If you have family or friends in Ottawa, you know.

Here's an interview with a MD in downtown Ottawa, speaking of her and her staff at a medical clinic getting harassed in the street for wearing a mask. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/12/1080354245/health-care-worker...

I read the story. The MD does not claim she or her staff has been harassed. Her one claim is "And a lot of people have been harassed, have been told to take their masks off." The MD also claims "I would say that a huge 18-wheeler is not a peaceful thing to have in the middle of your city" which is weird since large trucks are a primary and pervasive mode of transporting goods nearly everywhere. The story also does not disclose that the interviewee is an Ontario public employee, essentially a spokesperson for the government position, which is in opposition to the protestors.

> The MD also claims "I would say that a huge 18-wheeler is not a peaceful thing to have in the middle of your city" which is weird since large trucks are a primary and pervasive mode of transporting goods nearly everywhere.

I must have missed where large trucks sit for days on end, engine running, horns blaring endlessly as part of their "useful public utility".

> The story also does not disclose that the interviewee is an Ontario public employee, essentially a spokesperson for the government position, which is in opposition to the protestors.

This is blatant bias on your part. Doctors employed by the state to provide healthcare are not government spokespeople, however you're trying to spin it here.

The interviewee does not assert that "large trucks sit for days on end, engine running, horns blaring endlessly," just that "a huge 18-wheeler is not a peaceful thing."

I deny that pointing out the obvious and undeclared conflict of interest is bias, blatant or not. The physician is articulating the same position as her employer who is in opposition to the protestors. Would it be fair for a Facebook employee to comment on an issue regarding their employer and not disclose it, especially if they worked in a portion of the company directly involved in the issue at hand?

EDIT:

Also, the parent comment to mine claimed of the NPR interview: "Here's an interview with a MD in downtown Ottawa, speaking of her and her staff at a medical clinic getting harassed in the street for wearing a mask."

This description is not true of the interview text available at the link when I read it.

I assume of course that you’re equally vehement that any protestor who is employed by the government or military also makes sure to point out that they’re a government employee and that they’re speaking against their government’s policies as an individual, just so we don’t confuse them for spokespeople too, yes?

We would not want confusion and ambiguity there either, after all.

My observations are hardly "vehement." In NPR's home country more physicians are non-government employed so it would make sense to establish that the person is commenting in alignment their employer's position even if they were not specifically authorized to speak. It is also typically disclosed if a protestor is protesting their own employer as it bolsters the case for their integrity.

Since both governments and nongovernmental actors use news media to advance their cases it is important to evaluate and understand the context of an interview especially if it doesn't make the assertions that the linking person claims it makes.

Also, I did not claim that the interviewee is a spokesperson, but that they articulate a position in such close alignment with their employer that they are essentially a spokesperson. It isn't that there is confusion about a person's role. It is that either NPR didn't disclose or the physician didn't disclose a conflict of interest and allow the reader to evaluate the interview with that in mind.