This has been a bad week for the media.
It ended today with a bang. Bringing home groceries I spotted the cover of the Ottawa Sun, published by Quebecor Media Inc. There, superimposed on the Reuters image of migrants being guided off of the MV Sun Sea, were the words “BOGUS REFUGEES.”
The point of the Ottawa Sun was clear: these invaders are liars.
The “scoop” inside behind the claim was a secret document that QMI had “obtained” (I love that word) from Canada Border Services Agency. From what I can understand, public servants had counted the number of former refugees, now applying to sponsor another individual as an immigrant, who had returned to Sri Lanka after gaining refugee status in Canada. It was a rough estimate based on 50 Sri Lankans, of whom 31 were refugees. Of those 31 refugees, 22 has subsequently returned to Sri Lanka.
From this, QMI stated that “over 70% of successful Tamil refugee claimants surveyed from returning to Sri Lanka for vacations, business or to sponsor family members.” This is a clearly misleading statement.
As CBSA notes in a response to an inquiry by Kady O’Malley of CBC, “this review was done based on statements applicants made during their immigration interview and not based on any formal entry control system, this information must be considered anecdotal in nature.” In other words, it wasn’t a survey, it wasn’t a proportion.
The anecdotal evidence is also short on information. Most notably, when the individuals concerned had made the trip back. Someone returning years later to bring over their family is a world apart from, as QMI implies, someone going back for a vacation a week after being admitted to Canada. It is no basis to call them all liars. A claim that, were it levelled against nearly any Canadian, would result in a libel suit.
The story had the aforementioned Ms. O’Malley frustrated. But earlier this week, I found myself on a rant of my own.
The Globe and Mail had published an op-ed by respected political scientist Tom Flanagan. Like him, or hate him: a big name. So I was very surprised when I read this:
We need some rational debate, maybe even a government task force, on the proper shape of the census in the electronic age. Statistics Canada still relies on 20th-century technology (mailed questionnaires) as well as 19th-century technology (interviewers at the door) to gather information. How about some 21st-century technology? If we can create an electronic voters list, can we not carry out at least part of the census electronically?
The thing is, they do. In 2006 Statistics Canada had Canadians respond to the Census via the Internet. I remember because I filled it out. (My step-sister didn’t want to want to answer the questions. She only participated because we noted the law said she had to. Oh, the irony.)
The Globe and Mail had been on my nerve all week as a matter of fact. While their editorials and columns steered clear of making such controversial claims as QMI, the main stories (example) found on A1 insisted on calling the migrants “illegal immigrants.”
I know, I know editors. The alliteration there is awesome. Really though, the fact is, that is really unclear right now. To state it like a fact, at the front of the article no less, is to bias the discussion. Worse, it is to be inaccurate.
This may be three cases, but the trend is clear: I don’t know what to believe.
