The other day I was asked “Son of Gaia,” a Libertarian Blogger, in a comment on this Blog this most interesting question, “By the way - this is not an accusation, just a question. Are you being paid by any person or organization to promote this tobacco control agenda, either as a single issue or as part of a larger "wellness" agenda?”
I responded that my firm, Cambridge Strategies Inc., was retained by the Campaign for a Smoke Free Alberta and was doing some communications work with them to support an effort for province wide legislated smoking ban. I referred him to some video interviews on our affiliated website Policy Channel that was part of the work.
This relationship to my Blog and my professional work has offended the “Son” and fellow Libertarian Werner Patel and they have accused me of “shilling” as a result. At first I was angry with the accusation and put it down to the “agony of defeat” that the opponents of tobacco control are feeling as they are finally losing this battle.
That may be true, but on reflection I think they have a point. In fact it is a much larger point than even tobacco control, important as that issue is to our society.
The blogosphere is a wide open unregulated free for all unlimited access medium that enables conversation and discourse to happen amongst a diversity of people on a wider and more equal basis than ever before.
That is a good thing but that freedom also demands some responsibilities be associated with it. The Blogosphere, as part of the Internet culture of today, is subject to abuses too and it can be a dangerous place for the naïve and the vulnerable.
There is little trust left for objectivity and accuracy in the MSM at least in the populations I deal with. As for the blogosphere, there is an inherent and healthy presumption of distrust because of the very nature of the medium. So if a Blogger wants to be taken seriously and be seen as above the screaming and screed of those Bloggers and Commentators who usually hide behind anonymity, they have to be more responsible.
So here is my short list suggestions for standards and responsibilities for serious Bloggers.
One must be authoritative. You have to give sources and reflect them and their content accurately. Rants are fun – sometimes – but they need context to be effective. Criticism is important but it has to be fair and anchored accurately to actual issues, significant events and provide a correct account of the perspectives of those being criticized.
One responsibility has to be genuineness. This is a very personal medium and Bloggers points of view are usually very obvious and their beliefs are strongly held. To be taken seriously readers will be looking for the evidence of consistent alignment of a Blogger’s actions, like posting content, tone and subject matter selection, with his or her stated values and principles.
The next responsibility for a serious Blogger is authenticity. One has to be worthy of belief and be trustworthy. Authenticity is the most important of these three responsibilities for a serious Blogger at the end of the day to my mind.
This is where Son of Gaia and Werner have a point about my postings on tobacco control, smoking and wellness. I should have made it clear that I was working on this issue and not just posting on it…for purposes of honouring a responsibility for authenticity.
In an earlier posting on Mountain Pine Beetle infestation I noted I was working for a group of communities west of Edmonton called the Grande Alberta Economic Region on how they might adapt to the consequences of the beetle infestation. I noted in a posting on Dion wanting the return of the Court Challenges Program that I had received funds from the program as a lawyer to help establish French language minority education rights in Alberta many years ago. I feel strongly about literacy and have done work in that area. I have as posted on its importance, particularly in terms of workplace safety, productivity, competitiveness and personal capacity and growth.
You can rest assured I will always be personally engaged in the issues I post on, but given the nature of the Blogosphere, one can assume that. In the future I will be more careful to let readers know if I am professionally involved in an issue or event that I on post in this Blog as well.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Friday, May 04, 2007
ForestEthics Responds to West Fraser on Woodland Caribou
ForestEthics has responded to the West Fraser Timber refutations around their allegations on their forestry practices around Woodland Caribou habitat in their recent YouTube released video.
Go to my posting of May 2 for some more context on this issue if you are new to this Blog.
The link is on the ForestEthics website. It is interesting that the Forest Ethics document was sent to me by West Fraser Timber.
What do you think Alberta? It is your forest after all!
Go to my posting of May 2 for some more context on this issue if you are new to this Blog.
The link is on the ForestEthics website. It is interesting that the Forest Ethics document was sent to me by West Fraser Timber.
What do you think Alberta? It is your forest after all!
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Harper Panders to Quebec and Parliament Goes Weird on the Doan Affair
I was the 12,220 person to sign the Save Shane Doan petition advising our Parliamentarians to grow up and get serious about their jobs. This calling Hockey Canada on the carpet is an inappropriate use of political power that was instigated by the Bloc who are feigning an alleged insult to francophone Canadians. The claim is that Team Canada captain Shane Doan said something offensive to a referee at a professional hockey game - wait for it - TWO YEARS AGO!!!. It was dealt with then as a disciplinary matter within the sport and found to be noting but an unsubstantiated claim. You have to ask yourself why this is coming up now and being framed as a national political issues for God's sake!!!
