Policing in the age of Misinformation and Distrust

Posted on by Pete Cross
Wooden City Conference Center podium with microphones in an empty auditorium

We are in a crisis of honesty in this country. No one believes anyone, nobody trusts what they hear, let alone what they read. All of us are now franctically checking the source of the information so that we can judge whether it is real, fake, or somewhere in between. It also takes us twice as long to read the news because we need to fact check every story through another “trusted” source.

I was a long time reader of the NY Times and the New Yorker, but they turned on me. The Times motto of “all the news that is fit to print” is now all the news that they want you to see and as long as it fits the socially progressive and Democratic agenda. The New Yorker is/was famous for its illustrious past and well informed narratives and their prolific and amazing stable of writers; John Updike, Joan Didion, and Malcolm Gladwell to name just a few. The New Yorker always had a “progressive” and liberal attitude, however it seems that now they have officially crossed over the line to becoming advocates and not observers. Recently I watched a documentary on the New Yorker which covered the period of time during the 2nd election of Trump versus Kamala Harris. It was a behind the scenes look, with interviews of the writers and the process in putting together a magazine issue on the election. Their bias for Harris and their abject fear and loathing of Trump was on full display. Even the selection of the cover when Trump won was designed to show their hate of the outcome. There was no pretence of fairness, no attempt to cover the story from all angles, there was only one angle in their view. I also think Trump is a buffoon, but I also appreciate and have long applauded good journalism, this documentary was truly revealing and therefore disappointing.

In the last number of decades in the police universe, there has been a consistent push towards an emphasis on media relations; a need to be seen to be out there, a need to push the “breaking” news out as fast and as efficiently as possible. The police bought into the need to be always appear to be front and centre, and therefore in control. They were not deterred in their rush to judgement, even if sometimes it was to the detriment of the facts. They believed it made them seem forthright, professional and that they were indeed servants of the people. They were only there to serve. It should be said that there is not something inherently wrong in this guiding principle, but part and parcel of such an approach, is that it needs to be accompanied by a high degree of honesty and belief in what was being said. If you were intent on putting out a press release or holding a press conference then one should assume that one needed to come armed with the facts and significant pieces of information that were relevant to the story. And more importantly you needed to be willing to reveal that information.

The police agencies in their sometimes well earned cynicism of the Fifth Estate sometimes felt that it was enough to be just standing there and besides looking to be in control, they would also be in a better position to control any narratives that flowed from it. That they could be somewhat manipulative in creating a positive viewpoint of the police. It should be remembered that these were the decades of the “media managers” and “media consultants” who studied and influenced how a company or an agency should “project” itself to the general public in an effort to control that public image. Over the last number of years what it did do was automatically force viewers or readers to interpret what was being said –to read “between the lines”.

So we are now at a point in time where everyone has caught on. We don’t trust the media, the politicians, the police, the medical establishment, or anyone for that matter who is trying to influence our opinion or make us believe. COVID underlined the problem of blind trust. We are now learning of some of the misinformation surrounding the vaccine and the implications of its use. We were constantly told that it was a time of “crisis”, therefore we were not allowed to question. Recent polls now show that god forbid that if we entered another viral age, most people would not conform or believe the authorities.

Currently, we are told we are in a “tariff war”. However we are not allowed to see the details of the derailed agreement and we are told that there is now a need for an associate membership in the European Union, but no details in either case are provided on how it all works. Both are cases of political and social media press management, where the details are being withheld and one can only walk away with a feeling of distrust.

I am not the first person, nor will I be the last who is concerned about this lack of trust. It has been talked about politically and studied academically for some time. The general policing approach to alleviate this lack of trust, according to many and even to the United Nations is “community policing” and the need “to feel heard”. Many studies and the U.N. emphasize that the diverse communities need to feel “heard, protected, and represented”. That this is the only practical way to build trust. In their view they address distrust as a phenomenon of being displaced, they do not look at the much larger picture. However, if one turns to the psychology behind a lack of trust, the literature actually points to the need for “consistency”, “transparency”, and “competence”. From a psychological perspective distrust is often the result of overpromising, being defensive, and hiding the hard news. In my view this is the heart of the matter and it is not solved by a community policing agenda.

This is not to say that the RCMP, our largest policing agency, has not paid attention to this lack of trust. The RCMP has since 2015 been paying lip service to the need for transparency, integrity and open government. The RCMP actually has a”Transparency and Trust Strategy” and by 2023 began calling itself an “international leader in public safety, transparency, open government practices and embody principles of trust, transparency, integrity, accountability and participation.” Should you need proof of this feel free to go to the website and read the 35 page document . Like most readers, I had no idea that this existed, but apparently the Mounties have been dragged into being more open because of the Federal Government commitment to the Open Government Implementation Plan . It is a difficult read, filled with the usual government bromides, with not much of any substance.

However, the document does clearly show that the “transparency” that they are seeking and have accomplished is about data sharing for academia and other interested parties. It is not about grass roots and operational honesty. By the way, this past eleven years of this policy has resulted in only data releases concerned with “calls for service”, “diversity statistics” and “police intervention options”. In this policy paper which advocates openness it is always followed with the caveat of the overriding need to respect “privacy, security, and confidentiality”.

For anyone who has put a Freedom of Information request forward, or if you ask any journalist or academic as to the state of transparency in the RCMP, they usually answer with a laugh.

So how do we combat this lack of trust, or more specifically how do the police regain that trust which clearly has eroded over the last number of decades. Is there a way out? First, we must start with the old dogma that “trust isn’t owed, it’s earned”.

Data transparency is one thing and for statistical analysis may be of some value, but the transparency needed to restore trust in the policing agencies is much more basic. Until the front line managers can be more open as to the realities of policing, it is only that will eventually restore trust and with it integrity. For instance managers or supervisors need to speak of the staffing and resourcing issues which is being faced every day and affects their ability to police. Did you know that the RCMP is so desperate for bodies that the Commissioner has recently issued a directive to the Depot training staff that they are not to fail more than 10% of the recruits? Did you know that the biggest issue facing that training staff is English as a second language?

Did you know that there are historically about 1700 unsolved homicides in British Columbia alone? Since the formation of IHIT they have generated 350 unsolved homicides. Across Canada there is about 12,000 unsolved cases. Have you ever heard police executives talk about the enormous efforts needed for unsolved cases, or talked about the fact that there are too many to even be managed. Instead the general public is led to believe that no file is untended, that all open files are being actively worked. IHT now wants you to believe that the formation of another team for gang related homicides is the cure. The VPD on their unsolved web site, display 17 cases, do you think that is an accurate number?

Have you ever heard the police talking about their frustrations with Crown, or the ridiculous amount of time it takes to get a case into court and then through the courts? Have you ever heard Ottawa talk about the mind boggling problems with resourcing internet crime and their inability to even make a dent in those types of cases and that they are madly scrambling to fill all these “Federal” positions. Have you heard the final policing costs for the World Cup yet? Have you ever wondered why the RCMP is not investigating the alleged grave sites at residential schools where children were allegedly murdered?

It is about time that a new approach is undertaken by police managers. It is time to speak the truth and no longer hide behind the need for privacy, security reasons, or opaque investigative purposes. I understand the need for managers to “toe the line” but if you can’t or won’t provide sufficient and truthful detail, don’t say anything at all. The only way the public is going to begin to regain trust in the police is if they stop thinking they are being manipulated and that the police are coming to them with straightforward answers. It’s the only way. It’s not by sharing data on diversity. Trust isn’t owed, it’s earned, and they need to be aligning their words with their actions.

Dangerous thoughts

Posted on by Pete Cross

We seemed to have reached a critical juncture in this country.  No this is not a reference to the pandemic, nor the staggering debt that is being incurred as a result of the favoured government approach to the virus, nor the damage done, to those in the low income groups in terms of future employment. 

This is not about the fact that the two most powerful political leaders in this country Mr. Morneau and Mr. Trudeau are ethically bereft; unable to understand life outside the gilded cages they inherited. Even though it is getting a little compelling that this is their second trip across that ethical and moral divide. 

