Megalomedia - Wake up to your news

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Happy Same-Sex Marriage Day

God willing (or not, depending on your take), the House will finally pass the same-sex marriage bill and the media can move on. But leave it to Stephen Harper to underline his blatant hypocrisy one last time before they do. Saying the Bloc's support robs the bill of its credibility? What does that do to your (failed) attempts to bring down the goverment with Bloc support, Mr. Harper? CTV News actually beats the rest? I'm doing the MediaScout today, so I was forced to watch CTV News last night, but for once, I'm glad I did. They were the only people to report on one of the more troubling elements of the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico integration (sorry, co-operation) deal - the fact that Canada will start accepting FDA drug trials rather than conducting independent ones. Uh, what? I'm going to go on about this at length in the Scout, so go there for some troubling background info on the FDA, but for the purposes of Megalomedia, let me just say that the media has a tough job when dissecting these sorts of agreements. There are hundreds of measures - some new, some re-announced - in this agreement, and it'd be impossible to cover them all the first day. I just hope for the sake of national debate that someone else gets on this story in the next few days and makes Canadians aware of this shit. I'd link to this story, but I really can't find it anywhere online yet. Conflict of whatnow? Okay, check out this story from the Globe, it was repeated fairly extensively in other papers too. Does anyone else see a problem with journalists offering to post bail? Granted, the term is extended fairly loosly here, Avi & Naomi, Alexandre Trudeau and Heather Mallick aren't really hard-nosed news reporters, but if you were the Globe and Mail, par example, wouldn't you have a problem with Ms. Mallick getting so involved? Oh, and national security certificates are an insult to Canada and everything Canadians (theoretically) stand for. SHARK ATTACK! Why are we covering the shark attacks in the U.S. so extensively? You want to stop shark attacks? Stop swimming in shark-infested waters. Okay, that's going to have to do it for today, kids. I'm off to the happy land of MediaScout, where I shall ruminate on FDA approvals in Canada, Harper the Hypocrite, Pakistani rape victims and tsumani relief six months later. Cheers!

3 Comments:

  • "More people are killed every year by pigs than by sharks, which shows you how good we are at evaluating risk."

    Bruce Schneier - security consultant and author

    By Blogger Ryan, at 4:02 PM  

  • Now, I've done some stuff on drug approvals and I'm pretty sure this is being interpreted wrong. We signed an agreement a couple years ago with Australia to do the same sort of thing - but when you read 'drug tests' it doesn't mean 'approval or disapproval of drugs.' It means that if the FDA has specifically, let's say, rubbed this particular mascara on monkeys' eyes and they have verified results, we can accept those results and not duplicate the tests.

    That way, everyone in the drug-testing pool, so to speak, will contribute certain tests and save money by avoiding duplication. Each individual country will come to their own decision on approval and whatnot.

    My two cents.

    By Anonymous Dan Blouin, at 12:15 AM  

  • Dan,

    It looks like you're right, it's just about test results, but from what I've read about the FDA, they aren't above hiding or skewing test results in ways that favour their drug company customers.

    Jeebus willing, my worst fears won't be realized. But from what I've read, I can imagine this:

    FDA Guy: Hey man, Canada wants test results on that hypoglemikphonsodiate drug we did.

    Other FDA Guy: Oh, the Pfizer one? Lemme dig that up.

    (sound of files being shuffled).

    OFDAG: Uh oh, it didn't go too well.

    FDAG: But Pfizer paid pretty well.

    ODAG: Tell 'em it was inconclusive

    By Blogger Joe Boughner, at 7:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home