Harper - is this what you expected when you pandered in the last election to the Quebec "soft nationalists" and the ADQ supporters with your notion of a Quebec Nation? Is your thirst and thrust for power such that you will wantonly sacrifice the reputation a high profile citizen in professional sport who is representing our country internationally in sports not less. Is this the way you will govern with a majority? It is always going to be all about your personal power?
As for every other member of every other party in the House of Commons who signed on to this feckless fiasco - how utterly common of all of you. Shame on you!
Please join in and sign the petition and tell our political "masters" (sic) what you think about their priorities and perspectives on the world. I did and felt much better for it.
Here is part of the preamble to the petition to give you some context about what this is all about:
"During a late 2005 NHL Hockey game, it was alleged that Phoenix Coyotes forward Shane Doan directed an anti-French remark at the referee of that particular game. After an investigation by the NHL, Doan's name was cleared. Nearly a year and a half later, Doan is the captain of Team Canada at the World Hockey Championships. Amazingly on May 1 all four of Canada's political parties supported a motion in a session of the Canadian House of Commons requiring Hockey Canada to appear before a parliamentary committee and explain its choice of Doan as captain of the team.
While allegations along the lines of the 2005 one are no laughing matter, something isn't right here. It would appear as if a hockey player and the game itself may be being exploited for political reasons."
Harper - is this what you expected when you pandered in the last election to the Quebec "soft nationalists" and the ADQ supporters with your notion of a Quebec Nation? Is your thirst and thrust for power such that you will wantonly sacrifice the reputation a high profile citizen in professional sport who is representing our country internationally in sports not less. Is this the way you will govern with a majority? It is always going to be all about your personal power?
As for every other member of every other party in the House of Commons who signed on to this feckless fiasco - how utterly common of all of you. Shame on you!
Please join in and sign the petition and tell our political "masters" (sic) what you think about their priorities and perspectives on the world. I did and felt much better for it.
Here is part of the preamble to the petition to give you some context about what this is all about:
"During a late 2005 NHL Hockey game, it was alleged that Phoenix Coyotes forward Shane Doan directed an anti-French remark at the referee of that particular game. After an investigation by the NHL, Doan's name was cleared. Nearly a year and a half later, Doan is the captain of Team Canada at the World Hockey Championships. Amazingly on May 1 all four of Canada's political parties supported a motion in a session of the Canadian House of Commons requiring Hockey Canada to appear before a parliamentary committee and explain its choice of Doan as captain of the team.
While allegations along the lines of the 2005 one are no laughing matter, something isn't right here. It would appear as if a hockey player and the game itself may be being exploited for political reasons."
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Evolution of Ed Stelmach on a Smoking Ban in Alberta
Last May, the Campaign for a Smoke-Free Alberta submitted a survey to all of the PC leadership candidates regarding various tobacco control measures in Alberta.
In the early days of the leadership campaign, Stelmach initially signaled his resistance to provincial legislation, instead promoting education to reduce tobacco use.
However after several forums, citizen feedback, the strong positions of other candidates and increasing media profile for tobacco legislation, Stelmach submitted his reply to the Smoke-Free Alberta survey on November 1.
In the survey, Stelmach supported a tobacco sales ban in pharmacies and free votes on private members bills regarding smoking and tobacco marketing. He responded “no” to government legislation to make all workplaces completely smoke-free and a ban on powerwalls. He also responded “no” to a tobacco tax increase (which he eventually supported in the recent budget).
In the final week of the leadership campaign, Stelmach sent a letter to Smoke-Free Alberta stating “Let me be perfectly clear in my disapproval of smoking. I don’t smoke and I don’t like it. It has a tremendous cost to society in terms of health care.” He went on to say, “I support the use of preventative health programs to reduce smoking….”
His bottom line is, “I will encourage my caucus to debate further measures to reduce smoking and to support and champion their collective decision” and “I will support my caucus decisions—part of an open and inclusive government”.
It is worth noting that three major supporters of tobacco legislation—Dave Hancock, Lyle Oberg and Mark Norris—all endorsed Ed Stelmach in the final week of the leadership campaign. This likely contributed to Stelmach’s evolving consciousness and changing of heart on the issue. It also reinforces his message to promote “an open and inclusive government”.
This is not a new idea in Alberta. Unfortunately under Premier Klein the idea was killed 4 times during the policy development process, even though polls show that 84% of Albertans support a legislated province wide smoking ban. Banning smoking in public places and workplaces saves lives, saves money, and should even help improve health care access over time if we can all put more of an emphasis on wellness and prevention. Then tobacco related diseases will not be needing so much of our health care system's resources.
The Premier’s support of the tobacco tax increase in his first Budget as Premier is a very good sign that he is willing to “support and champion” his caucus’s decisions on this issue, especially considering that he initially opposed a tax increase in the Smoke-Free Alberta survey. The key here is that it will be a caucus decision in the final analysis. Now Albertan’s who want a wellness in addition to a health agenda have to make sure their MLAs know it.
Citizens have to return to exercising their power in a democracy between elections. This is a good issue to renew ones responsibility of active citizenship in a representative democracy. This legislation needs to be introduced and passed now. It has been far too long in coming.
So take a minute and call your MLA, or e-mail them or better yet, invest some time (and a stamp) and write and snail mail them a personal letter. Let them know why they must join you and support this initiative for a province wide smoking ban in public and workplaces throughout Alberta.
All the MLA contact information is at: http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/streetkey/skSearch.cfm
In the early days of the leadership campaign, Stelmach initially signaled his resistance to provincial legislation, instead promoting education to reduce tobacco use.
However after several forums, citizen feedback, the strong positions of other candidates and increasing media profile for tobacco legislation, Stelmach submitted his reply to the Smoke-Free Alberta survey on November 1.
In the survey, Stelmach supported a tobacco sales ban in pharmacies and free votes on private members bills regarding smoking and tobacco marketing. He responded “no” to government legislation to make all workplaces completely smoke-free and a ban on powerwalls. He also responded “no” to a tobacco tax increase (which he eventually supported in the recent budget).
In the final week of the leadership campaign, Stelmach sent a letter to Smoke-Free Alberta stating “Let me be perfectly clear in my disapproval of smoking. I don’t smoke and I don’t like it. It has a tremendous cost to society in terms of health care.” He went on to say, “I support the use of preventative health programs to reduce smoking….”
His bottom line is, “I will encourage my caucus to debate further measures to reduce smoking and to support and champion their collective decision” and “I will support my caucus decisions—part of an open and inclusive government”.
It is worth noting that three major supporters of tobacco legislation—Dave Hancock, Lyle Oberg and Mark Norris—all endorsed Ed Stelmach in the final week of the leadership campaign. This likely contributed to Stelmach’s evolving consciousness and changing of heart on the issue. It also reinforces his message to promote “an open and inclusive government”.
This is not a new idea in Alberta. Unfortunately under Premier Klein the idea was killed 4 times during the policy development process, even though polls show that 84% of Albertans support a legislated province wide smoking ban. Banning smoking in public places and workplaces saves lives, saves money, and should even help improve health care access over time if we can all put more of an emphasis on wellness and prevention. Then tobacco related diseases will not be needing so much of our health care system's resources.
The Premier’s support of the tobacco tax increase in his first Budget as Premier is a very good sign that he is willing to “support and champion” his caucus’s decisions on this issue, especially considering that he initially opposed a tax increase in the Smoke-Free Alberta survey. The key here is that it will be a caucus decision in the final analysis. Now Albertan’s who want a wellness in addition to a health agenda have to make sure their MLAs know it.
Citizens have to return to exercising their power in a democracy between elections. This is a good issue to renew ones responsibility of active citizenship in a representative democracy. This legislation needs to be introduced and passed now. It has been far too long in coming.
So take a minute and call your MLA, or e-mail them or better yet, invest some time (and a stamp) and write and snail mail them a personal letter. Let them know why they must join you and support this initiative for a province wide smoking ban in public and workplaces throughout Alberta.
All the MLA contact information is at: http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/streetkey/skSearch.cfm
West Fraser and ForestEthics Square off on Caribou Habitat
The focus on the boreal forest is heating up again. This time it is a focus around the habitat of the Woodland Caribou and certain allegations being made by ForestEthics, an environmental NGO on YouTube. The allegations claim negative impacts on the Woodland Caribou due to forestry practices of West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd. in Alberta and B.C.
I have done some policy research work for the Alberta forest industry in 2005 focused on what the public expectations were around that industry sustaining and enhancing its social license to operate in the public forested lands. The second most important value driver amongst Albertans around what they expected of industry was the effective protection of wild life habitat.
The topic is timely and “hot.” ForestEthics and West Fraser obviously both know this is a very critical issue and not just grist for PR purposes. That said the medium is as interesting to me as is the message. The use of the Internet by ForestEthics is a significant move towards reaching a new and receptive audience for their message. MSM is not very much trusted any more and if this video were on broadcast television it would be seen as a “commercial” even if it came from an ENGO. On the Internet, it has the chance of being more “believable” and better received by a more influential audience, if you do it correctly.
There is a larger collection of issue oriented activists, well informed, knowledgeable and engaged “influentials” in the “netizens” group that tend to haunt the web. Industry has not caught on to this reality as yet and they ignore it at their peril.
