Who Watches the Watchers (Part Three)

Journalism today stands at the proverbial fork in the road. No one can deny that the public has been losing interest in mainstream media, which has had advertisers look to other sources to invest their dollars. So that has put the societal watchers at this fork agonising and self-diagnosing their potential future. Three of the roads of the fork are paved with yellow bricks of illusion and denial. The fourth is the dirt track of reality; it's rough and hard to travel down there but at least it can lead to a substantial solution.

Democracy needs journalists, after all it is the watcher's job to keep democracy on track, at least that had been the concept journalists had tried to maintain. This ideal is not simply a punchy line for an ad campaign, and many brave journalists had laid down their lives to bring to light events and stories that the powerful would have preferred to keep in the dark. Censorship of these courageous individuals was simply unacceptable. In fact censorship must be unacceptable to all, denying its existence simply aides its ability to slowly erode the foundation of true democracy.

The St. Catharines Standard is the largest newspaper in the Niagara area, now owned by Postmedia. Its journalists lay claim to national newspaper awards and presumably followers of the ten commandments of journalism. In fact one of The Standard's journalists, Karena Walter, appears in an ad for JournalismIs. Over her face are these words: “Essential to Democracy. With a few keystrokes you can sample thousands of opinions, afloat in a sea of information. But as the volume increases, the accuracy and reliability of professional journalism is essential. Gathering and sorting the facts, weighing and interpreting events, and following the story from beginning to end is more important than ever.”

On the front doors of their office at One St. Paul Street are the words “Where the Community Lives.” The Standard over the last six years has breached and mangled the most basic component of democracy, and it has imposed self-censorship by its publisher, editors and journalists. Karena Walter herself sat in the City's Council Chambers on April 29^th 2016 and listened to a presentation requesting changes to local by-laws. Residents had spoken out regarding the City's inaction for years over serious issues that had affected their quality of life. An email was read out publicly which had been sent by the Mayor of St. Catharines Walter Sendzik to the publisher of this site. Mayor Sendzik admitted to the City's knowledge that the business owner had broken the law for years and that the City had done nothing about it. Prior to the meeting documents had been sent to Karena Walter, including a copy of this email which proved City's full knowledge and cover-up of the breaches of law. As the City Hall reporter for The Standard newspaper, Karena Walter selectively censored the information publicly presented at Council from the community.

Karena Walter is not the only journalist at The Standard with such credentials. Longtime reporter Marlene Bergsma openly lied in an article on the front page in 2010 to protect the former mayor. It was election time and evidence had been brought forward of fine fixing supported by the voice of a ward councillor. Marlene Bergsma, who is no longer with the newspaper, chose to lie about the facts to protect the mayor at the time, Brian McMullan.

Still the luminaries at the St. Catharines Standard continue to impress. In a recorded interview on January 9^th 2016 with the former mayor's ex-wife, the ex-Mrs. McMullan revealed another shocker. The ex-Mrs. McMullan said that she had contacted Doug Herod, another longtime reporter at The Standard, and gave him documents relating to her seeking a divorce. Those documents revealed details which included an affair between her then husband, Brian McMullan, and a fellow sitting regional councillor. According to the former wife of Brian McMullan, Doug Herod kept all the documents for several days, then said that his hands were tied and did nothing. Who tied Doug Herod's hands as a journalist? Who decided that the news should be censored from the community?

Today The Standard has a new star, Grant LaFleche, a journalist who extols the great value of his 'craft' and the importance of community newspapers. Out of the ten commandments of JournalismIs, number nine is, “telling the whole story,” LaFleche somehow missed that one. In mid-2015 a situation exploded on the news scene in the Niagara Region when a Regional Councillor had made some less than professional public statements relating to same-sex marriage. Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski had made comments on Twitter likening gay marriage to murder, he had ridiculed President Obama over it, and more. At the very least Councillor Petrowski showed a lack of professionalism and a serious lack of judgment in his online comments, after all as an elected member of government everything he says publicly is in the end accountable, or should be.

On July 8^th 2015, Grant LaFleche wrote an article 'Obama, gay marriage, God and Petrowski', beginning his journalistic jihad regarding the Petrowski anti-gay marriage comments. In 'A council without courage', July 10^th 2015, LaFleche mentions that Petrowski closed his Twitter account, then on July 13^th 2015 recorded a podcast interview with Andy Petrowski on gay marriage, then on July 17^th 2015 another article 'Apologies, Politics and Petrowski' mentions the gay marriage issue. In 2016, on January 21 LaFleche goes in detail again in his article 'Petrowski quits police board', finally ending on March 8^th with his article 'Demand better from Petrowski'.

Throughout this storm Councillor Andy Petrowski claimed that his comments online were completely personal based on his fervent Christian beliefs. He said that he did not make those comments as a public servant and that he had no other motivation behind them. On July 10^th 2015, Councillor Andy Petrowski tweeted a photo of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. This photo has Premier Kathleen Wynne and her partner standing with a number of people who had been part of a Gay Pride Parade. With this photo Petrowski tweets, “Ontario's First Family – how nice pic.” Andy Petrowski is a staunch Conservative supporter, Kathleen Wynne heads a Liberal government in Ontario. Was it God who made him do it, or was it something else?

Although Councillor Petrowski closed his Twitter account temporarily, former City Councillor Andrew Gill screen captured all of this and tagged Premier Wynne. To her credit and dignity Premier Wynne ignored such a petty and cowardly attack. LaFleche wrote in 'A tale of two tweets' July 13^th 2015, “At the very least, the argument that online comments like this are purely personal and do not relate to his job at council don't entirely fly. Regional Council has to regularly work with Queen's Park on issues from GO Transit to funding for social programs. The current premier is Kathleen Wynne – a married, gay Christian woman. Petrowski's statements could prejudice the premier against him or the council and its chairman who refused to say anything about it.”

Andrew Gill follows Grant LaFleche on Twitter, how is it that this investigative journalist missed this? This same journalist on February 17^th 2016 said, “Bloggers aren't doing interviews or poring over government and scientific reports, they aren't doing the kind of investigative work journalists do every day.”

In August of 2013 another storm broke on the St. Catharines' political landscape. The front page of The Standard rang out with 'St. Catharines mayor calls police on councillor' as a headline. This would not be considered as a fluff piece and the details were spread over the local news for several weeks. Both the accuser, former Mayor Brian McMullan, and the accused Councillor Andy Petrowski were interviewed, each throwing out their side of the story. All the accusations and counter accusations took a turn towards the bizarre when former Mayor Brian McMullan had the court issue a peace bond against Councillor Petrowski and a Summons to appear in court on January 24^th 2014.

On the 24^th of January 2014, Councillor Petrowski made his appearance with a Mr. G. Radojcic as his counsel. Mr. M. DelGobbo was council for Brian McMullan, but he appeared on his own as the former mayor decided not to show up for court in a matter he had initiated. Journalist Grant LaFleche had spoken with Mr. DelGobbo outside the court house and decided not to write about the judge's dismissal of the action. Brian McMullan showed little respect for the judicial system and LaFleche proved once again that censorship at The St. Catharines Standard was and is its first commandment.

The three amigos: Mary Agnes Welch of JournalismIs, Journalist Madelaine Drohan and MP Hedy Fry made it sound like they did indeed pound the bricks to gather diverse comment on the issues facing traditional journalism. Yet had they really, or was all of this simply kept within the closed doors of industry insiders and those with a vested interest? JournalismIs claims to provide a “voice to the voiceless,” presumably referring to the public-at-large. An email was sent to Mary Agnes Welch on March 11^th 2016. The email raised the issue of self-imposed censorship and the relationship of such a situation to journalism's ten commandments. Ms. Welch did not respond and kept the idea of public debate silent.

In an attempt to find comment or a discussion on such a serious issue an email was sent to Madelaine Drohan, author of the report 'Does serious journalism have a future in Canada?' Surprisingly Madelaine Drohan responded within some three hours, and in her response said; “I was surprised at your comment that the report did not deal with the issue of trust. I refer to it several times and there are two different charts showing how the traditional media ranks poorly on this issue. While I don't site the examples you have given, I don't think it's fair to say the issue was untouched.”

On July 8^th 2016 another email was sent to Ms. Drohan, as a response to her communication with an offer to provide documentation as absolute proof of censorship, even an offer to meet face-to-face with her to discuss the issue. Madelaine Drohan did not respond to the second email.

So to be “fair” let's examine those two charts that Ms. Drohan refers to proudly. The first is on page 10 of the report titled, 'Who do you trust? Confidence in Canadian institutions – 2013', the source for this chart was from General Social Survey on Social Identity, Statistics Canada. This report was based on responses that had claimed to have a 'great deal of confidence' or 'some confidence'. Its categories were Police, School System, Banks, Justice System and Courts, then Media, Federal Parliament and finally Major Corporations. It would be difficult to have too many respondents who had more confidence in media over the police who protect them, a school system that educates their children, banks who hold their money or a justice system which is the foundation of society.

Chart number two is on page 24 of the report and is titled, 'Familiarity breeds content – percent who trust online information created by each author – 2015-2016', its source: 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer, Edleman. Here the categories begin with My friends and family, An academic expert, Companies that I use, Employees of a company, A company CEO then A journalist.

These two charts are supposed to have dealt with the issue of trust in Madelaine Drohan's report. One could mention another chart on page 9 titled 'In Google we trust', but perhaps that should be left alone.

Finally Hedy Fry who heads up the Commons Committee delving into the depths of what journalism is or should be had an email sent to her on July 7^th 2016. Some eight days later a response came from MP Hedy Fry's office, it said “Dr. Fry does personally respond to all correspondence she receives.” Nothing has been heard from her office since.

Regardless of who it is, whether some self-proclaimed expert or industry insider, ignoring the most crucial aspect of this downfall of traditional journalism will not be beneficial. Trust is not some side issue that some childish chart will explain. Nor has the public's trust in journalists been so strongly shaken by legal threat of defamation suits. Legal suits are often weapons to silence public discussion.

• Postmedia/National Post sued by journalist Arthur Kent
• CBC sued by Liberal Senator Pana Merchant, Tony Merchant
  and the Merchant Law Group LLP
• National Post; former publisher Gordon Fisher and columnists; Terence Concoran, Peter Foster and Kevin Libin sued by BC MLA Andrew Weaver
• www.mayorgate.blogspot and publisher Alexander Davidoff sued by
  former Mayor Brian McMullan

The real issues of trust extend much further than these lawsuits. Journalists can become targets who need to be silenced yet when journalists become puppets of the powerful then democracy is bruised. It is when journalists decide to censor information from the community then democracy is challenged to its foundation.

Today Welch, Drohan and Fry play at a game of finding a solution to the sinking situation that traditional journalism faces. Much of the discussion surrounds the loss of advertising dollars and the fast encroaching modern world. Nothing will come from these three in the end, and nothing will change as to how traditional journalists go about their business.

Amongst all the empty and hot rhetoric, amongst the denial of the truth one fact emerges stronger than ever. The watchdogs of the past are being watched. Serious bloggers do exist and they are getting stronger. Unlike these traditional egos and their publishers, serious bloggers have no alliances, no political or big business interference.

Part One

Part Two

Who Watches The Watchers (Part Two)

The depth and scope of material that was required to be examined for this article has necessitated a part three for a conclusion which brings forward direct examples of journalistic mishandling of news and information. None of the three separate entities looking at the issues surrounding mainstream journalism today has found a reason to acknowledge these issues, and the question remains why?

Where does mainstream journalism stand today? It is a fact that the world is dramatically changing and audiences have at their disposal a myriad of choices. If this was the only reason for a shift in how journalists are now perceived then would it not be logical to simply reinvent their strategy on how they should deliver the information and news to the public? Instead the battle lines between bloggers and journalists appear to be becoming more explosive, and any notion of a symbiotic relationship only a utopian notion.

In Texas, however, there exists a fully realised example of this symbiotic relationship. Since 2009 the Dallas South News has used traditional journalists together with citizen journalists, as well as bloggers to provide news and commentary to its community. Is this simply an anomaly where journalistic egos have not outgrown their stables, or a model worthy to emulate?

Canada, it appears, has taken a different route to come with some form of solution to its industry's woes. No one can deny that there are serious issues to address with major newsrooms combining operations, closing long standing publications, and others deciding to discontinue hard copy print publications in favour of online production. Can all of this be conveniently blamed on the encroaching spread of the internet? Or is there a far more serious underlying issue that is being ignored, and why?

On June 12^th 2015 a coalition of professional associations, unions and media organisations, such as UNIFOR, Canadian Association of Journalists (CA), The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Metroland Papers, Postmedia and others launched an advertising campaign called JournalismIs. The goal of this coalition is, in their own words, “highlighting the value and benefits of professional journalism,” proclaiming that “professional journalism is more important than ever.”

The JournalismIs campaign proudly announces that “journalists are thoroughly trained and deeply committed to their profession, and you see the results every day in news stories that are interesting, reliable and always striving for the truth.” Mary Agnes Welch is a former president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, reporter for the Winnipeg Free Press, and spokesperson for the JournalismIs campaign, and with these words has labeled all journalists in Canada with the same golden attributes.

