was given sufficient time for the type of response required and whether the journalist was sincere in getting her views into the article.
Meanwhile, there was nothing to prevent the author from seeking validation of Dr. Kindy’s claims independently. For example, a search of the term ‘leaky vaccine’ could have revealed that it is indeed an industry term and not just something made up by Dr. Kindy. As well, the author could have visited the uncensored video platform Rumble.com to see whether Dr. Kindy or Dr. Mathouse, who was also referenced in the article, had previously given talks that on the topics only briefly touched on in the leaked list. What exactly are their concerns about making COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for all residents in the province? Which aspects of Bill 36 had Dr. Kindy previously warned against and why? etc. For example, the article included a photo of Dr. Kindy speaking to Campbell River councillors. What prevented the journalist from accessing that recording, possibly on the municipal website (or here: https://rumble.com/v4lcege-march-25-2024.html) to understand the reasons behind her concerns? Did it occur to the journalist that in order for a physician who has been quietly working in a remote location for a quarter of a century, to start appearing at big city rallies and council meetings, something VERY SERIOUS must be underfoot. Why not give those viewpoints a second look?
Contextualization NO
“Journalistic contents should further be contextualized because public discourse benefits from news media that do not merely report but place information in a larger societal or political context. Besides providing facts, news media should explain and contextualize events”
“Ethical journalism demands a commitment to truth, accuracy and empathy, as well as an understanding of the broader societal impact of media reporting.”
The author did not contextualize the positions of the BC United Party and the Conservative Party on the political spectrum. Providing a summary of or examples of the policy platform of BC United would have given readers an indication of the party’s positions on key matters. Then it might have been more clear in which way an advocate for medical choice and informed consent would be deemed such a threat to the BC United Party candidate in the riding. The author also did not contextualize the various events at which Dr. Kindy was reported to have taken part. It is clear the criticism of her evidenced by the leaked document stands in contrast to the views of the people who attended the events at which she appeared. All of this sits within the context of federal and provincial COVID-19 mitigation policies. But neither those policies nor the debate around their justification were referenced in the article. And yet they lie at the core of the disconnect between the interpretation of current issues among members of the BC United Party and members of the Conservative Party, for whom Dr. Kindy is running as a candidate. Bigger questions could have been: Who authorizes surveillance of a candidate of an opposing party in a riding other than one’s own? And did anyone from the BC United Party apologize after the leaked document became known? (And now that Dr. Kindy WON that election, would it not be high time to apologize for one-sided reporting?)
The journalist appears to have chosen to amplify the concerns or accusations listed by the BC United party instead of taking a neutral approach along the lines of:
This is what the BC United party has assembled as criticism against Dr. Kindy. This is how supporters of the views shared by Dr. Kindy interpret the matters at hand. Here are the arguments that support Dr. Kindy’s views. Here are the arguments that support the views of the BC United party. Period.
Source Transparency NO
“The source transparency dimension refers to journalism's professional requirement to disclose the sources that will be used for news items. Source transparency is credited when the news item's source is clearly indicated, be it with author name, abbreviation, or reference to a news agency. News items lacking these transparent indications do not meet the requirements for source transparency and are, accordingly, scored low.”
This journalist started by referencing a leaked document purportedly written by someone in the BC United Party. There is no indication that the journalist checked whether the leaked document actually originated with the BC United Party or not. Is there any potential that the person who leaked it is the actual source and not BC United Party members themselves?
Accuracy NO
“We seek documentation to support the reliability of those sources and their stories”
“We are careful to distinguish between assertions and facts.”
It appears that the author fell into the trap of having his opinion of Dr. Kindy coloured by the claims in the leak. To what degree does appearing at the same event as someone whose website or poster says XYZ indicate that you believe XYZ as well? Was any effort made to seek documentation written by Dr. Kindy that she too believes everything that others at the same events believe? It appears not to have occurred to the author that events might be organized around a multiplicity of critical voices on a range of topics, not all of which might be shared by each person. Just because the Party apparently listed a series of drive-by smears of a prominent individual does not mean that a reporter’s task is to uncritically amplify those messages.
