Just about all traditional media provided Washington’s pre-packaged message to the Canadian public: The good guy Obama was in Hanoi to lift the U.S. arms embargo on Vietnam so it could defend itself, and to do what the U.S. could to help the country modernize. In return, the U.S., one of the worst violators of rights in the world, expects communist Vietnam to improve its human rights record.
Obama’s visit to Vietnam wasn’t a particularly important story for Canadians but, nevertheless, it is a good example of how American interests dominate international stories that appear in our mainstream media.
From what I could see, The Toronto Star was the only major Canadian news outlet to carry a substantial story clearly outlining China’s concerns over the implications of the U.S. expanding relations with Vietnam.
The Winnipeg Free Press ran a story that briefly mentioned China’s concerns.
Major news companies covered only one point of view
However, many news organizations reported the story the way Washington would like it.
At CTV News Channel and CBC News Network hosts read just about the same story ad nauseam for hours. In addition, CTV News Channel carried an interview with Donald Baker of the UBC Asia Studies Centre in which Baker presented only U.S. objectives.
- A Global News reporter in Toronto voiced over a full report, also spelling out U.S. positions.
- From what I could see, CTV National News did a 30-second voice over, while CBC’s The National didn’t cover the story.
- The Globe and Mail reported the basic pro-U.S. story only on its website.
- The Ottawa Citizen and The Calgary Herald posted a clip of Obama’s speech on their websites, while The Edmonton Journal did not cover the story.
- As frequently happens at old media, three papers covered the lighter side of Obama’s visit. The Vancouver Sun, Montreal Gazette, and the Halifax Chronicle-Herald reported on Obama’s pre-arranged $6 lunch at a Vietnamese restaurant with celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain.
Important views left out
There was a lot more that could have been reported on the real objectives of Obama’s visit and the implications for countries in the Pacific region. It would have been best if all stories could have covered the views of the U.S. and other players from the region.
Just as Obama was announcing the lifting of the arms embargo, China warned the U.S. president not to spark a fire in Asia. The China Daily bluntly stated that Obama’s move was meant to “curb the rise of China.”
The Chinese nationalist Global Times called Obama’s claim that Vietnam’s move was not aimed at China “a very poor lie,” adding that it would exacerbate the “strategic antagonism between Washington and Beijing.” It wrote that the U.S.is trying to knit three nets around China — in ideology, in security, and in economy and trade — in an attempt to secure its dominance of the region.
Meanwhile, the Russian news service Sputnik quoted U.S. analyst and author Dan Lazare: “Just as the United States has sought to cordon Russia off in the West by ringing it with nearly a dozen hostile states extending from Georgia to the Baltics, it is plainly intent on doing the same in the east by orchestrating an anti-Chinese alliance from Vietnam to Japan.”
China and Russia are concerned that the U.S. may be willing to sell deadly, sophisticated arms systems to Vietnam that the Russians have been refusing to sell them (at the request of China.)
Such sales would escalate militarization in the region. Vietnam may also spend millions to purchase U.S.-made drones.
The way Canadian mainstream media covered the Vietnam visit is typical of how they report on practically all U.S. international adventures, whether it’s the White House’s efforts to demonize Russia, U.S. interventions in the Middle East, or the U.S. denying it is involved in helping upend elected democracies in Latin America.
The international news coverage of the publicly-owned CBC is only slightly better. CBC News tends to follow the agenda set by private media, relying for the most part on the same sources.
No surprise corporate media likes U.S. message
Considering who owns mainstream media in Canada, it’s not surprising there’s strong support for U.S. policies. Big private media outlets are owned by corporations that benefit greatly from doing business with the United States. In some cases, such as the Postmedia newspaper chain’s Manhattan hedge fund owner, GoldenTree Asset Management, those owners are American. Corporate owners tend to be ideologically aligned with the U.S. government, and discourage their newspapers, TV and radio stations from prominently reporting stories that contradict U.S. foreign policy.
In addition, on the front lines, most editors know what’s expected of them. Moreover, many of them still have their minds set in the years of the Cold War. In their simplistic view, “Ruskies” and “Chinamen” are the bad guys. This old school thinking is that communists are out to destroy democracy, so what they say does not deserve to be covered.
The victim in all this is the Canadian public, who are denied the opportunity to learn about the views and positions taken by governments in much of the world. The slanted coverage also encourages people to support U.S. policies and think that there are no interesting alternative views.
Can old media be changed to provide a better balance of international news? No. This would require a total revolution in mainstream media, and it’s not going to happen.
Canadians who want better and more balanced news should support the growth of independent media. The future of media exists on the Internet, and several news sites — such as Ricochet — are working hard to provide a strong alternative to old, biased media.