According to Mary Agnes Welch this campaign is designed to bring about a wider conversation on the values that journalists are guided by in their profession. Ten core principles were identified, and they are as follows:

• An independent voice:
  In a world of competing interests, journalists are committed to the principle of independence, and the pursuit of accuracy and fairness.
• Essential to democracy:
  A strong and independent media is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Journalists hold officials accountable to the people they are elected to represent, and they help citizens and communities to be informed.
• Relentless
• Committed to the public interest
• Getting answers
• Committed to telling the truth:
  It's about uncovering and reporting the truth
• Storytelling with a purpose
• Creating a forum for public debate
• Telling the whole story
• A watchdog over the powerful:
  Journalism asks the hard questions. It plays a vital role as a watchdog over those in positions of power and influence.

JournalismIs, at the end of the day, is only an advertising campaign as eloquent as a polar bear on his shrinking ice cap still needing his bottle of cola, or truck racing up a dusty hill accompanied by a voice over of a lion's roar. Unlike most advertising campaigns though it is claimed that there is a desire in “creating a forum for public debate, to giving a voice to the voiceless.” An email was sent to Mary Agnes Welch asking for any comment on an issue of censorship self-imposed by journalists. Ms. Welch ignored the email, ignored the issues raised and ensured that any semblance of 'public debate' was just another punchy slogan.

Setting aside this advertising campaign, one can reach out for a report titled, Does serious journalism have a future in Canada?, written as the 2015 Prime Minister's of Canada Fellow at the Public Policy Forum. The author of this report is Madelaine Drohan, Canada's correspondent for The Economist and former columnist for the Globe and Mail. Here the delivery is more eloquent without any punchy lines, but this report also prefers to ignore one major issue facing traditional journalists.

The Public Policy Forum is a not-for-profit organisation which advises government on policy formation. It is comprised of ex-government staffers, businessmen, and journalists like Madelaine Drohan. Its President, Ed Greenspon, was himself a former Globe and Mail editor and reporter. Can such an organisation show bias in its discussions? How will these professional individuals see journalists as part of a media industry which fights for the advertiser's dollar, or will there be any discussion on the quality and standards of journalism?

Madelaine Drohan in her report, 'Does serious journalism have a future in Canada,' opens with this statement: “Defining serious journalism proved trickier than I expected. The definition that I've come to believe now fits the best is about what it is supposed to do: provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies and their governments. An informed public is control for good public policy and a well functioning democracy, which is why freedom of the press is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Serious journalism – fair, accurate and independent of special interests – gives Canadians the tools they need to hold their government to account.”

This report took some time to prepare and in an opinion column published in the Toronto Star, “Five things you need to know to save journalism,” only a day after its release, Ms. Drohan summarised her report into five headings. She begins with number one as “It's not just journalism,” pointing to the changes that have hit other industries like music, accommodation, taxi “and even porn video.” Heading number one concludes with “The point is that powerful, global forces that transcend national borders are at work.”

After such an ominous warning those five things we need to know to save journalism continue with number two as “Direct subsidies won't work.” Here most would agree with Madelaine Drohan, why should even a cent of public money be considered to be handed over to millionaires who made their money from the public? Number three is “Journalists are no longer the gatekeepers of information,” somewhat related to the first of the series, and once again pointing a finger at the “powerful global forces.” Four is much the same, “The tech giants are both an opportunity and a threat,” only now those forces are identified, given a fact though still with another warning, “Partnering with tech giants could be their salvation or the beginning of the end.”

Finally we are taken to the last thing we should know, “The audience has changed.” Is there room to disagree with this claim, not at all. Today's audience does seek convenience that new technology provides, but it has also changed to questioning those who provide the information. Here the report claims that “Audiences want a relationship” and that an audience has a “desire to be involved in the creation of journalism in ways that were imaginable before the advent of the Internet.”

Throughout 'Does serious journalism have a future in Canada?', whether in this abbreviated forum or in its original long form, two major themes waffle through the air. First there is the Internet and the “powerful global forces” which are either to be seen as harbingers of the end for serious journalism, or a mistress tempting journalists with an alternative. Then the attention is turned to trying to explain how the advertising dollar has been seduced away from traditional media. Nowhere in this report does the author bring into discussion the one serious and gravely important issue, the loss of trust by the audience in “serious journalism.”

So we started with JournalismIs its punchy core principles, or the ten commandments of Mary Agnes Welch. Then a fellowship, a report, and the five things we need to know to save serious journalism according to Drohan. Now we find the third amigo in this troupe, MP Hedy Fry, of the Canadian Heritage Committee. Apparently the Commons Committee will embark on an expansive study of “how Canadians and especially local communities are informed about local and regional experiences through news, broadcasting, digital and print media,” in the words of Committee Chairperson MP Hedy Fry.

The Commons Heritage Committee has already begun hearings with a total of six roundtable gatherings planned, where experts are invited to debate journalism's woes. Media and journalist representatives will be at the head of the line, followed by business and some government staffers thrown in for the measure. All of this expertise will be a one sided view from penthouse windows, and as far as ground floor representation or comment, don't expect any. When all the debates are finished a final symposium is planned for this coming Fall when 'the plan' might be thrashed out.

Once again tax dollars, the public's money, is being spent and the question remains why? It matters little which of the three amigos you look at, each has ignored the major issues, yet this Commons Committee is the biggest slap in the face of reality. Government itself is one of the major problems journalism faces.

According to the ten commandments of Mary Agnes carried on her tablet, the first and second proclaim the importance of an “independent voice” which is “essential to democracy.” Yet government's interference with journalism is there on a daily basis and one of the major reasons why the audience has lost trust in journalists.

Hedy Fry's roundtable hearings or debates with invited experts, included Postmedia's CEO Paul Godfrey. Does Fry know anything about Mr. Godfrey or would she prefer not to talk about it? Regardless she should read Bruce Livesey's article, Postmedia empire falters while CEO Paul Godfrey earns millions National Observer, November 27, 2015. True this article was not edited or sanitised by friends of Mr. Godfrey but it cannot be ignored as Godfrey has requested public tax dollars to prop up his troubled business.

Paul Godfrey is a very powerful and astute businessman and according to the author of this article, Bruce Livesey, he has been able to circumvent Canadian tax law. In Canada tax laws discourage foreign ownership of Canadian media companies, yet “Godfrey managed to get around this by issuing separate shares to Canadian shareholders,” and had the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper sign off on the deal. Yet the real control of Postmedia remains in American hands by way of two hedge funds, Golden Tree Asset Management LP and Silver Point Capital LP.

Government influence over mainstream media has polluted true freedom of the press far too long. Whether through backdoor power politics of Mr. Godfrey who then influences his newspapers and their editors on the direction of editorial content, or the equally corrosive political alliance of Torstar publishers who do the same on the other side of the table, leaving objective commentary behind and reporting only a farce.

