https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/29/twitter-coronavirus-misinformation-state-department/

This article discusses a really fascinating problem that is exacerbating the fear accompanying the coronavirus epidemic – misinformation disseminated over social media. As described in the article, approximately 2 million tweets promoted conspiracy theories about the coronavirus have been circulated since the outbreak. While some of the information being circulated online is accurate, MIT’s Technology Review has dubbed this surge of misinformation as the first ‘infodemic’ on social media – one that promotes the spread of panic, racism, and ill-advised health strategies for avoiding the disease.

Some of the rumours being propagated include:

1) the disease was created by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation;
2) it is a bioweapon unleashed on an unwitting public;
3) the crisis has been invented by the Democrats in attempts to undermine the Donald Trump’s re-election bid, and that the party hopes to “kill millions of people”, as suggested by Donald Trump Jr., in order to make the president look as bad as possible. A similar sentiment has been echoed by shock-jock Rush Limbaugh.

Tech companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter introduced policies and features designed to direct users searching for information about the outbreak to more authoritative resources, including the CDC. Facebook has begun to ban posts that promote harmful misinformation, including cures for the disease (when the scientific community has yet to make any concrete progress in this respect). Twitter, for example, has suspended the account of one user linked to the promote of the aforementioned Gates Foundation rumour. Reddit ‘quarantined’ a subreddit associated with coronavirus misinformation. However, misinformation is still flourishing online, despite these efforts, in obscure YouTube channels and in private Facebook groups.

Will this mark the beginning of social media platforms taking a more active approach in regulating the content posted by their users? Or is it simply an exception for a global health emergency? Whether or not social media companies will now embrace a role as “arbiters of truth” going forward remains to be seen.

Here are some other relevant articles on the issue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/27/facebook-google-twitter-scramble-stop-misinformation-about-coronavirus/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615184/the-coronavirus-is-the-first-true-social-media-infodemic/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/01/coronavirus-mike-pence-donald-trump-jr-democrats-millions-die
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/28/facebook-twitter-amazon-misinformation-coronavirus/

This was the question posed by my uncle over the Christmas break. “You know when I was your age, we didn’t have this zip-zap-app stuff, we heard it all on the radio! Disk jockeys must really be lazy these days.” *

I didn’t have an answer for him at the time, but after some digging I was able to come up with an answer. The reason why our radio stations seem to keep the same few songs on repeat can be broken down into three factors, of which two are pertinent to this class. They are: (1) consumer behaviour; (2) few independent radio stations; and (3) the CRTC, the heroes (or villains, depending on your views) of the story.

The first factor doesn’t warrant much discussion here, but in summary most people who consume radio content do so while in transit (in the car, walking from one public space to another, etc.) and so only listen for short periods of time. Radio companies, who want people to hear their favourite songs in exchange for ad deals, therefore play the most popular hits more often as it’s not likely that the same listener will hear it again soon.
The second factor however is related to the first. There are very few independent radio stations in Vancouver, and the majority of them are owned by media juggernauts like the CBC, Bell, Rogers, Stingray, and Corus. It is interesting to note, however, that for some reason Vancouver has three stations all devoted to playing Top 40 but all of these stations are owned by different companies; 94.5 FM is owned by Bell Media, 95.3 FM is owned by Stingray Digital, and 104.9 FM is owned by Rogers Communications.

The last factor, and the one most pertinent to the course, is the CRTC’s hand in governing radio broadcasting. According to Section 3(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, the Canadian broadcasting policy (and therefore the CRTC’s mandate) includes: (1) “serv[ing] to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada;” (2) “encourage[ing] the development of Canadian expression by providing…programming that reflects Canadian attitudes…by displaying Canadian talent…and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view,” and “serv[ing] the interests…of Canadian men, women and children…and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society.” To this end, the Broadcasting Act provides in sections (e), (f), (m), (s), and (t) all stress that Canadian sources of media are to be preferred in almost all circumstances.

What, then, is considered “Canadian media” for the purposes of music on the radio? For this answer, we turn to the CRTC’s MAPL system as defined in the Radio Regulations, 1986 (SOR/86-982). According to section 2.2(2) of these regulations, a “Canadian musical section” must meet at least two of the following criteria: (1) the music is entirely composed by a Canadian (“M” for Music); (2) the music or its lyrics are principally performed by a Canadian (“A” for Artist); (3) the music is a recording of a live performance either recorded or performed and broadcast wholly in Canada (“P” for performance”); or (4) the lyrics are written entirely by a Canadian (“L” for Lyrics). Music may still be considered Canadian under a variety of exceptions, but they are mostly related to instrumental performances or where it was a joint collaboration with American artists and the Canadian receives at least half credit. Section 2 defines “Canadian” as including citizens, Permanent Residents as defined in the Immigration Act, artists who have had Canada as their primary residence for at least six months before the work was made, and radio station licensees.

In order to meet the Broadcasting Act’s mandate, Radio Regulations section 2.2 further requires that at least 35% of all their broadcast content during peak listening hours be Canadian. While certain exceptions exist for instrumental, old, or special interest radio stations (campus, community, or ethnic), they too must ensure that a certain percentage of their broadcast time is Canadian in nature.

Fortunately, it seems that Canadians have punched above their weight class in the Billboard Radio 50 lately. As of the time of writing, there are by Dan + Shay and Justin Bieber, “Heartless” and “Blinding Lights” by the Weeknd, “No Guidance” and “Life Is Good” featuring Drake, “I Don’t Care,” “Yummy,” and “10,000 Hours” by or featuring Justin Bieber, and “Senorita” by Shawn Mendes and Camila Cabello.

In short, if you want to hear more variety on your local radio (assuming you listen to it at all), your best bet is to convince your favourite artist to move to Canada!

*Though he did not use these exact words, his meaning could not have been more clear. Whether or not you believe this conversation really happened is up to you.