Sunday, May 26, 2013

Citizen Protection from Anonymous Media Sources based on Gossip, Hearsay or Allegations Required.

Under our Charter of Rights; Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution the rights of all citizens must be protected, be they non public figures or elected representatives of the public, and all are to be presumed innocent until legally and beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law found otherwise.

Recently media corporations, such as the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and Gawker blog, with their editorials, reporting and story journalism being based on gossip, hearsay and anonymous dubious sources that cannot be independently legally verifiable and would not be judicially acceptable in our courts of law, in my opinion, have adequately shown the media must be reigned in and clamped down on by legislation for such muckraking at the direct expense of any individuals citizen’s character and that of the family, spouse and children.

Mob rule public opinion guilt spread through muckraking bulling editorials and journalistic news making stories or gossip blogs are neither reliable, relevant or permitted evidence in issues before the courts. Such unproven allegations should NOT be allowed “to go to press” in public or private news print media.

Such legislation must be enacted to protect the personal reputations of all Canadian individuals, their spouse, family and children from media corporations rush to judgment and opinions based on allegations from scurrilous anonymous sources of gossip; hearsay and theory as offered up as editorial opinions and journalistic stories.

The personal reputation of every Canadian from whatever province they reside or make their living must be shielded from story generated journalism and reporters acting like legally constituted police investigator or officers of our judicial system which they are not.

To quote Justice J.E. Scanlan, “guilt or innocence is NOT based on rumor, speculation or reputation. An accused is not tried” (in the media, courts or public opinion)” based on what he/she may have done before” rather “ the evidence related to the matter in issue.”

In my opinion, unprofessional editorials and journalistic stories lately have forgone any sense of professionalism or basic human decency. 

Perhaps it is because of their own or their employers’ distinct motives as based on their particular political ideologies and philosophies, 

I am not sure but it seems that way.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for your thoughts, comments and opinions, will be in touch. Peter Clarke