Today, journalism is not only pushed and pulled by politics. Big business, which provides the advertising dollars, has increasingly flexed its muscle of influence over media. Whether you are to believe the allegations surrounding Dan Murphy, a longtime staff cartoonist for the Province newspaper, and his skirmish with Enbridge Inc., big business today translates a big influence. Former National Post editor Ken Whyte had said that it is commonplace for advertisers to demand favourable editorial content for their money. “Before newspapers might have stood up and said we will let that million dollars go, we won't prostitute ourselves. Now they'll see they will be way short on their budget and need the money.” (Bruce Livesey, Postmedia empire falters while CEO Paul Godfrey earns millions, nationalobserver.com, November 27, 2015)

Journalism has succumbed to influence from both politics and business years ago and any discussions about journalistic woes without acknowledging this becomes a farce. Today's audience has few illusions and therefore its trust is shaken dramatically. JournalismIs, the Canadian Heritage Committee, and Madelaine Drohan's report all speak of community news as one of the pillars of democracy. So what happens to all the journalistic integrity, those ten commandments, or those five things we simply must know, when intentional censorship becomes the issue? This is not Paul Godfrey demanding obedience and favourable editorials for his chosen political party. Nor is it an oil company versus climate change and the idea of millions in advertising dollars.

A free press is an essential component of democracy. This concept has been enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the US Constitution and in every free and democratic nation. It is the right of the public to be informed of issues relating to elected government and daily occurrences in their communities. Censorship of the press is an unthinkable possibility in any democratic nation, as far as self-imposed censorship by the press, that cannot be permitted. That being said, it is impossible to fathom any reason why these three: Mary Anges Welch of JournalismIs, Madelaine Drohan of Public Policy Forum and MP Hedy Fry heading the Canadian Heritage Committee had decided to ignore such a crucial issue.

Part One

Part Three

Who Watches The Watchers (Part One)

The issue of what journalism is today and whether traditional journalists have any justification in their attacks on bloggers, resulted in researching an extensive amount of material and necessitated separating this article into two parts.

The battle lines between journalists and bloggers had been drawn years ago, and most of the salvos have been fired by journalists. On February 17^th 2016, Grant LaFleche, a reporter with The Standard, a Postmedia owned newspaper in St. Catharines, Ontario, presented an article 'Why do you need a community newspaper' in their opinion column. Throughout this self-aggrandizing, opinion piece LaFleche raises what he calls his “craft” to new heights, and then drops this: “Blogging gives anyone with an Internet connection a voice. However, with only a few exceptions, blogging isn't journalism. Bloggers aren't doing interviews or poring over government and scientific reports, they aren't doing the kind of investigative work journalists do every day.”

It appears now 'journalist' LaFleche has found a way to delineate the line between journalists and bloggers, with a chorus of ra-ras from his peers as background music. Yet the truth is something these backslappers prefer not to see. On February 18^th 2016, Neil Macdonald of CBC News wrote an article titled 'The Rebel and the NDP, why not to provoke Ezra Levant', with a by-line, “Thanks Rachel Notley, for helping define what journalists are, or maybe aren't?” After February 18^th Neil Macdonald maybe sits alone at the local journo-watering hole.

This article opens up with, “Journalists entertain all sorts of self-aggrandizing notions about what we do. The big one is that we are a profession, which we pretty clearly are not. We don't even really qualify as a trade. Professions generally have minimum qualifications. Not a journalist. Journalists don't even have to finish high school.” Now if a blogger had said this he or she would have UNIFOR and the whole chorus line attack with threats of lawsuits and demands for withdrawal with apologies, but this is Neil Macdonald.

Who is Neil Macdonald? Macdonald is a senior correspondent for CBC News currently based in Ottawa. Prior to that he was CBC's Washington correspondent for 12 years, and before that he spent 5 years reporting from the Middle East. He often presents articles with courage and hard facts rather than a 'yes master' attitude.

He goes on to say, “If lawyers or doctors or pharmacists breach the clear ethical rules governing them, they can be formally charged and punished by their peers. But regulating journalism? Out of the question, for the sake of democracy itself, my peers would argue. There are no national journalistic standards and no way to enforce them if they existed.”

Newspapers, and the journalists who write for them, are facing a new world and it's not only because of what Neil Macdonald has raised in his article. The general public is becoming harder to fool. The Internet has provided many more sources of information which too often expose the lacking ethics and integrity of published stories in traditional press, or those presented on television.

At the same time traditional media faces a populace that demands ease of access to information without limitation on choice. The Canadian Daily Newspaper Circulation report provided figures for a total weekly circulation for 2009 at 36,987,591 with that total dropping to 31,765,434 in 2014. In response to the decline in sales of newspapers, Postmedia, a giant in the newspaper business, cut 90 jobs, combining newsrooms in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa.

In 2013 La Presse launched its unique tablet edition, La Presse+, and in January 2016 it was the first major daily newspaper in the world to end weekday print editions. Guy Crevier, publisher of La Presse has said, “This project was a solution to transform our declining business into a growing one. La Presse+ has known constant substantial growth for almost three years now, while most traditional press is declining” (La Presse successful shift away from print, Marianne Bouchart, 17 February 2016 on GEN-GLOBAL EDITORS NETWORK). Tablet users had accepted La Presse+ well, providing a daily circulation at an average of 250,000; prior peaks in its long 131 year history were in 1971 with 221,250 copies, and later in 2009 with 207,769 copies. The decision to end daily print editions was simple logic.

Traditional press has found the ground beneath its feet being pulled out from under it, and unless it finds a way to float, to hover through the limitless boundaries of the Internet, it will disappear altogether. Big city newspapers can combine newsrooms, cut staffing and take other measures to streamline costs, but not the smaller ones. The Guelph Mercury was facing this encroaching modern world and had no choice but to stop the presses and shut its doors. Started in 1854, it was one of the country's oldest newspapers, but age cannot stand against the tide of change and survive without the willingness to adapt.

Yet it is not only traditional press that face huge challenges in the future. Magazines are feeling equal pressure regardless of how glossy or stylish they may be. Some try and send out free subscriptions to a select number of the public, in the hope this fire sale attitude works. Others offer large incentives for online subscribers, which normally is more attractive. Canada Post also has felt the growing pressure of the digital world. Deepak Chopra, its President & CEO, opened their Annual Report of 2014 with his president's message, a warning in many ways. He said, “The unprecedented volume decline of lettermail places enormous pressures on our finances.” Like any large corporation, Canada Post hit its workers first in its attempt at streamlining, setting up a system of community mailboxes and cutting out door-to-door deliveries. Executives rarely feel the pinch.

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority Factbook for 2014 states, “Canada continues to be one of the most wired countries in the world with nearly 87 percent of Canadian households connected to the Internet. Canada ranks 16^th globally in terms of Internet penetration in 2013. This is up from 80 percent in 2010. Among its G8 counterparts, Canada ranks second in Internet penetration behind the UK.”