Apparently, the people who compiled notes on Dr. Kindy’s public activities were concerned about her appearance at a rally organized by a citizens advocacy group called Stand United. It is not clear who described the group this way - party members making the list on Dr. Kindy’s activities, or the author of the article:
Stand United is a far-right group who have campaigned against SOGI, climate change, pandemic mandates and "the great reset." The 'Great Reset Initiative’, a World Economic Forum response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been hijacked by conspiracy theorists claiming that the pandemic was created by a secret multinational group of global elites to seize control of the global economy and a "new world order."
While it may be true that members of Stand United have campaigned against the issues listed, is it accurate to label such concerns ‘far right’? Is a rejection of corporate control of state institutions not traditionally a ‘left leaning’ position? It is also not accurate to imply that the Great Resent initiative originated in 2019. Instead, it has its origins after the financial crisis of 2008, albeit initially under a different name. How has the author determined that The Great Reset has been “hijacked by conspiracy theorists”? Given the existence of decades of work around ‘global governance’ and the existence of events such as Event 201 involving many WEF member companies, is the word ‘claim’ the most accurate word the author could have used? Why stop there? Why not demonstrate the intellectual curiosity to investigate this ‘claim’ in order to see whether or not there might have been any evidence to support it?
Diversity of Opinion NO
“when seeking expert opinion and analysis, we seek to incorporate a diversity of sources”
The journalist appears to have sought confirmation from the provincial medical college re: Dr. Kindy’s situation. And yet, there is no mention that he reached out to others who were reported to have attended the conference on Bill 36 for example. This could have provided confirmation of Dr. Kindy’s statements around various issues going on in BC. Just because the party tracking Dr. Kindy’s involvements did not make additional notes on their list does not mean that a journalist is prevented from examining whether Dr. Kindy’s views could stand up to scrutiny. Do they or do they not reflect the recent history of deliberations going on at World Economic Forum, United Nations or other globalist organizations? What did the author do to investigate Dr. Kindy’s reference to government overreach? Would it not be incumbent upon him to assure himself whether she was truly a holder of ‘conspiracy theories’ or whether she was simply reporting on truths that neither the party members nor the journalists had yet pulled out from behind the curtain of censorship in Canada’s media landscape?
Data Evaluation NO
“Evaluating the data. Never accept a conclusion from an expert at face value. Instead, you should follow the steps that led to the conclusion, and you should make some judgment as to whether the methodology and presentation are sound. You should also find out whether somebody else has drawn a different conclusion about the same subject.”
It appears clear that the author accepted all of the apparently leaked complaints against Dr. Kindy at face value. Assuming the leaked document was indeed authentic and originated from the highest levels of the party structure, what does it say about the professionalism of the party itself? Of the party’s ability to discern facts from opinions? To draw logical conclusions?
Objectivity NO
“The dimension objectivity captures a news item's dominant style of argumentation. A news item in the cognitive–normative style corresponds to an important measure of deliberative democracy theory in that arguments must be objectively weighed against each other.”
Since the article consisted only of a recopy of many of the items on the party’s list, without any discussion as to their relevance and without any considerations of a diversity of viewpoints, there is no argumentation coming from the author, no deliberation of ideas, no weighing out of any arguments against any others.
Professionalism NO
“We avoid reinforcing stereotypes and negative tropes and narratives.”
Given that “Diversity recognizes the essential dignity and human rights of individuals who experience the world in different ways” journalists exhibiting professionalism write respectfully about the views of others. They do not use ad hominem attacks in their writing. They also do not claim charges of “misinformation”, “disinformation” or “malinformation” without clearly identifying valid evidence demonstrating errors in information being presented.
The author used phrases such as: ‘far-right views’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’ without having clearly identified valid evidence pulled from statements made by Dr. Kindy herself. As such, his headline and the rest of the article do nothing more than reinforce negative tropes and stereotypes.
Summary of Observations:
The author did not bother to ascertain whether the ‘leaked document’ was in fact a real document that really originated from within the party. Just because a disgruntled candidate in a riding down the road claims to have ‘leaked’ something does not immediately validate the supposed origin.
The author did not go far beyond restating the various ‘allegations’ supposedly leaked by the party. Reformulating claims without assessing their validity is not journalism.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:
It might help if authors visualize people they know in the positions of the various people being written about. For example: If my grandmother was in Dr. Kindy’s position, and someone wrote this article about her, would I feel that something was missing? Would it be OK not to at the very least share her explanations for her beliefs on some of the key issues? And if she is not available to be interviewed, can I at least speak with someone else who knows her concerns well?
Think like a detective. Consider possible motivations of the people being written about. It might help to draw a little stickman sketch of the interactions going on between the characters for some additional insight into the role they all play in the drama of life. Having such an understanding can help advance the perspectives one takes in writing about the life stories of strangers.
Article Rewritten with Critical Balance Indicators in Mind
(We apologize for any content errors as this is being written as an illustrative example only, without verification of details. The text in bold identifies our suggested additions to the original articles. Suggested deletions have not been identified, simply removed.)
B.C. United Party alleges North Island candidate has far-right views
The B.C. United Party has taken aim at Dr. Anna Kindy, the Conservative Party of B.C.'s candidate for the North Island riding, for being affiliated with far-right demonstrations and beliefs.
Dr. Anna Kindy, a family physician who has been practicing in Campbell River for 25 years, is running as a candidate for the BC Conservative Party. However, claims have been circulating online that a BC United MLA in an adjourning riding claimed it was a leaked a BC United Party document.
The document was posted on X, formally known as Twitter, on Sept. 26, by B.C. radio host Jas Johal, who is also a former B.C. United (formerly the Liberals) MLA for the Richmond-Queensborough riding. As of the time of publication, it has not been authenticated as a leak of a document actually compiled within the chain of command of the BC United Party.
The majority of the leak details Kindy's association with figures and organizations often mislabeled as ‘far-right’ but also includes two reviews from RateMDs.com.
Both complaints were related to methadone, most often used to curb substance use disorder. Both complaints, one on Sep. 19, 2016, and another on April 11, 2019, allege Dr. Kindy was pushing patients to be prescribed the drug
In total, there are 16 reviews for Kindy on the RateMDs website, which allows patients to rate their doctors out of five stars. Kindy averages 3.7 stars. A third complaint related to methadone was published online on March 29, 2019, but was not included in the BC United report.
Due to privacy laws, the College of Physicians and Surgeons could not verify to the Campbell River Mirror if any investigations regarding these complaints took place.
No additional complaints regarding her medical practice appeared in the leaked document. Instead, those assigned to report on Dr. Kindy’s public activities noted four of her appearances at public events throughout between June 2022 and May 2023.
The document includes a photograph of Dr. Kindy present at a rally located outside of the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons on June 22, 2022. The purpose of the rally was to highlight the attempts by four BC physicians to persuade the College to drop their support for COVID-19 vaccines and mandates. Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Stephen Malthouse, and Dr. Kevin Sclater BC, as well as Dr. Anna Kindy, had all either received a warning letter from the College or already had their medical licenses suspended following their attempts to alert their medical colleagues of the reality of a gamut of vaccine related adverse events not being commented by health authorities. All four physicians were being warned against what the College refereed to as spreading “misinformation”.
[In the document, Kindy is photographed at a Stand United rally and appears in front of posters calling the media a "virus."] We recommend dropping this observation as it does nothing to advance arguments on either side. Would the author have commented if Dr. Kindy had been photographed standing in front of a popcorn stand or a light post? While Dr. Kindy might well agree that misinformation spreads via one-sided media as quickly and insidiously as a virus, just happening to stand in front of a poster someone holds up behind you does not necessarily indicate approval of a message.
The citizen action group which organized the June 22 rally, Stand United, was described by the authors of the leaked document [hopefully not by the author of the article] as follows:
Stand United is a far-right group who have campaigned against SOGI, climate change, pandemic mandates and "the great reset." According to the leaked BC United party document, the 'Great Reset Initiative, a World Economic Forum response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been hijacked by conspiracy theorists claiming that the pandemic was created by a secret multinational group of global elites to seize control of the global economy and a "new world order."