 This is a reference to something more opaque and potentially more lethal to this country.  

This is a reference to the fact that we have become a nation of people where freedom of thought is now being challenged, tossed to the side, squandered away in the interest of correctness, in the interest of a far left liberal agenda.

We have become a country whose influencers are trumpeting a cause in which they clearly believe; but to be sustained they believe that there is no room for dissent or discussion. Follow and agree, or be expunged. Any contrarian voice will be drowned out by their myopic shouts— emphatic in their belief that they and only they, have seen the light. Only they can understand right from wrong. Only they possess the right to determine what and who goes forward. 

This is not a conspiratorial theory.  Valid conspiracies require orchestrated goals and some form of structure.  Rather, what we are allowed to hear or read is being controlled through some twisted form of protest osmosis, driven by a manic adherence to correctness, and a hysterical group of government leaders playing to an audience of progressives. And, it is being done with a level of arrogance not often seen in this country. 

The frenetic dialogue demanding acceptance of the progressive theories is often bizarre and unhinged from a factual foundation. The riots, the violence and the destruction which flows behind the placards is accompanied by an underlying discourse which in itself is intolerant of alternate views. 

We have developed a bad habit in this country of wanting to mimic the United States. True to form this call to action and form of censorship has been seeded and watered in the U.S. The issues of the United States are being portrayed as one and the same in Canada.  The history of racism, slavery and segregation to the south of us, is according to the fanatical few in this country, is one and the same as the plight of blacks or the indigenous in this country. This is patently untrue, but if repeated incessantly then it must be legitimate.  

There is a long list of censorship stories being told in the United States and in Canada. 

In the U.S. Steven Pinker, a best-selling author and Harvard professor who has often appeared on PBS and Joe Rogan where he deals with what one would call the more “difficult” subjects has been one of the recent victims.  His last book is entitled “Enlightenment Now: the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress”. Bill Gates has called it his favourite book of all time. If Mr. Pinker has a theme to his writings, it is one of reason and science. 

This same Mr. Pinker has now been accused of racial insensitivity. In fact five hundred and fifty academics signed a letter seeking to remove him from the list of “distinguished fellows” of the Linguistic Society of America. Their charge is that Professor Pinker “minimizes racial injustices and drowns out the voices of those who suffer sexist and racist indignities.“ 

Professor Pinker’s real offence may be the fact that he has denounced what he sees as the close mindedness of the heavily liberal American universities and he has written about innate differences between the sexes and the different ethnic and racial groups. He is not playing along to their truth, therefore, he is now a high level target for those demanding his censorship. 

In contrast, in Canada, one of the “go to” experts on the CBC for Indigenous issues is Ryerson University Chair in Indigenous Governance Pamela Palmater. A person farther from Mr. Pinker in demeanour and speech could not be found. She, has seemingly unrestricted ability to spout her theories of colonialism, or to accuse police of “murder” in any cases involving the Indigenous. She took the occasion of Canada’s 150th birthday to describe it as a “celebration of indigenous genocide”.   

Ms Palmater, a lawyer, we need to remember is also a professor.  Yet, she is allowed to foist her beliefs and innuendo without regard to any objectivity and is never forced to point to the evidence. She is a fermenter of radicalism disguised as an academic. Apparently being indigenous allows her the freedom to launch disdain and invective on the police or others who may or may not agree with her concepts.

There are too many examples of this blinkered political narrative to list here, however this drive to censoring by the progressives is not going totally without notice. 

This month, 153 intellectuals and writers, signed a letter to Harper’s magazine on July 7, 2020 that criticized the current intellectual climate as “constricted” and “intolerant”. The signatories included Mr. Pinker, but also people such as J.K. Rowling, Margaret Atwood and Noam Chomsky. It criticized the present state of “illiberalism”. 

They called Trump “a real threat to democracy”, which no one should debate, but also hinted that the “cancel culture” on the left was as much as a threat.  The signatories included academics from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia University.  

Michael Ignatieff was also a signatory, the former head of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is hard not to notice this paradox. 