How much more proof is needed that the public's demand for information and its availability is changing alongside with the methods of communication? Yet journalists still choose to denigrate bloggers with labels, herding all bloggers into one corral. One of the old boys of journalism, Morely Safer, had said that he would trust citizen journalists as much as citizen surgeons. Safer had no formal training in journalism, in fact he only briefly attended the University of Western Ontario. Safer's experience is exactly that – experience, gathered through years of reporting and learning 'on the go'. No one can deny the value and richness of his work, yet that does not provide the right to attack others without foundation.

Tim Knight, another ol' boy who wrote an article for Huffington Post titled Watching the Watchdog: Why Citizen Bloggers Aren't Journalists. He opens his article with, “Seems I've suddenly become a journalism guru to whom young people with stars in their eyes and All The President's Men in their future's flock for wisdom.” Can anyone read these words and keep a straight face, other than Tim Knight?

Glenn Greenwald, co-founding editor of The Intercept is a journalist, a constitutional lawyer and an author of four New York Times bestselling books on politics and law. His two co-founding editors are Laura Poitras, a filmmaker, journalist and artist, and Jeremy Seahill, who is an investigative reporter and war correspondent. On January 28^th 2015 The Intercept published an article by Glenn Greenwald titled The Petulant Entitlement Syndrome of Journalists. Even though The Intercept deals predominately with socio-political issues relevant to the US, the commentary in this article easily transcends any border or demarcation lines.

Greenwald comments on how “Prior to the advent of blogs, establishment journalists were largely immunised even from hearing criticisms.” Can this in any way explain the motivation behind the vitriolic sentiment of traditional journalists towards bloggers?

Here in Canada that sentiment is somewhat more passive, sprinkled with rose-coloured water. Traditional journalists attempt to sell the virtues of journalism opposed to what bloggers lack in their posts. After all 'real' journalists do research, pore over government and scientific reports, and conduct interviews to present insightful and truthful reports. At the same time bloggers in Canada have rarely attacked or even commented on traditional journalists, until now.

In his article Glenn Greenwald continues, “What made the indignity so much worse was that the attacks came from people these journalists regard as nobodies: just average people, non-journalists, sometimes even anonymous ones. What right did they have even to form an opinion, let alone express one? As NBC News star Brian Williams revealingly put it in 2007:

“You're going to be up against people who have an opinion, a modem, and a bathrobe. All of my life, developing credentials to cover my field of work, and now I'm up against a guy named Vinny in an efficiency apartment in two years.”

Whether it is the adulatory praise of The Standard's Grant LaFleche for his 'craft', or the full frontal mustard gas attack of NBC's Brian Williams, the delusions continue. The American Journalism Review, August/September 2005 Feature Journalism's Backseat Drivers, opens with “These are beleaguered times for news organisations. As if their problems with rampant ethical lapses and declining readership and viewership aren't enough, their competence and motives are being challenged by outsiders with the gall to call them out before a global audience. Journalists are in the hot seat, their feet held to the flames by citizen bloggers who believe mainstream media are no more trustworthy than the politicians and corporations they cover, that journalists themselves have become too lazy, too cloistered, too self-righteous to be the watchdogs they once were. Or even to recognise what's news.”

Ethics and trust are two simple concepts traditional journalists have lost touch with, and the general public can no longer be fooled as easily as these watchdogs of the past think. Scandals have ripped through what Grant LaFleche call his 'craft'. Brian Williams faced the moment of truth regarding his reporting of a helicopter flight and whether it was fired on, or by who. As a star of NBC News, Brian Williams found forgiveness for his misreporting and he continues to smack the airwaves. In Canada Evan Solomon, a former star of the CBC, found that providing self-serving guests for his on-air interviews was seen as less that ethical. In this case Solomon's equation of news coupled with financial profit hit the scandal sheets. Yet once again fame and connections far outlasted the potential of consequence for such breaches of ethics. The Toronto Star had one of its heavyweight reporters Antonia Zerbisias caught publishing an article where comments made by her were not entirely true. Zerbisias later admitted that she did not verify her information prior to publishing. Every new journalism student has two major rules drummed into them from almost the first lesson: verify your source and verify your facts.

True, no journalist, whether it be Morely Safer, Tim Knight, Brian Williams or even Grant Lafleche, had ever said that bloggers had no right to blog. If they had then they would have to face off against Article 19. “Article 19 is an international human rights organisation, founded in 1986, which defends and promotes freedom of expression and freedom of information worldwide. It takes its mandate from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression and information” (The Right to Blog, Policy Brief 2013, Article 19).

In their Policy Brief, The Right to Blog, Article 19 makes two major and extremely challenging statements. The first is from the brief's Executive Summary: “Where the printed press and broadcast media were once the main sources of information, the Internet has made it possible for any person to publish ideas, information and opinions to the entire world. In particular, blogging and social media now rival newspapers and television as dominant sources of news and information.” Then Article 19 argues that it is no longer appropriate to define journalism and journalists by reference to some recognised body of training, or affiliation with a news entity or professional body.

Dr. Axel Bruns, a senior lecturer in the Creative Industries Faculty at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, and author of several books, presented a paper, News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: New Directions for e-Journalism. In it he delves into the history of mainstream journalism, bringing forth concepts of gatekeeping and gatewatching to explain the flow of news, from the input stage where information was to be considered as being newsworthy or relevant, through to the output stage as fully formed news reports. Gatewatching as described by Dr. Bruns requires the ability to retrieve and search information conducted on a decentralised and crowdsourced basis.

As intellectual theories both the gatekeeping and gatewatching concepts neatly describe the evolution of the news industry, though non-mainstream journalism, blogging, or citizen journalism, whatever you wish to call it, has resulted from a greater need. Dr. Axel Bruns finishes his paper with this thought: “For mainstream journalists, in current industry practice claims to professionalism are already highly problematic: levels of journalistic training and induction to professional ethos and ethics vary widely across and within individual news organisations, and often depend more on the process of a journalist's socialisation into the work environment than on their formal professional education. Indeed, the very term 'journalist' has been broadened to include not only core news professionals, but also commentators, hosts, and a variety of other media personalities; as news blogger and journalism scholar Glenn Reynolds has put it, 'correspondent' now often simply has a meaning of “well-paid microphone holder with good hair” (Weblogs and Journalism: Back to the Future, Glen Harlan Reynolds, 2003). As we noted earlier, at this point in the early information age, the mainstream journalistic industry overall may be experiencing a gradual decline which is at least in part of their own making and due to a slippage in professional standards.”

Whether one pays attention to this comment by Dr. Axel Bruns, or those made by Glenn Greenwald, a single major point remains clear. True, the age of the Internet as a whole has found profound impact on mainstream journalism, and no one can change what is becoming a new reality. Yet that alone is not the sole reason for journalists to be concerned over. In the end one question based in antiquity resounds – quis custodiet ipsos custodes, 'who watches the watchers'? Today the answer is simple, and that is the reason why mainstream journalists, from media stars to little wannabes, attack.

Governments and big businesses have found a way to develop a symbiotic relationship with mainstream media. Now that relationship has been shaken by individuals who do not necessarily have a desire to form alliances and in fact are considered to be insignificant compared to the traditional media organisations. Still journalists fear these individuals and look for anything to discredit their desire to question the status quo.

Whether it be Glenn Greenwald and the Intercept, or a respected journalist like Neil Macdonald, serious questions are being raised regarding the direction mainstream journalism has taken. Professionalism, it seems, is a concept which varies from one individual to the next. After all there is no real governing body to administer a code of conduct, and as Neil Macdonald said, no way to really enforce one if such a thing existed. Each media organisation has the wealth to retain legal storm troopers who are called into action if on the rare occasion one of their journalists brushes against issues of law; otherwise it has been business as usual for decades.

These egos are now facing change in the guise of bloggers and they don't like it. Unlike mainstream journalists bloggers have no alliances to appease, no giant salaries to be concerned about, they are only interested in the information to be made public. Each blogger has his or her own motivation for doing what they do, yet each shares a commonality and each wears the criticisms.

The battle lines were drawn out of egotism and fear of being challenged, of being held accountable for every word published or aired, and worse, for what was censored from the public. It is the nature of humanity to change, to evolve, and there is no stopping it. Instead of fearing this evolution journalists should look at re-evaluating what they are, and how they serve the public-at-large. Independent bloggers are not going anywhere, they will gradually reach greater numbers of readers because of their independence. Now one could ask whether there can be room at the table for both the mainstream journalist and the independent blogger building a symbiotic relationship.

Part Two

Part Three

Are By-laws Real? Not In St. Catharines.

The issue of law, its equality and the fairness of enforcement has brought about not only demonstrations by the people of nations, but revolutions. Modern democratic society thrives on a foundation of such equality. Here in Canada we draw refugees from lands torn by tyranny with a promise of equality and justice. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees such equality for all Canadians regardless of their origins. At least as a concept, as an ideal, it sounds reassuring. The reality is somewhat different.

Today society does not labour under the blinds of naive faith in Canada's justice system. The recent Duffy trial and the scandal facing the Senate was enough to blow any self-righteous bubble of equality. Well paid lawyers use their tongues to weave and maneuver around all the concepts of equality and justice. Loopholes and corridors, language and semantics are the tools for these practitioners of 'justice for all,' and no one can be surprised where their loyalty lies. That being said, do the people of this country have a right to expect that those who are elected into public office at all levels, and those paid to enforce the laws and legislation with public monies, have a loyalty to the concept of equality and justice?

In the City of St. Catharines those concepts appear to have been long forgotten, or worse – exchanged for something else. Throughout this country municipalities formulate a variety of by-laws under the jurisdiction and authority granted by the relevant Municipal Acts. These regulations regulate zoning, building and development, remediation of soil and landfill requirements, even parking on the streets of the city or town. Without these by-laws our cities would look more like carnival sideshows than pleasant environments to live and grow in. As with any law in Canada these by-laws are equally enforced in the community so that no one individual has privilege over another.

On April 18^th 2016, The City Council for St. Catharines heard a proposal to amend the Garden City Plan and Zoning By-law 2013-283, to permit indoor storage at 88 Merritt Street. The owner of this property is identified on city records as 418159 Ontario Limited; it is a business called Sun Collision owned and operated by Sam Demita. On April 18^th every concept of equality of law was swept aside by elected members of council and the city mayor, Walter Sendzik.

This property has a long history of abuse of law and legislation, its owner has shown not only disregard for the law but an apparent total contempt for it. Prior to this council meeting Sam Demita stood before council and requested amendments to both the Official Plan (file# 60.30.310 Vol. 2) and Zoning By-law (file# 60.35975 Vol. 2), on April 29^th 2013. At that meeting, as with the council meeting of 2016, a Corporate Report was prepared by the City's Planning and Development Services, and presented to both the council and public by its Director James Riddell.

James Riddell, Director of Planning and Development Services, presented his corporate report #PDS-103-2013 and page 3 of 15 had this to say: “In recent years, the site has been occupied with outdoor storage (sea container units and vehicles) on the majority of the site. This use is not permitted in the existing Environmental Protection Area (EPA) zone, nor would it be permitted by the proposed amendment. At the time of writing this report, the outdoor storage remains in place on the majority of the site.”

The property titled 88 Merritt Street was zoned as an Environmental Protection Area and did not permit outdoor storage or dumping of mounds of asphalt and other material. Originally this site was a natural ravine which had been filled with material that had no documentation. So at the time when this report was prepared and presented the City knew of the intentional abuse of law by Sam Demita. No one at City, not the Mayor of the time Brian McMullan, Director of Planning and Development Services James Riddell, acting City Solicitor Christopher Cooper, the CAO Dan Carnegie, nor City Clerk Bonnie Nistico-Dunk could deny this fact.

Further, page 9 of the 2013 Corporate Report states, “Staff note that the existing use of the site for outdoor storage is not consistent with the proposed amendments. Staff will be pursuing enforcement of the Zoning By-law, once the proposed amendment takes effect.” Why would Planner I, Jessica Button, who prepared the report bother to put these words in? Judy Pihach, Manager of Planning and Building Services, approved this report, and James Riddell as Director of Planning and Development Services in his monotone voice presented the report to council and knew that “enforcement of the Zoning By-law” was not going to happen.

The years between April 2013 and April 2016 found no change in the actions of the owner of Sun Collision nor were there any attempts at enforcement by City. Mayor Brian McMullan was gone from office after the Municipal Elections of 2014. In addition to a new mayor being installed some of council saw change as well. New mayor Walter Sendzik was contacted via email with photos provided of the site, that exchange resulted in an email from the Mayor's office on December 31^st 2015. It stated, “the owner has used the site for various outdoor storage uses, contrary to the zoning by-law. The City's inspection team has been out a number of times over the past few years seeking compliance with the zoning by-law. The site has improved with the removal of numerous sea containers however the outdoor storage of vehicles remains an issue.”

Mayor Sendzik lied with those words and the photographs proved he lied. The mayor also said the City had been “seeking compliance” over the past few years. Words to a politician as to a lawyer are of extreme importance and when used improperly carry the burden of serious consequence. Does Walter Sendzik know what seeking means? It means the City of St. Catharines came with a hat in hand attitude to an individual who breaks the law daily and pleaded with him. The email further stated that, “The Manager of Planning is arranging an inspection of the site again based on the most recent photos provided.”