[We propose progressing chronologically through Dr. Kindy’s various public appearances instead of in the order chosen by the author.]
In June, 2022, Dr. Kindy also spoke at the WeUnify Conference in (NAME OF CITY) alongside fellow physician Dr. Steven Malthouse. In her speech on the need for “informed consent” (i.e. being educated on both the risks and the benefits of medical procedures) she explained how the COVID-19 vaccine was leaky and ineffective compared to natural immunity.
[Conservative Party leader John Rustad was also there, as was Jeremy Maddock. Maddock is a failed Victoria council candidate who claimed Nazis "might just serve a useful purpose." He was also previously involved in litigation with the Law Society of British Columbia about the extent to which non-lawyers can provide affordable legal services. His petition was unsuccessful, but was approved as a participant in the Law Society's Innovation Sandbox initiative.] We suggest this all be omitted. It is unclear whether the note about Jeremy Maddock’s supposed comment was part of the original BC United leaked document, or whether the author of this article looked up the name and added it on his own. Including it in this article on Dr. Kindy seems to be intended to create a sense of guilt by association. BUT CREATING DUBIOUS IMPRESSIONS OF THE SUBJECT AT HAND IS NOT THE JOB OF A JOURNALIST. Were the views of every other attendee at the event profiled? Why choose to include the one? More relevant to the matter at hand could have been references to some of the other expert speakers who contributed to the public’s knowledge on matters of immunology, health care decision making, legal rights and more.
The authors of the leaked report also mentioned Dr. Kindy’s attendance at the What's Up Doc? conference in Victoria in February 2023. They highlight a comment she made agreeing that terms like ‘white supremacy’ and ‘misogyny’ should be looked at with suspicion and that she reportedly argued that "misinformation and disinformation are not medical terms" but are "political terms."
At this conference, Kindy also spoke on Bill 36 which had gone into law in November 2022 under the name the Health Occupations and Professions Act. She explained "Bill 36 creates a backdoor for bringing in, you know, policy or legislation from other jurisdictions that were mentioned. But what that essentially means is, it's done without any democratic oversight."
[Kindy has received disciplinary letters from the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding misinformation surrounding COVID-19 vaccinations.] We are removing this because in our rearrangement, her receipt of disciplinary letters (alongside of the other 3 doctors) has already been addressed.
It continues to be unclear whether any statements made in this article were researched and added in by the author, or whether they were added to the leaked report and and then simply copied into the article. IF the BC United Party or he author of this article listed a comment made by Dr. Kindy in order to highlight a supposed far-right connection, they are clearly not understanding the context behind what Dr. Kindy opposes. That is, the increasing influence of policies developed by transnational corporations to drive government decision making — a far right occurrence known as corporatist or fascist.
On March 18, 2023 Dr. Kindy spoke at another Stand United rally, this time in (CITY). [Far-right activist Harm Bomm was also there and spoke before she took the stage.] Another example of attempted guilt by association. Please remove it.
[ We suggest that all of this be removed. It is just a restating of the leaded document. ….Please scroll down to our final draft. There, Kindy took aim at provincial law changes that mandated vaccines for COVID-19 , invoking Holodomor, a man-made famine in the former Soviet Union from 1932 to 1933, which killed millions of Ukrainians through starvation and disease.
"This is what Bill 36 does... I don't want my children to live in a country. And to be honest, I have a father who was from Ukraine. Stalin Ukraine. And I think in Stalin Ukraine you had more choice in terms of healthcare," the document cites her saying during the rally.
Her association with Bomm is also detailed. Bomm has posted on Instagram messages claiming Dr. Bonnie Henry murders babies with a bioweapon and claims of a "Vax Genocide."His website, WikiActivism, also parrots "the great reset" and "new world order" theories.Bomm has also claimed United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is "handing over 97 per cent of B.C.'s land to the UN".
In 2023, Kindy embraced the WeUnify Conference saying that "reclaiming or renewing this country has the potential to show the world we are the solution that everybody thinks we are."]
[The 2024 WeUnify Conference featured Lauren Southern, a media figure on the alt-right political spectrum who has voiced racist beliefs.] Why is this here? Did Dr. Kindy attend the 2024 conference?
