Tuesday, 10 January 2017



Beardy’s and Okemasis band council candidates to undergo mandatory drug testing

Another article from Global News.
This article, written by David Giles, is stating the necessary drug testing of those whom wish to join the band council. This mandate was passed in 2008. It's purpose was stated was stated in brevity by Giles,  "“(The) adoption of mandatory drug testing in our election act honours the spirit and intent of that original motion eight years ago,” Coun. Kevin Seesequasis said in a statement.". He also stated it had been an unanimous decision and just not acted on until now. It is said that another change was passed in which Giles spoke of as, "“The reduction from eight to six councillors will save the Nation more than $350,000 over the course of the term, this is money that can be diverted to service long-term debt or enhance existing programming,” Seesequasis said.". Also specified by Giles, "Anyone running for chief will have to pay a fee of $400 while candidates for councillor will pay a $200 fee".

In my personal opinion; my bias grew as I read the first line of his article. The titled seemed to be a form of "clickbate" in addition to its connected articles. However, I believe drug testing is an appropriate measure for all jobs which require accountability, but whilst reading this article my mind digressed to other places. My initial standpoint was to acknowledge facts and necessity of these mandates, but it seems to me that it takes multiple articles to deliver all the information that should be specified and provided without question. The amount of vague reasoning or a lacking purposeful placement of facts with little to no subtleties of unacknowledged connection to the point of the article. I am astonished more so with the broad and vague ways these articles have created such large gaps when it does not benefit the reader nor writer for people to search through a multitude of articles to find five basic facts. Who, What, Where, When and Why. In my latest two blogs, both merely filled the gaps the others had left and as for the titles, they're typed fore the cause of controversial reaction rather than state what is needed. My passionate distaste for such lacked simplicity was engaged when I had concluded on there not even being a specified date on which this mandate was decided or facts based on the mandate itself. This as well as the other articles lacked things such as specifics on where, or how, even why. These principle outcomes should be the basis of every fact based report, not just a suggestion of involved information. Precision writing should be feature mandated in all reliable news sources rather that unnecessary elongated paragraphs that do not acknowledge the facts beyond "he said, she said"

My very bias question is, Why would a journalist want to publish their name in an article that lacks information that connects to a very basic level of premise to their purpose? This question would be directed at all the information sources I have sited for these recent and rants and the logic to their flawed writings.  

No comments:

Post a Comment