Judy Pihach is the Manager of Planning and Building Services, so it was Pihach who submitted and approved the 2013 Corporate Report and did so again in 2016. She has been fully aware of the apparent contempt exhibited for the law, and as a senior member of city staff is conversant with the Municipal Act, at least that is an expectation.

How can it be possible that the law be set aside for one individual as a meaningless collection of words on a piece of paper? This question had been asked of James Riddell, Director of Planning and Development Services, without an answer or explanation in response. The same question was asked of Mayor Walter Sendzik, he responded admitting to full knowledge of the abuses of law and then lied. Who is Sam Demita? He is the owner and operator of Sun Collision, a small business with 10 or less employees. Demita is listed as a Director and Secretary for Merritton Developments Inc. in a Corporation Profile Report together with Nino Donatelli as President and Director.

No answers appear on the surface to any of the questions and on April 18^th the farce began again. James Riddell in an email dated December 21^st 2015 said, “The owner has used the site for various outdoor storage uses and our inspection team has been out a number of times over the past years inspecting the site. The result has been the most recent planning application. If you wish to be notified of the upcoming meeting please provide us a mailing address. Thank you for inquiring about this site,” Riddell simply ignored every question raised of him.

At the April 18^th Council Meeting Sam Demita was a no show and was represented by Stephen Bedford of Stephen Bedford Consulting Inc. As in 2013, a corporate report was prepared by Jessica Button, submitted and approved by Judy Pihach, and once again it was presented to council by the monotone voice of James Riddell. On page 3 the report states, “In recent years the site has been occupied with outdoor storage (sea container units and vehicles) on the majority of the site. This use is not permitted in the existing Mixed Use (MI) zone, nor would it be permitted by the proposed amendment.”

Reading this statement brought feelings of dėjá vu, here again the City of St. Catharines, through its Planner Jessica Button and her Manager Judy Pihach, admits to full knowledge of the abuse of law. Only this time there are no false promises of enforcement once the amendment is approved.

Several local residents brought forward their objections not to the new development plans but to an issue that began with the filling of the massive ravine. In 2009 hundreds of truck loads of fill with no documentation was dumped into a natural ravine, which is what the city keeps referring to now as, “The site has been graded and is relatively flat.” Prior to that illegal dumping of fill this neighbourhood had never experienced any flooding, and the most common term used by these residents is that they “never had any problems prior to Demita's dumping.”

One resident, Mr. Minnes, produced photos of his backyard under water, flooded in 2016 when the area experienced one of the mildest winters on record. He brought to public attention the empty promises from 2013; how the city would work on the flooding issue, and how the city had done nothing. Councillor Jennie Stevens for Merritton stood up, all surprised at the inaction of the City and all kinds of motions began to fly around the chamber. David Haywood, the second Merritton Ward Councillor, fumbled over and over with empty words till Mayor Sendzik finally interrupted him, asking what was his point.

Mayor Walter Sendzik's email of December 31^st 2015 was read out on record, and the issue of law raised in relation to equality and Demita's continuous abuses without any consequences. As the email was read, Sendzik visibly buried his face in his hands, while other councillors either showed a lack of interest or a snickering grin like that of Councillor Elliot. The result was simple: the law and its equality was swept away once again.

At the end of this presentation Councillor Carlos Garcia stood up to raise some questions regarding the issue of the city's lack of enforcement. Councillor Garcia's voice sounded as if his performance was a purely perfunctory response for the audience. Director of Planning and Development Services, James Riddell answered Garcia's questions that “there have been site visits and discussions with the applicant.” As more questions were asked Riddell simply washed it away with, “we try to work with the applicant but we will be vigilant. It's been a difficult challenge situation and our philosophy is to work with the applicant.”

Once Riddell finished and Councillor Garcia had sat down with only a whimper displayed, Stephen Bedford came forward to present the grand plan. At first Bedford fumbled with his button attempting to impress the audience with images of the site's history. He finally opened with the past incarnation of this site as a building supply yard with bricks and other materials. Then a photo of the leveled and graded site as it is today. Stephen Bedford avoided, in fact intentionally omitted, to show photos of the natural ravine which had been filled illegally.

Bedford continued his presentation to council admitting to the fact that some “outdoor storage which is illegal is on the site” and then quickly added, “the owner could not develop this property in the manner he wished.” This last statement was somewhat difficult to understand, as he did not elaborate any further.

As his trump card, Bedford brought forward a planned water management pond that will be established on the property. According to the plan, “all the water that is dropped on this property, it will end up in the water management pond. The pond will only deal with the water that falls on the ground, it will not deal with the water that is underground as it's fairly flat, that surface absorbs water.” Depending on which end of the property this “water management pond” is located then a glaring question demands answering. What happens to the water at the other end of it? Such a pond as described, intended to catch surface water, is simply only a comical waste and potentially a public health issue with breeding mosquitoes.

Regardless of how ludicrous this “water management pond” may be Councillors' eyes lit up. Both Councillor Stevens and Haywood seemed to be excited by such a proposal. Their questions made it appear that such a “pond” would have the potential to alleviate flooding problems that had damaged homes, yards and the public park. All in all it became an opportunity to divert attention from the real issues brought to public notice.

The gems to remember from this council meeting come from Director of Planning James Riddell and Stephen Bedford of Stephen Bedford Consulting Inc. Riddell in his presentation of the corporate report said, “literally we are just adding a use by removing the site storage use, there is some open storage on the site that is proposed to be removed once the amendments are approved.” Then Stephen Bedford said during his presentation, “when I walk the site, there is what I would call a ravine, it's still there.”

Here we have a situation where the representative of the owner of the property admits to “illegal” use, the Director of Planning and Development and Manager of Planning and Building Services, James Riddell and Judy Pihach, admit to illegal use of the site. Mayor Walter Sendzik admits in writing of problems and illegal use of the site, and yet the amendments are passed. Throughout this farce both of the city's newspapers were represented. Scott Rosts from Niagara this Week tweeted some points, The Standard's Karena Walter, who had documentation sent to her prior to the council meeting, completely avoided the issue of law. Journalism at its best; even the email by the mayor was not found newsworthy.

Riddell had said at the end of his presentation that “this proposal does not offend any of that area.” The council meeting was on April 18^th 2016 and the amendments were approved in favour of Sam Demita again. These photos were taken showing the site in its present day condition.

Battles won, battles lost, the game continues

Year six has been one of true challenges for Mayorgate and its monkeys. There have been fewer posts than usual this past year, and that's not because six years in means old and slowing down. Rather, it has been a year where a great deal of preparation had been taken up with two legal battles.