Of course there was pushback to this letter too, and reflexively the left accused the signatories of representing “large platforms” at the expense of “marginalized groups”.  They said these writers who penned the letters were elitist and hypocritical. The “letter” has now become a rallying point for the left and they are now openly targeting those that dared signed. 

Michelle Goldberg an opinion columnist for the NY Times describes the climate of the newspaper as being “punitive heretic-hunting”. She describes illiberalism having set in, and now being enforced, in some cases, through workplace discipline, “including firings”. She believes that the “involvement of human resources departments in compelling adherence with rapidly changing new norms of speech and debate” is “frightening.” 

At this same newspaper, an Op-Ed piece was penned by right wing Senator Tom Cotton calling for a military response to civic unrest in American cities during the protests. It was an opinion, voiced in the opinion column.

This prompted more than a 1000 staff members of the NY Times to sign a petition demanding that the editorial page editor resign for allowing this opinion. He was forced to quit a few days later. The power brokers at NY Times, the paper that advertises itself as printing all the news that is fit to print, said that the opinion piece should not have been allowed as it “fell short of our standards”. Apparently free speech is not one of the “standards” of the newspaper. 

In a similar but lesser vein a B.C. RCMP officer , Dustin Dahlman was “suspended” and then resigned following a single person’s complaint that alleged that he re-posted “racially insensitive, rage-fuelled and anti-government” material on Facebook. 

He had posted about “too soft” police responses but the big offence was a re-posting a video where a man says: “If Black Lives mattered so much to you Blacks, then you wouldn’t be burning down our country like a bunch of offing heathens”. 

Let’s be clear that Dahlman didn’t say it, he re-posted it, thus implying being in agreement.  

My guess there is many in this country and especially in the United States who are not happy with the burning and looting which has followed many of the protests. Is  Mr. Dahlman’s comment  an inappropriate comment from a police officer? Yes. Should someone be fired for saying what hundreds of thousands of others are saying?  Admittedly, it is hard to defend in this case what seems illogical or even stupid, but if you believe in free speech then defend it you must.

There was a recent ridiculous story which came out of the San Francisco Police Department last week where the Chief has decided to not issue “mug shots” because according to the black Chief of Police William Scott, “This policy emerges from compelling research suggesting that he widespread publication of police booking photos in the news and on social media creates an illusory correlation for viewers that fosters racial bias and vastly overstates the propensity of Black and brown men engage in criminal behaviour”.

There is no mention where the “compelling research “ can be found, nor does he explain how it “overstates” the involvement in crime behaviour. 

In Vancouver the current City counsel has proposed that the Vancouver City Police eliminate street checks. The underlying fact that has stimulated this move is the apparent statement and belief of the progressives that there is racial targeting in these “street checks”. Again, they offer the total number of checks and the theory of “over representation”, but nothing further is explored in terms of a possible explanation.  It is a ridiculous policy based on specious research.

The CBC always ready to jump with both feet in the progressive cause, recently unveiled an in-house “investigation” that said that police shootings are up and that indigenous and persons of colour are disproportionately targeted. It is being broadcast as fact, irrefutable. A mild mention is given to the vast majority of the “over represented” victims having underlying mental health issues and substance abuse problems, but no mention of geographic locations or the high-crime areas in which they occur. 

In their story they make a great deal of the fact that in Winnipeg that Indigenous people represent 2/3rds of the victims but only 10% of the population. There is no mention that the most serious violent gang groups in Winnipeg are the Indigenous gangs.  

 Of the 461 police fatal encounters they “investigated” in the years 2000-2017 (which amounts to an an average of 27 a year across the Nation), only 18 resulted in charges against the police; nudge nudge wink wink . Despite the innuendo and heavy hanging “facts” hey do not present any evidence of a cover up. 

Some may suggest that this is just part of the intellectual pendulum in this country?  Maybe. But history suggest that it could go on for decades. 