Let’s just streamline all of this further, shall we? I am going to assume that ALL the bits and pieces appeared on the leaded document prepared by members of BC United. And that the author of the article simply restated the list without adding any independent research.
OUR FINAL DRAFT
B.C. United Party alleges North Island candidate has far-right views
The B.C. United Party has taken aim at Dr. Anna Kindy, the Conservative Party of B.C.'s candidate for the North Island riding, for being affiliated with far-right demonstrations and beliefs.
Dr. Anna Kindy, a family physician who has been practicing in Campbell River for 25 years, is running as a candidate for the BC Conservative Party. However, claims have been circulating online that (NAME), a BC United MLA in an adjourning riding, has leaked a BC United Party document profiling medical complaints against her. Additionally, the leaked document outlines a series of her public appearances, and in a probable attempt to diminish her popularity among voters, alleges her association with various personalities deemed to hold “far right” views.
The document was posted on X, formally known as Twitter, on Sept. 26, by B.C. radio host Jas Johal, who is also a former B.C. United (formerly the Liberals) MLA for the Richmond-Queensborough riding. As of the time of publication, it has not been authenticated as a leak of a document actually compiled within the chain of command of the BC United Party.
The majority of the leak details Kindy's association with figures and organizations often mislabeled as “far-right” but also includes two reviews from RateMDs.com.
Both complaints were related to methadone, most often used to curb substance use disorder. Both complaints, one on Sep. 19, 2016, and another on April 11, 2019, allege Dr. Kindy was pushing patients to be prescribed the drug
In total, there are 16 reviews for Kindy on the RateMDs website, which allows patients to rate their doctors out of five stars. Kindy averages 3.7 stars. A third complaint related to methadone was published online on March 29, 2019, but was not included in the BC United report.
Due to privacy laws, the College of Physicians and Surgeons could not verify to the Campbell River Mirror if any investigations regarding these complaints took place.
No additional complaints regarding her medical practice appeared in the leaked document. Instead, those assigned to report on Dr. Kindy’s public activities noted four of her appearances at various events throughout between June 2022 and May 2023.
The document includes a photograph of Dr. Kindy present at a rally located outside of the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons on June 22, 2022. The purpose of the rally was to highlight the attempts by four BC physicians to persuade the College to drop their support for COVID-19 vaccines and mandates. Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Stephen Malthouse, and Dr. Kevin Sclater BC, as well as Dr. Anna Kindy, had all either received a warning letter from the College or already had their medical licenses suspended following their attempts to alert their medical colleagues of the reality of a gamut of vaccine related adverse events not being commented by health authorities. All four physicians were being warned against what the College refereed to as spreading “misinformation”.
The authors of the leaked document promote common misconceptions around activities of the World Economic Forum, the world’s largest corporate lobby group, in their depiction of concerns held by members of Stand United, the citizen action group that organized the rally. BC United claims the following:
Stand United is a far-right group who have campaigned against SOGI, climate change, pandemic mandates and "the great reset." According to the leaked BC United party document, the 'Great Reset Initiative, a World Economic Forum response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been hijacked by conspiracy theorists claiming that the pandemic was created by a secret multinational group of global elites to seize control of the global economy and a "new world order."
This is the tone throughout the entire leaked document. Its authors appear unaware of the issues that have driven Dr. Kindy to venture away from her medical practice in one of the remotest parts of Vancouver Island in order to do citizen activism in the big cities.
The leaked notes reveal that in June, 2022, Dr. Kindy also spoke at the WeUnify Conference in (NAME OF CITY) alongside fellow physician Dr. Steven Malthouse. In her speech on the need for “informed consent” (i.e. being educated on both the risks and the benefits of medical procedures) she explained how the COVID-19 vaccine was leaky and ineffective compared to natural immunity.
The authors of the document reference older comments made by various people who attended the same events as Dr. Kindy, describing these peple as having ‘far right’ views. These include children’s rights advocate Harm Bomm - a man who frequently talks about the psychological harms done to minors who later regret having undergone gender reassignment surgery prior to the age of consent.
