The Problem With Taxpayer Funded Social Media

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, the twitterverse and blogdom is finally sittin' up and takin' notice that our gummint is paying for favourable postings in various social media. There was a story on it over the weekend: Harper government monitoring online chats about politics. As Stageleft points out, the headline is somewhat misleading. The government is not only monitoring online opinion, they're jumping in and "correcting misinformation." Stageleft says he has no problems with the practice. I disagree.

I posted a bigass comment over at Stageleft and I'm recyclin' it here. Nobody is paying me to post my opinions, btw. I'm open to offers, though. If I'm paying for the government to hire a social media contractor to refute me, I may as well get paid, too.

Here's what I said at Stageleft:

Of course we know that the government and political parties monitor social media. I have no problem with that and, as you say, we want them to take notice of what we, the everyday citizen, is opining.

What I find very questionable is the use of tax dollars to refute opinions which the government has deemed "incorrect." Perhaps a government in bed with big oil thinks it is incorrect to criticize BP for deepwater drilling without a contingency disaster plan. Rand Paul recently stated that criticism of BP with regard to Gulf oilspill is "un-American".

Is criticism of our own tar sands un-Canadian? Do we want our criticisms challenged by bought-and-paid-for PR firms working not for the oil industry but for us? When we express our opinions on our own time, should we be footing the bill for some flak to be countering us?

There's also the issue of credibility. Next time a pro-Harper comment is posted here or on my blog or on Twitter or on Facebook, who could help but wonder if that comment is being paid for with tax dollars and doesn't even necessarily represent the true thinking of the individual whose job it is to spout the government line?

If I were a pro-CPC or pro-Harper tweep or blogger, I'd be a bit concerned that I'd be suspect of not being genuine in my postings but merely working for $XX per tweet on the taxpayer dime.

If private corporations want to hire paid tweeps or bloggers and do so anonymously (or pseudonymously) without any disclaimers, that's business using investor capital to promote its product. I have little problem with that sort of astroturfing and have come to expect as much.

It's when government uses my own money to refute me that I have a problem.

I'm starting to see a few blogs supporting the MPs rejection of Sheila Fraser's request for an audit. Are those bloggers being paid from the public purse to shield MP expenses from scrutiny? One can't help but wonder.

When governments surreptitiously plant the government position into social media -- on our dime -- we no longer have honest discussion. The paying of social media contractors to shape public opinion goes beyond publishing talking points for the faithful to parrot on their own time, at their own expense.

Again, I have no problem with party staffers, company employees, paid PR firms pushing their agenda via social media. When it's done at public expense, however, it crosses a line much like the line crossed when Helena Guergis's staffers wrote letters of support to editors. It dilutes genuine public opinion to the detriment of social media.

Before anyone bothers arguing or refuting anything I just said, be warned: I will be able to accuse you of being a bought-and-paid-for flak spouting the line you're being paid to spout.

JimBobby

Seal Hunt Not Worth the Fight - Time to Move On

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I'm gonna wade into the seal hunt issue. Over to StageLeft, there's a comments section gabfest goin' on an' I left me a bigass comment. I'm recycling that comment here.

How about we look at the economics of the hunt?

Back in 2007, the landed value of the seal hunt was only a paltry $12 million. 2008 was about half of that. In 2007, the federal government paid about $3.4 million to rescue sealers from the ice. I don’t know how much we spent in 2008. Taxpayers also pay for aircraft used to locate seals and commercial sealers are led to the seals by Coast Guard icebreakers. Canadian tax dollars support the hunt and the massive PR campaign that was mounted to counter EU opposition.

Despite all the money we spent, the EU still voted for a ban. Now, we’re going to throw good money after bad by mounting a legal challenge at the WTO. At least the lawyers are still making money.

When the banks need money, we bail them out with billions of public dollars. When the dumbass, gas-guzzlin’ auto industry needs money, we bail them out with billions more. When the dirty tar sands need money, we give them billions in tax cuts and bogus R&D grants to fantasyland carbon capture schemes. When tobacco farmers can’t make it, we cough up $288 million in buyout money.

We sell a lot of other stuff to EU customers and our protestation over the seal hunt could well cause a larger boycott of Canadian products of all types. When the US banned seal imports, we didn’t mount a legal challenge, even though the US was formerly the biggest customer. We understood the possible trade ramifications. We’d better wake up and understand what a blanket European boycott of Canadian products could mean.