There were times when the right tried to harness the ideas of the left, but one needs to go back to the 1960’s. The Woodstock generation was the harbinger of the exploration of liberal and leftist ideas. The protests against the “man” in those times fomented the seeds for the violence of the Black Panthers; the comedy of Lenny Bruce who went after the institutions like the Catholic Church; and the leftist separatist movement in Quebec which led to the formation of the FLQ in this country. The history tells us that attempts to ban and curtail the thoughts and ideas of the left by the right failed dismally.  

 The grand children of that leftist 1960’s viewpoint have now taken up the “new”cause.  The Panthers have morphed into the radical fringe of Black Lives Matter.  But likely, they will also find that censoring or banning the thoughts of the middle and the right, as part of their agenda, will also end in failure. 

Banning a second viewpoint, ostracizing those that hesitate to join their righteous movement will only serve to fertilize the neo-right. That is a separate and real danger which is now brewing in many parts of Europe and South America.  

It seems that this generation of protest has learned nothing from history and the mistakes of those that try to suffocate reasoned thought.

Instead of tearing down statues— study them, learn  what they represent. Change is possible, but it resonates only when it is founded on reason and respect. 

Photo Courtesy of Chris McBrien via Flickr Commons – Some Rights Reserved http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmcbrien/4188306468

And then there were none….

Posted on by Pete Cross

Last night I re-watched the 1976 movie “All the Presidents Men”; the story of an investigative journalistic effort that led to the discovery of the illegal activities of The Committee to Re-Elect, and then to President Richard Nixon himself. In the end there were many guilty pleas, and the resignation of the President himself. The two year long investigative reporting was unprecedented, and may be never duplicated in our current climate as we head forward, where we seem to only want news fixes, like a junkie in the alley looking for a cap of heroin. We want this short burst of adrenalin laced news feeding our eyes and not our heads, before we duly nod off.

The parallels to the situation in the U.S. in 1974 to today, become obvious upon review, almost startling. The Trump presidency is difficult to even fathom, but in no way do I think that Trump and the family lackeys who are already proven liars, are not capable of further deception, not capable of illegalities, in order to maintain their power.

The positive side of this, in some backward fashion, at least in the short term, has been the rejuvenation of an active and determined group of journalists who have now tasted blood. They have the resources, and the experience to both confront the administration and write about it. Even more importantly, they seem to have the backbone necessary to withstand the onslaught of government power run amok, who try to bend, or deny each and every story with a spin that is both dangerous and sometimes laughable.

The Washington Post and the New York Times seem to be the central figures in this relentless daily battle with the truth. Both are decorated newspapers. The Washington Post with Woodward and Bernstein were the central figures in the Watergate matters in 1974, which brought down Nixon. And here again the Post is providing in-depth laudatory coverage of the daily crisis, which is the Trump Whitehouse.

Before Trump, both newspapers were in financial trouble, both cutting personnel and funding. Since Trump, their subscriptions have increased and they have been given a temporary respite from the unenviable and seemingly inevitible dwindling of subscriptions.

The sourcing of their stories, and protecting those stories is relentless. Anybody with an interest in how to conduct, and source investigations should take note. This is not an easy undertaking, their jobs are often on the line should they misspeak or be wrong in any of their reportage.

Where is television in all of this?  Unfortunately, in the last few years, it is trying to re-invent itself, it has become a medium, not a message. They are consumed with banner headlines, breathless “breaking news” but make no mistake, and they seem to have abandoned the time and effort needed for investigative reporting. Their  “news” is no longer journalism.

In an effort to capture the attention of the latest generation, they have come to believe, maybe correctly that this generation is only capable of 30 second attention spans. Therefore anything on video, twitter, Facebook, or trending on YouTube is re-invented as the news regardless of its worth. A good video of a cat up a tree jumps the news queue and becomes headline material. It is cheaply available, and citizens with their phones have become their “stringers” in the field, at no significant cost.

In covering Potus, the TV news groups; CNN, Fox, CBS etc. are for the most part reporting what the newspapers are writing, then putting a lot of talking heads around a dais to pontificate about it.  The more outrageous the talking head, the better the chance of capturing the eyes of the viewing public so we get the likes of Kelly-anne Conway spinning ludicrous analysis and misinformation about the latest Presidential gaff posing as policy.

In many ways, this President has mastered Twitter and the wants of the new age, and has reduced governing to a sitcom. His statements, such as the one where he talks about grabbing women by the genitals, is outrageous, but it goes no further than that, the outrageousness is the news, not the meaning or the implications.  The United States reputation around the world is now tarnished, and may not recover for some time. The United States is now reduced to being a large military with an unstable leader. Sound familiar?

Of course this lack of investigational interest is all applicable to Canada, with its smaller population concentrated around the cities and the borders with the U.S., our television is a smaller mirror image of the U.S. It is astonishing to see how much the CBC National news coverage now revolves around the U.S. trending stories. In  the last couple of days, hours of repetitive footage of the hurricane stories. Here they are able to rollick in the abundance of 10 second videos that are available showing  bent over palm trees, shot through a rain covered lens;  and of course always maintaining a look out for  a “Canadian” located in the centre of the storm to give them some relevancy to Canada.

I am not saying this big story should not be reported, but it should not be all consuming. Are there no issues in Canada worthy of some form of journalism? Of course there are, but they are hampered by this new age of video at all costs, and dwindling funds to conduct those stories. A journalistic Catch-22.

As I opined before, television should be written off as a model of investigative journalism as it simply does not exist at any measurable level, nor is it even possible in their new corporate mission statements.

Newspapers in Canada are in equally dire straits, The Globe and Mail, although business oriented still is the bell-weather of Canada’s newspapers, today they announced a couple of further layoffs.

But the other problem, although we are a highly literate country, is that we are no longer reading.

The newest generation has fallen prey to the love of convenience, wanting summaries, not depth in their reporting. Coles Notes versions, not the details. They need to be constantly fed only enough for them to form an opinion in a few seconds, and damn the details.

Of course, the devil has always been in the details.

This leaves us susceptible to being victimized by misleading or downright false reporting. We are often misled by the headlines, and only when one chooses to read the whole article does it make sense, and it is usually a more calm explanation than advertised.

We are manipulated as a result. Our own governmental agencies have learned that if they issue singular statements of little meaning, it goes unquestioned. The reporters can not be bothered to check the truthfulness of the statement as they are being pre-empted and diverted to a story which may have caught the attention of YouTube and the assignment editor. If you don’t believe me, check out what is currently trending on Youtube, or what the top 10 stories are on Reddit.

Justin Trudeau gives speech after speech making generalized statements of fixing this problem or the next. It goes un-examined for the most part, but we will get pics or video of his latest selfie canoeing, or of him photo bombing a wedding. It makes me think that Trudeau may be a Canadian version of Trump, one who has mastered social media, but but not the relevant issues, but he is young, photogenic and polite. The left in the United States think he is god like, as they too are only reading the headlines. He is a former high school drama teacher, born with a famous name and reputation, how could we not be concerned about what he actually understands.

As experienced journalists are being replaced by the young, the photogenic, who stand in front of endless monitors and fast-moving graphics (I assume it is their attempt to show they are on the cutting edge of technology), and push buttons which play the latest newly trending video.

And now the Americans have confirmed that the Russians and other intelligence agencies have figured this out. You just need to put out the headlines, no need for details, nothing gets checked.

Facebook just revealed the confirmation of false ads, a total of 3000 from 470 “dark accounts”, during the American election, in-directly tied to the Russians, and aimed at altering the election to a candidate they feel they can manipulate. Despite some intrepid reporting a few months ago which Facebook initially denied, it was not until two days ago that Facebook admitted to the problem. The New York Times summed it up by saying “we are in the midst of a world wide, internet-based assault on democracy”.

None of this sounds good, or leaves much room for optimism.

Will we go back to newspapers, unlikely?  Will television be simply a stopping off point where they re-package video? Likely.

There is no immediate answer to these changing times, but this generation does need to question, and it needs to go deeper than Twitter; our democracy depends on it, and we will lose faith if truth becomes the first casualty.

Photo Courtesy of : Razvan Orendovichi via Flickr Creative Commons licence