As legal battles go they can be likened to the equivalency of a miniseries, and Mayorgate had been a co-star in two separate ones for a couple of years. So the year began with an article titled Brian McMullan Finally Under Oath. In a fashion this article attempted to walk alongside a belief, a faith, in our legal system which binds this nation on all levels. Our justice system is the mythical binding, and the courts a battlefield where facts and evidence are permitted to be heard, where questions of truth or falseness are examined before decisions made. Well it sounds good but it happens to be all too often monkey business.

This saga with the former mayor of St. Catharines, Brian McMullan, was reaching a battlefield stage in November of 2015. Mayorgate's article walked through some very serious issues relating to trust and accountability. A trial was set for the 4^th and 5^th of November, and months of preparation were necessary. What transpired at the trial was nothing short of shocking, and because that was act one details cannot be opened for now. Some small points though can be mentioned at this time that remain as gems embedded into the mind.

First of all when there is a trial under the Slander and Libel laws, one of the most important issues at question is reputation. In this case it was an elected member of government and issues of trust are of great importance. The presiding judge from the opening of this session admitted to having known Ms. Debbie Zimmerman, a Regional Councillor Brian McMullan was having an affair with, and asked if there were any objections, but they were ignored. Little things such as an affair with a fellow regional councillor, a divorce, potential conflict of interest, and more were ruled out as irrelevant.

Year six's first article was filled with confidence that finally the truth will be heard, but reality for now proved it had to wait. At the same time the world was becoming increasingly concerned over Vladimir Putin and his intentions. Tensions were beginning to rise between the US and Russia, as a number of European nations and Australia came together in an attempt to force Russia to listen to reason. International trade sanctions were imposed against Russia after it annexed Crimea. Putin claimed that Khrushchev made an error in 1954 when he gave Crimea to the Ukraine. He also claimed that it was an issue of Russia's national security as it had its largest fleet sanctioned in Crimea.

The Horsemen Cross the Steppes of Ukraine, took time to look at the history of the region and that of the stern yet charismatic Vladimir Putin. On the homefront Putin could do no wrong; as far as much of the rest of the world, they saw Putin as power hungry and dangerous to world stability. All the sanctions simply proved to be useless. Fighting in Ukraine continued with the innocent residents in towns and villages paying the ultimate price for the power struggle. Now some ten months after the article was published, little if anything is heard in the news and the daily UN updates at one time peppered with stories of casualties now have their interest turned elsewhere.

History finds itself so often dealing with such rapid and dramatic changes. Human beings will throw stones over the fence at each other screaming threats and insults, only to find another bunch who scream louder or use bigger stones. Whether it is world wars or more isolated incidents such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, humanity cannot cure itself of its addiction to power. All too often the lust for power is partnered with violence and destruction. Our headlines are constantly filled with images of fleeing refugees looking to escape the violence and find a peaceful life.

Power is an enormously strong lure, cruelty and violence follow it hand in hand, yet how can we come to grips with the monstrous cruelty displayed by poachers as they kill and hack defenseless beasts? Poaching has reached epidemic proportions and it is capable of wiping out whole species of animals. Rhinos, elephants, tigers and more are threatened to extinction simply to satisfy insane superstitions or to be carved into trinkets, while others are hunted for trophies to be stuck onto walls.

Public attention is growing and attempts are being made to combat this horror. A group of caring and concerned individuals have come together with an idea to save the rhino. The concept is audacious and at the same time the only truly feasible plan to save the African rhino from extinction. Kill rates are beginning to outnumber new births and this situation will only get worse. It was because of this The Australian Rhino Project found life; Mayorgate's article The Australian Rhino Project, can it be the answer? interviewed the founder Ray Dearlove to understand what the goal was, and it was rather simple.

Ray Dearlove and the Australian Rhino Project want to set up a breeding herd of African rhinos in Australia. Once or if the poaching stops, then the rhino would be placed back into the wild in Africa. The Australian Rhino Project has the support and backing of both the South African and Australian governments. Fundraising has slowly produced results but when a total of $80 million US dollars is needed, the going is tough. Exposure, public awareness and corporate sponsorship is mandatory for success.

After some international topics Mayorgate's attention turned again towards its hometown with the article City of St.Catharines' By-Laws, what's up with that?. As citizens in a democratic country we are bound by a series of laws to ensure the equality and security of life. These laws range from the upper tier federal level all the way down to municipalities and their by-laws. In Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians equal treatment before the law regardless of what level of law is considered. So it had been difficult to understand how in a city like St. Catharines that equality has apparently been ignored.

There were two issues at the centre of the article. One was quickly resolved with the co-operation of Mayor Walter Sendzik. The other has lingered for more than five years. In those five years one individual had found that he could do as he pleased with apparent protection from any consequence by City employees at high levels. Here Mayor Walter Sendzik proved he was no different to his predecessor Brian McMullan, and the travesty of abuse of law and equality continues.

The articles may have been fewer yet each found a thread connecting the topic to the most base ideas of humanity. We can do great things and we can at the same time destroy a great deal. Issues that bounce around the concepts of law, equality and quality of life, are of equal importance on a wider scale as they are at home. After all those concepts of freedom and security of society do not shrink in importance depending on the size of the theatre, and a troupe of performers travel to preform their acts with equal motivation on a larger stage as one not so grand. Our propensity towards violence and cruelty has sadly been a major component of humanity's evolution. Whether this cruelty is aimed at each other or at other defenseless creatures we share this earth with, it is always destructive and we cannot ignore it simply because it does not impact us personally.

Mayorgate strives to bring a wide range of topics, yet at the same time each has a thread of commonality and a link to who we are as people striving towards the future. Some battles had been lost, other battles are won – regardless Mayorgate does not apologise for its existence, nor will Mayorgate remove itself or any article from reader's access. As far as miniseries are concerned, they are still in play and the cheeky monkeys will not concede defeat.

Defeat comes through fear and through complacency. All the articles on Mayorgate find a thread of commonality linking them: a thread that attaches us to the earth itself. Each and every one of us is responsible for the future.

At the turn of the new year into 2016, Mayorgate published We're Drowning in Thirst, not only as a review of the passing year but more of a reality check on where we are heading as a collection of nations. The Paris Agreement brought international coverage to the single most pressing issue we collectively face.

Once again environmentalists raised their hands into the air singing chorus after chorus of hallelujah. According to so many of them the planet was saved, though none of them wished to look at reality. After all the conferences, after all the fundraising campaigns by these non-profit prophets who tell you that you can save the world with a $25 donation, there stands you. We, together en masse and as individuals, need to change what we do. No international conferences, no famous actor bouncing around the world in a private jet, no pope or head of the UN can change anything. We can, together and as individuals, the future is in our hands, and that is not a cliché.

Mayorgate crosses the finish line for year six and begins anew doing what it does best. Join the monkeys and bring your comments and thoughts with you.