The news is not necessarily ‘history on the run’

KAMOURASKA, QUE.—What makes news? It’s a question I didn’t ask myself much when I was a young reporter, because news was what my assignment editor told me it was. I was awakened in the middle of the night countless times for fires, shootings, traffic accidents, prison hostage takings, and many other tragic events. The news could also be in a news release sent to the radio or TV station, off the teletype machine, over the phone, off the police or fire scanner. So I went to political rallies, strikes, and city council meetings. Sometimes my persistent work on a file yielded a “scoop,” which was every reporter’s quest. So, what made the news was not something I contemplated, because I was simply too busy reporting it. A few years after leaving broadcasting, I attended a conference in Vancouver and listened to a presentation by an experienced journalist and a rising star in media relations. They talked about the criteria for a news story, which they called “ACE”—for Action, Conflict, Emotion. They pointed out if a story had one element, it would get attention, if it had two it made headlines, and with three it could be a blockbuster. When I started doing a little media training and consulting a decade later, I expanded these criteria to “MACE”—adding Money, to recognize its importance in our materialistic world. The problem with these criteria is that what makes the headlines is sometimes trivial. While some media brag they are “history on the run,” what is the centre of public attention one week may be forgotten soon after. And the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, and its insatiable demand for content, has paradoxically trivialized the news even more. A good example of this phenomena was the death of Princess Diana in 1997. It overflowed with money (the Royal Family’s and the Al-Fayed’s), action (the accident, the funeral, the flowers), conflict (between the people and the Royals) and emotion (the never-ending weeping). Coming as it did when CNN and others were taking off, it was an unforgettable event. But was it an important moment in history? Did it change the world? Did it even change Britain? The answer is no. In succeeding years, we have seen similar trivial events that met the MACE criteria become news. The death of JFK Jr., the rising profile of the Kardashians, and now the libel trial of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. So, what makes history? The criteria should be those things that will have an impact on daily life, the economy, geopolitics, and global stability over the long term. For example, September 11, 2001, was not just a tragic terror event: it provoked at least two wars, affected the world economy, and revealed the vulnerability of the United States. Right now, the war in Ukraine will have an impact on the reputation of Russia and its relationship with the West. In Canada, we may wonder if the occupation of Ottawa by the so-called “Freedom Convoy” was unimportant or a sign of rising “lumpenproletariat” dissatisfaction with governments in general, which could lead to major changes in who leads the country. Low-profile stories are sometimes the ones that make history: rising interest rates, the cost of petroleum, or the national debt may mark the next decade more than anyone could have predicted two years ago. In short, context is critical. The stories our great-grandchildren study could be the Third World War, Canada’s dependence on natural resources, global warming, functional illiteracy, or Quebec nationalism. These structural issues could jeopardize our capacity to act as a nation. That said, making predictions is not an easy task. What may seem critical one day may disappear the next. It is one of the reasons leaders shouldn’t succumb to trends or fads, as they do no one any favours by focusing on short-term “fixes.” The governments that brought in medicare, the Charter, the GST, and free trade did not seek popularity, but made history nonetheless. More than a century later, it is noteworthy historians are still analyzing the impact of the First War on the world. While they use news media as sources, they rely far more on observers and those who were there for perspective and context. Andrew Caddell is retired from Global Affairs Canada, where he was a senior policy adviser. He previously worked as an adviser to Liberal governments. He is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and a town councillor in Kamouraska, Que. He can be reached at pipson52@hotmail.com. The Hill Times

The news is not necessarily ‘history on the run’

What may seem critical one day may disappear the next, which is why leaders shouldn’t succumb to trends or fads.

Time for a shift: Canada must treat Alzheimer’s like other progressive diseases

Canada faces a cybersecurity crisis with critical infrastructure at risk

Let Ukraine strike back

Who’s standing up to the danger of World War III?

The sad saga of Afghan-Canadian military advisers

Between wars and fears of fascism in the U.S., there’s plenty to be scared about

Derrick Bragg will be missed by so many in Newfoundland and Labrador

The fight against antisemitism is not easy

How do we preserve the great multicultural experiment?

The most difficult day of the year

Justin Trudeau can’t be taken for granted

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

The news is not necessarily ‘history on the run’

What may seem critical one day may disappear the next, which is why leaders shouldn’t succumb to trends or fads.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter