Updates from October, 2011 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 08:44 on 2011/10/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Sunday is a big collection of funds for breast cancer research; a Montreal group is holding a sit-in in the John and Yoko room to demand better warnings about carcinogenic products. (It’s a small but niggling annoyance that the CTV site doesn’t provide a link to the site of the group they’re talking about: isn’t it time media websites acknowledged they’re part of the goddamn web? Some sites do, but many carry on as if they’re above it all, which doesn’t give them the air of objectivity they may be trying for – it just makes them feel out of touch.)

    On another rant: I understand that when you have cancer, or someone close to you is given the diagnosis (I’ve experienced this recently) there is a desire to do something even if there’s actually little or nothing to do. But I find it sad that to raise funds for research into a fatal disease that touches everyone eventually we have to do these complicated PR exercises to collect relatively small amounts of money. Shouldn’t funding for this kind of thing be automatic, something society simply says “yes!” to, rather than making people grind out their nickels and dimes for?

    I prefer the Breast Cancer Action approach, which is trying to help women avoid hazardous products and ingredients, but at the same time I feel a certain reserve in that it’s probably the whole combination of modern culture – fumes from plastics, unknown effects of electromagnetic radiation, unavoidable beauty and cleaning products, pesticide and hormone residues in our food – that pushes some folks’ body chemistry over the edge and makes them ill. So many factors we can’t control, and not many people will be prepared to go live in the wilderness to minimize them. Even if we still had wilderness.

     
    • Robert J 11:45 on 2011/10/02 Permalink

      On media websites: CBC and Radio-Canada have really bad news websites. They often use obsolete or troublesome video and audio plugins and commenting on articles is really badly handled. There are also tons of dead links on the site. This is pretty embarrassing for a large public media organization that is supposed to have some class. So I totally agree with your comments about the media being in denial about the web (ironic considering how much time they spend trying to convince us they’re so hip about it with podcasts and ipod apps).

    • People person 19:05 on 2011/10/02 Permalink

      Wow, check your entitlement complexes at the door guys.

    • Kevin 07:46 on 2011/10/03 Permalink

      (It’s a small but niggling annoyance that the CTV site doesn’t provide a link to the site of the group they’re talking about: isn’t it time media websites acknowledged they’re part of the goddamn web? Some sites do, but many carry on as if they’re above it all, which doesn’t give them the air of objectivity they may be trying for – it just makes them feel out of touch.)

      I fixed it. http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111001/mtl_cancer_1111001/20111001

      It’s not a question of being aloof. It’s usually just that one person who knows there is a website fails to inform someone else.
      Or somebody forgets to read an email.

    • Bill Binns 08:32 on 2011/10/03 Permalink

      This looks like a fringe group to me. Their website puts down other better established breast cancer groups and they seem to be fixated on the environmental issues. A “small percentage of women inherit the breast cancer gene” and everyone else gets it from makeup and putting plastic in the microwave? Really?

    • People person 08:46 on 2011/10/03 Permalink

      I’m not really getting this discussion at all. Firstly, it’s not common practice for mainstream media outlets to add links to every group they mention in an article. Most outlets (ie: Gazette, La Presse, Suburban, etc) don’t do it, so why cite CTV, which actually does it more than others? Anyway if you want to search any given thing, just drag the cursor along the words and right click voila, you’ve got your search, most people presumably know how to do this.

    • Kate 10:00 on 2011/10/03 Permalink

      Seriously, @people person, start your own blog and show us how it should be done. I’m getting tired of your sniping at mine.

    • Charles 10:20 on 2011/10/03 Permalink

      Good answer Kate!

    • Michael Black 13:32 on 2011/10/04 Permalink

      BCAM has been around for over 20 years. I thought they started out as a support or advocacy group (helping people to stand up to their doctors at a time when they are especially vulnerable) but I may be mixing it up with other groups. BCAM was certainly making the point about the causes of cancer back then.

      Of course it’s “marginal”. Breast cancer has become a much bigger issue than 20 years ago, I’m not sure if it represents a rise of cancer, or just a greater sense of identity. But the visibility comes from those companies with the pink ribbons, a token amount donated but a good marketing scheme for their product. All those gourmet fundraising events where people get an event in return for their money.

      Not many are questioning that those fundraisers are put on by commercial fundraising companies, expecting a percentage of the income, or that in order to have that whole event, some money raised is being spent on that rather than cancer research. Somebody needs to be out there questioning, “hey, maybe instead of spending so much money on research for a cure, which may be about closing the gate after the cows are out, maybe we should be looking at the causes”. And some of the potential causes are those very companies out promoting the pink ribbon. Don’t buy the products, and you don’t get the tiny donation, but you may not get cancer. A radical approach would have the same level of fundraising, because of the need to end breast cancer, rather than because people get something in return.

      BCAM isn’t out there holding hands and giving off warm feelings, it’s trying to point out what is wrong and what needs to be done. That will always be “marginal”, because many want the fluff rather than reality.

      Michael

    • Kate 13:54 on 2011/10/04 Permalink

      Well said, Michael. Thank you.

  • Kate 08:28 on 2011/10/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Review of the new permanent exhibit at the McCord acknowledges the difficult of finding new angles on the same historical material, but seems to like it.

     
    • William Raillant-Clark 20:20 on 2011/10/02 Permalink

      Montreal’s history is so rich and complex, and there are so many different perspectives you could retell it from… I think they’ll have enough material to work with for a while!

  • Kate 00:15 on 2011/10/02 Permalink | Reply  

    We’ll be seeing more articles on Jean Beliveau’s walk around the world as his October 16 ETA draws closer.

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel