January 27, 2003
Robert Pickton is now before the courts in British Columbia for a preliminary hearing on 15 counts of first degree murder. If Pickton is eventually convicted of these charges, he will emerge as the most prolific serial killer in Canadian history. As a result of the search of his farm and the evidence found through that search, his arrest and subsequent proceedings brought against him have garnered a lot of attention in the media, not only in this country, but around the world.
The B.C. Pork Council has complained about the constant reference to Pickton as a pig farmer. He is rarely described as "Robert Pickton" but rather as "pig farmer Robert Pickton". The Council has stated that Pickton never was a proper pig farmer and raised more sheep than he did pigs. Whether they are right or wrong as to whether "pig farmer" is an appropriate description, the B.C. Council has a point that he is constantly referred to as a pig farmer when his name appears in the media.
When Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka were in the news on a daily basis, they were referred to as Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. Labels such as Veterinary Assistant Karla Homolka or Accountant Paul Bernardo (or perhaps more fitting, Cigarette smuggler Paul Bernardo) were never used. This, in spite of the fact that Homolka’s dedication in caring for small animals provides an interesting juxtaposition to her criminal acts against young women. Yet the media doesn’t seem to be able to resist the "pig farmer" label when referring to Pickton.
Perhaps the media are trying to indirectly convey the message that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are doing directly--trying to link the killing of prostitutes from the east side of Vancouver with the killing of pigs. If Pickton is responsible for the murder of a lot of women, is it really necessary to continue to emphasize what his occupation is? The Pork Council and British Columbia farmers have a point.
Ignoring Kyoto continues…
Last week I wrote about how the pro-Kyoto mainstream media ignored how the increase in gasoline prices would have been beneficial to the reduction on carbon emissions and concentrated on the same old, "gas price increases are terrible" theme. Another prominent story with a Kyoto tie-in has suffered the same fate.
According to environmentalists, one of the reasons that the world is doomed is because Canadians simply will not give up driving their gas-guzzling SUVs and the media has done its share to point out the dangers that such vehicles can create. When British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell was arrested for drunk driving in Hawaii, there was virtually no criticism of the fact that the vehicle that he rented for his journey that ended in a Maui drunk tank, was an SUV. The premier was criticized, for drinking, for drinking and driving, for weaving all over the road, for his blood/alcohol level and for his cutbacks to B.C. social services, but not for the vehicle that he chose to rent, presumably when he was sober.
Drunk drivers can and often, kill, and the way Campbell’s driving has been described, he could have easily been involved in a fatal accident. But if you believe the Kyoto rhetoric that preceded Canada’s ratification vote, driving an SUV can be as, if not more, deadly. We’re talking about the life of the planet, not just a few lives here. Yet Campbell’s vehicle of choice, unlike his adult beverages of choice, didn’t seem to be worthy of comment.
The way the mainstream media is now ignoring the fight to reduce carbon emissions confirms that they, much like the government, view Kyoto as something to be in favour of because it’s trendy, but not something that seriously requires any lifestyle changes. While the media can fault Campbell for drinking and driving, there is nothing wrong with driving an SUV.