Equally as interesting is the counter-activist approach being taken by West Fraser in response to the allegations. Usually such incidences have caused corporations to generate expensive full page newspaper ads with lots of feel good PR verbiage that come across as mostly self serving and staged. West Fraser has focused it messages on directly challenging the facts and representations in the ForestEthics YouTube video. This is a responds to the challenge and an invitation for the public to engage and learn more about the issues and the implications but to do so in a way that goes to testing credibility and authenticity of the messengers as much as the message.
As George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute says, (and I paraphrase), “The facts while interesting, are almost totally irrelevant. It is how you frame the issues and activate values that make the difference in public opinion.”
There are clear facts about the plight of the Woodland Caribou and the species is undoubtedly under serious duress. What caused this and what is being done about it are more facts based. Who really “cares about the Woodland Caribou” is the framing context so far from what I have read. What is being done about the issues, both “good” and “bad,” is the values activation effort. That is what is really going on here between ForestEthics and West Fraser.
I applaud both sides for their initiativesand efforts on the issues. Now the public has to make up its mind. Our research involved over 3000 Albertans in the fall of 2005 and we know the issue of wildlife habitat is important to the public. It demands attention and resolution.
The process question about how we see moving forward on the issue is one that also interests me and it is also very important. Is it to be resolved in the old fashioned way by who is the most effective at didactics in a pure adversarial contest of key messaging and media positioning?
Or is it going to be about a more meaningful and inclusive dialogue that is presented and “sponsored” by authoritative, authentic people who are focused on finding the collective wisdom to design effective sustainable solutions? I am pulling for the latter and fully expect if that is what happens here the caribou, our environment and even our society will all be better for it.
In the meantime I have had the pleasure to meet some of the key individuals in ForestEthics and in West Fraser and know them to be quality and capable individuals. Time will tell how wise they (and we citizens are) can actually be about all of this and the many other critical environment issues we now face.
I will be following this story line as it evolves with great interest and will do my best keep you informed about its progress.
I have done some policy research work for the Alberta forest industry in 2005 focused on what the public expectations were around that industry sustaining and enhancing its social license to operate in the public forested lands. The second most important value driver amongst Albertans around what they expected of industry was the effective protection of wild life habitat.
The topic is timely and “hot.” ForestEthics and West Fraser obviously both know this is a very critical issue and not just grist for PR purposes. That said the medium is as interesting to me as is the message. The use of the Internet by ForestEthics is a significant move towards reaching a new and receptive audience for their message. MSM is not very much trusted any more and if this video were on broadcast television it would be seen as a “commercial” even if it came from an ENGO. On the Internet, it has the chance of being more “believable” and better received by a more influential audience, if you do it correctly.
There is a larger collection of issue oriented activists, well informed, knowledgeable and engaged “influentials” in the “netizens” group that tend to haunt the web. Industry has not caught on to this reality as yet and they ignore it at their peril.
Equally as interesting is the counter-activist approach being taken by West Fraser in response to the allegations. Usually such incidences have caused corporations to generate expensive full page newspaper ads with lots of feel good PR verbiage that come across as mostly self serving and staged. West Fraser has focused it messages on directly challenging the facts and representations in the ForestEthics YouTube video. This is a responds to the challenge and an invitation for the public to engage and learn more about the issues and the implications but to do so in a way that goes to testing credibility and authenticity of the messengers as much as the message.
As George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute says, (and I paraphrase), “The facts while interesting, are almost totally irrelevant. It is how you frame the issues and activate values that make the difference in public opinion.”
There are clear facts about the plight of the Woodland Caribou and the species is undoubtedly under serious duress. What caused this and what is being done about it are more facts based. Who really “cares about the Woodland Caribou” is the framing context so far from what I have read. What is being done about the issues, both “good” and “bad,” is the values activation effort. That is what is really going on here between ForestEthics and West Fraser.
I applaud both sides for their initiativesand efforts on the issues. Now the public has to make up its mind. Our research involved over 3000 Albertans in the fall of 2005 and we know the issue of wildlife habitat is important to the public. It demands attention and resolution.
The process question about how we see moving forward on the issue is one that also interests me and it is also very important. Is it to be resolved in the old fashioned way by who is the most effective at didactics in a pure adversarial contest of key messaging and media positioning?
Or is it going to be about a more meaningful and inclusive dialogue that is presented and “sponsored” by authoritative, authentic people who are focused on finding the collective wisdom to design effective sustainable solutions? I am pulling for the latter and fully expect if that is what happens here the caribou, our environment and even our society will all be better for it.
In the meantime I have had the pleasure to meet some of the key individuals in ForestEthics and in West Fraser and know them to be quality and capable individuals. Time will tell how wise they (and we citizens are) can actually be about all of this and the many other critical environment issues we now face.
I will be following this story line as it evolves with great interest and will do my best keep you informed about its progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)