We have to be careful when reading the news, because many articles are misleading at least in one way (though the mistakes are usually innocent). Statistics are too often without context and, without easily accessible sources, they’re difficult to verify. Here’s an example of potentially flawed statistics:

Not even one in five 18- to 24-year-old French speakers says a university degree is essential, compared with two in five English speakers, according to a survey by the Association for Canadian Studies, based in Montreal. Two in three young people whose first language is not English or French see a degree as critical. So who is likely to be left behind in the economy of the future?

We have to be skeptical when a survey is distributed to two different linguistic groups. In this case, the definition of “essential” is entirely subjective and it is quite possible that, though “essentiel” and “essential” share the same etymology, they do not mean precisely the same thing in both languages.

My understanding of the word is irrelevant since this is the kind of question that can vary significantly from individual to individual, but it is still possible that the average definition of the word varies between Canadian English and Quebec French. This “definition” I speak of would be the assumption after “this is essential to [...]“. Essential to be happy? To be rich? Or perhaps to survive? To be healthy?

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I have previously written an article on the subject, entitled “Bowling For Columbine is shit.”, but I had not seen the film in quite some time when I wrote that and my focus was not on flaws with the documentary itself, but with the general position supported by its fans and, to some extent, Michael Moore. Thus, my title seems to have been somewhat inadequate. However, I will correct this here: I recently had to view the film and it will now be easier for me to criticise the documentary as a documentary, to explain why it really is shit.

I expect the same from documentaries as I expect from news articles. There is a certain methodology involved that is at the root of the discipline — a methodology that is known as “objectivity” — and Michael Moore could not have violated it in more conspicuous ways.

The film is indeed entertaining, spiced with his love of irony and his layman’s approach to the topic, and I did laugh on a few occasions while viewing the film, but the comedy aside, it seems like a collage of superficial looks at the issue. He will dig a bit, then see a new, amusing angle and pursue that, rather than continue to analyse what he first started elaborating upon. It makes it all very shallow.

This, however, I can deal with. What annoys me with his documentary is how it is passed for far more than it is, both by Michael Moore and his fans, and that he consistently misleads the viewers. There’s nothing too bothersome about a news article that says nothing and bores the readers, but what about one that excites and misleads them? Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text