They also list individual statements made by Dr. Kindy. For example, in February 2023 at the What's Up Doc? conference in Victoria she is reported to have agreed with panellists that terms like ‘white supremacy’ and ‘misogyny’ should be looked at with suspicion. She also reportedly argued that "misinformation and disinformation are not medical terms" but are "political terms."
At this conference, Kindy also spoke on Bill 36 which had gone into law in November 2022 under the name the Health Occupations and Professions Act. "Bill 36 creates a backdoor for bringing in, you know, policy or legislation from other jurisdictions that were mentioned. But what that essentially means is, it's done without any democratic oversight," she said.
The critics of Dr. Kindy who compiled the (???) page long document report that Kindy took aim at provincial law changes that mandated vaccines for COVID-19 , invoking Holodomor, a man-made famine in the former Soviet Union from 1932 to 1933, which killed millions of Ukrainians through starvation and disease.
"This is what Bill 36 does... I don't want my children to live in a country. And to be honest, I have a father who was from Ukraine. Stalin Ukraine. And I think in Stalin Ukraine you had more choice in terms of healthcare," the document cites her saying during the rally.
In fact, the BC Health Professions and Occupations Act has many BC health care professionals speaking out because of the clear examples of bureaucratic overreach.
The Campbell River Mirror requested Dr. Kindy to provide comments to the draft article, giving her a five hour (??) time frame prior to our deadline. But she did not respond in that time.
Leading by Example
Planning
BASIC FACTS = Independent Reporting
Who leaked the document? when? where? why?
What was in the document? Who would have authorized it? (given that it was leaked in a riding other than Dr. Kindy’s)
Context = So What? Now What?
What does the BC United Party believe about vaccines, masks and other COVID related measures? What does the Conservative Party believe? Does either party policies related to COVID measures?
Has Dr. Kindy ever written or spoken about her views re: the election platform? or re: COVID measures?
What was going on in the country when Dr. Kindy attended the various events?
How far into the workplace vaccine mandates were we? What were the early reports re: efficacy, safety?
WHY would this story matter to anyone other than Dr. Kindy?
Source Transparency
Who can I speak with to get outside verification of the supposedly leaked document?
Which sources is Dr. Kindy citing in recordings of her previous speeches, or if I can’t find any, can I look for Dr. Malthouse’s speeches? Can I search up
‘BC doctors disciplined re: COVID-19 comments or treatments’ to find names of other people likely facing similar charges for similar reasons?
Or can I search up each province’s medical college disciplinary procedure record to find other physicians potentially with similar views, if they are being disciplined for similar reasons?
When I find the names, can I look them up on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Substak, YouTube, Bitchute or Rumble in case they have posted there?
Accuracy
How can I verify that information in the leaked document is indeed accurate?
Should I visit the websites of the conferences mentioned to see if what is reported about Dr. Kindy’s appearances there seems accurately reported?
Can I look up all of the other individual with whom Dr. Kindy is reported as associating with? Are the descriptions given by the leak-writer accurate?
Diversity of Opinion
At the very least, to even out the focus of those writing the leak, there should be a way of looking into Dr. Kindy’s views online. What about party leadership?
Brainstorm more possibilities (e.g. from the ideas already shared above)
Planning
DATA EVALUATION = Soundness
How sound is the United BC party’s strategy of making this list of observations? Why would they do it? What could have been their aim and how successful were they? How accurate are their notes?
Objectivity
Weighing the arguments against each other. (Can you locate anything like this in the sample article provided?)
Contextulization
This is where Bill 36 comes it. It sets the tone for the entire province. Learn more about it here: https://bcmj.org/letters/physicians-need-read-and-understand-health-professions-and-occupations-act
Polishing up
Name calling = unprofesionalism
This is not the journalist’s job. Ensure that if negative epithets are to be used, it is clear they are being used by specific sources only. Avoid any suspicion that the journalist shares those negative views. Only include negative terms if they are somehow relevant to the ‘action’ in the story.
Retain a professional tone.
Please try planning and writing your next articles guided by the Critical Balance Reporting Indicators and share your observations at CanadianShareableNews @ proton.me .
Thank you!