I was reading this prevalent and interesting article last week that was brought to my attention by one of my wonderful Twitter fans (@andrea_shippey).
I got to the end of the fifth paragraph where the article states: “Alberta’s NDP leader also slammed the Tory government’s $30,000 weekend advertisement in the New York Times making the argument for TransCanada’s 1,800-kilometre pipeline as 'misleading greenwash.'”
And thought to myself…and I quote: “Yep, I like it.” Clicking the proverbial “like” button in my mind, I nearly closed the page.
I had read five paragraphs of twenty-three, concluded that I agreed with the sentiments of the article and, thus, felt I was finished with it.
It dawned on me, as my cursor hung in wait to move me onto the next article of interest, that this is one of the troubles with our new social media world. We are not reading to learn, anymore, we are reading to approve or disapprove, agree or disagree, “like” or not like, as if that is the ultimate purpose of reading anything in the first place.
As it turns out, the following eighteen paragraphs contained information that was interesting and pertinent to me.
I learned that politicians in Canada are not arguing over whether or not it is okay for Canada to be producing the world’s dirtiest oil at a time when we are on the brink of all-out climate crisis, but are arguing about how they can use that oil to best serve select economic interests.
I learned that “Alberta’s PC government is suffering a massive revenue shortfall this year, in part because of a bottleneck of heavy oil in the U.S. Midwest” and that – most likely due to the pressure this competition inherently presents for Alberta's oil producers – they have admitted a need to step up their “commitments around greenhouse gas targets” (thankfully something is seeping through).
Had I “liked” the article and closed the page at paragraph five, I would have walked away from the experience without having learned these things. Yes, I would have become a little more familiar with my own opinion, but is not intelligent discourse, by its very design, a tool meant to challenge, not affirm our opinions?
So, as I continue to try to keep-up within this high-paced, social media world, and spend my time ingesting other people’s hard work, I hope I can remember to periodically remind myself: “I am here to learn, not to like.”
And since you’re here, we have a favour to ask. Our independent, ad-free journalism is made possible because the people who value our work also support it (did we mention our stories are free for all to read, not just those who can afford to pay?).
As a non-profit, reader-funded news organization, our goal isn’t to sell advertising or to please corporate bigwigs — it’s to bring evidence-based news and analysis to the surface for all Canadians. And at a time when most news organizations have been laying off reporters, we’ve hired eight journalists over the past year.
Not only are we filling a void in environment coverage, but we’re also telling stories differently — by centring Indigenous voices, by building community and by doing it all as a people-powered, non-profit outlet supported by more than 2,500 members.
The truth is we wouldn’t be here without you. Every single one of you who reads and shares our articles is a crucial part of building a new model for Canadian journalism that puts people before profit.
We know that these days the world’s problems can feel a *touch* overwhelming. It’s easy to feel like what we do doesn’t make any difference, but becoming a member of The Narwhal is one small way you truly can make a difference.
We’ve drafted a plan to make 2021 our biggest year yet, but we need your support to make it all happen.
If you believe news organizations should report to their readers, not advertisers or shareholders, please become a monthly member of The Narwhal today for any amount you can afford.