The seal hunt may be unjustly portrayed as inherently cruel. However, we fought the PR battle on that score and, like it or not, we lost. Public opinion is against the hunt. Also, contrary to what Doug Newton said, the EU Parliament is an elected body.

Even without the EU ban, the market for pelts was down so much in recent years that many sealers didn’t bother going out and risking their necks this past year. I suggest that the EU ban is less a case of an authoritarian imposition than it is a case of the EU Parliament reflecting the wishes of EU citizens. They spoke with their pocketbooks already.

If we simply didn’t fight the ban and gave up the logistical and search & rescue support we lavish on this industry, we’d have millions to invest into alternatives or to simply dole out to the out of work sealers. Instead, we’re planning to spend good dollars fighting a fight we cannot possibly win.

I have no opposition on humanitarian grounds and I understand and appreciate the argument that seals compete with humans for fish. Nevertheless, the public relations war is over and we lost. Time to move on.

BTW, I killed 5 mice in the past 36 hours. There is no market for mouse pelts or mouse meat so I tossed them in the trash. If the seals are pests to the fishing industry, I have no problem with the fishing industry financing a cull. We’ve culled deer down here on Long Point when they became too populous.

Something that I wonder about, though… Back when Cabot sailed into the Grand Banks, the cod were so plentiful they scooped them up with buckets. There was no commercial seal hunt at that time. Who is to blame for cod stock depletion? Seals or human over-fishing?

I think we can develop a Canadian market for Inuit seal products. I think the commercial sealers are already accustomed to taking handouts and giving them each a couple thousand bucks would be much more cost-effective than flogging the dead horse at the WTO.

JB

Seal hunt unjustifiable, says Green Party

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I'm posting a Green Party of Canada press release verbatim.

Seal hunt unjustifiable, says Green Party
OTTAWA – The Green Party today renewed its call for an immediate end to the commercial seal hunt, saying the hunt is impossible to justify on any basis and that successive governments have protected the hunt for far too long.

“The federal government has pulled out all the stops this year to keep the seal hunt afloat,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “Taxpayers’ dollars have been wasted on a grand show for the European Union, complete with an expensive propaganda campaign and lobbying effort. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has even gone so far as to arrest and detain a foreign vessel. I can’t recall the last time the DFO bothered to arrest a foreign ship for actually overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, which speaks to the DFO’s priorities.”

Ms. May said that the annual hunt is inherently inhumane, dangerous for workers, damaging to Canada's international reputation, produces little economic benefit to Atlantic communities and would cease to exist without massive government subsidies.

“Government propaganda and support for the seal hunt cannot be justified by economics,” said Ms. May. “The seal hunt accounts for less than one percent of Newfoundland’s economy, yet it is a huge drain on public coffers. For instance, the landed value of the 2007 seal kill was $12 million, but that year the federal government paid at least $3.4 million to rescue ice-locked sealers and more than twice that to compensate fishers affected by ice conditions, including those sealers. Taxpayers also foot the bill for aircraft used to locate seal nurseries and are led to the seals by Coast Guard icebreakers. Canadian tax dollars support this hunt, even though most Canadians favour ending it.

“This year, pelt prices are down, fuel costs are up and many sealers say it is not worthwhile to go to the ice floes. The European Union will bring down a ban on seal product imports this summer which will cripple the sealing industry. The clock is running out on this hunt, but the government can make the transition smoother by devising a strategy for those affected.

“The government should bite the bullet now, buy out sealing licenses and initiate negotiations with provincial and municipal governments in Atlantic Canada to find sustainable alternative livelihoods for sealers and their communities.”

The Green Party is proposing a generous compensation package for sealers coupled with ecotourism and seal watching tours to develop the economies of affected communities. Ms. May noted that ecotourism is more consistent with the goal of rehabilitating the ecosystem as a whole and that other measures, such as banning drag trawling, are also critical to preserving the regional ecosystem.

In the last election, the Greens lost some support in Newfoundland and Labrador for the anti-hunt stance. One GPC candidate quit to protest our party's line. Too bad. I'm proud that we are standing up for humane treatment of animals. I'm also happy that we're not afraid to take an unpopular stand when our principles are at stake.

Elizabeth did the right thing last week when she resigned her directorship of the Sea Shepherd Society. Paul Watson's callous remarks were not acceptable. The Green Party is built on Six Green Values.

The first one is Ecological Wisdom

"We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species."

JimBobby