The Review is officially gone for the holidays, but we'll be back January 5th.

Wishing everyone a happy and safe holiday.

Posted by at 05:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yahoo got a little head start on the New Year and released the Top Searches of 2005. Ken Fisher really summed up my feelings well in his article:

Are you ready for the number one search term of 2005?

... it's not Iraq. It's not health care, it's not anything of weighty importance. It's not even Xbox 360. No, dear friends, it's Britney Spears. This, good gentleman and gentleladies, is the American dream: take two parts lackluster talent, three tablespoons of whiney, bitchy crap, add a freeloader for a husband, an ounce of weed, stir in a baby, and you have the most sought-after thing the 'net has to offer. Search me baby, one more time takes the top spot in web searches, the top spot in video searches, but slips to number three behind the buxom Jessica Simpson (#2) and vacuous shell of Paris Hilton (#3) in the images category. It must have been the baby-belly dragging her down. Why look at images of a woman heavy with child when you can look at a woman who you hope to $diety never procreates, but half the world wants to have sex with?

I look at these results and I seriously wonder: are we doing the right thing, becoming journalists? Yahoo had to create an entirely different category to list actual news items, since none of them made it into the top search listing. Even then, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie joined Tom Cruise and Michael Jackson in the top news searches. Does the public really care about actual world events, or have we become completely obsessed with others' lives?

Seeing these lists really gave me pause. Then I considered further, and realized that the mainstream audience doesn't actually use the Internet much; in fact, the people making these searches are likely all in their early teens, robbing the listing of any actual credence as a guage of audience interest.

I'm now somewhat less saddened by these results, since I know the generation that's creating them will outgrow their frivilous interests and eventually start caring about things that matter. It actually pleases me to know that they care enough about a topic to actively seek out further information on it, since I know that will extend to their later adopted interests.

At first I was upset by these results. Now I find comfort in them, as I know they mean there is a future for the sharing of information, and as such, a future for the journalism I care about.

Posted by at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

We live in an extreme world. Extreme sports, extreme cooking and extreme makeovers. Now, courtesy of John Allemang and the Globe and Mail, we have extreme journalism.

Allemang recently began a daily column in the paper that promised a book-a-day review. At first read, that doesn't sound so extreme, but think about it. He gets up, reads a book, front to back, I assume, then files 500 intelligable words, give or take, before the nightly deadline. No small task.

Granted, he's not reviewing Robert Fisk's latest behemoth on the war in Iraq or anything remotely close to it's 1300+ pages, but he's not reviewing Clifford the Red Dog either.

This past week, his books included the Portable Altamont, a pop philosophy manual by Brian Joseph Davis, Al Franken's The Truth. The Book of Lists... by Ira Basen(a former instructor of mine and a good guy to boot), Jane Farrow and a couple of Americans milking their intellectual property rights,and lastly, Larry Towell's photographic compilation, No Man's Land.

The analysis in each case is thorough and thoughtful. Towell's book is particularly scrutinized and suggests any time saved in consuming it was spent in considering it.

Time will tell whether Allemang can keep producing quality reviews day in and day out. If he does, no doubt, he'll attract imitators.

Posted by at 09:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A lot of people scoff at the idea of going after higher education in journalism if you already have a Bachelor's degree in journalism under your belt. But this isn't the case with the Erasmus Mundus Masters, which I think sounds like a program that any journalist could benefit greatly from.

While spending time in Denmark last year at the Danish School of Journalism, the school got officially accepted to become an Erasmus school. At the time I wasn't even sure what that was. But the people there sure were excited, and gathered around in a small classroom to celebrate with champagne, beer, and speeches by the proud teachers.

This European masters program is all about journalism in an international context, focusing on 'globalisation, modernisation, commercialisation, and professional developments', specifically in European countries. The first year of study is divided between Denmark and the Netherlands, and the second year takes place in either the UK or Germany: your choice.

And yes, although most of us aren't European, the experiences and challenges brought on by this program would make anyone a better journalist and more aware of the effects of their work practices.

More info can be found at www.mundusjournalism.com.

It's worth taking a look.

Posted by at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

That lovely holiday time is upon us and to all you loyal readers, December 19th is going to be our last blog entry until the new year. On January 5th we'll be back up again.

During this time off, however, check back for random and infrequent entries by the people here at RRJ who love this blog so much that they want to write for it all the time... even during our time off.

Posted by at 07:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I stumbled across Donald Rumsfeld's speech in which he accused the press of "dwelling on the worst about America and our military" and said that mainstream news organizations were only reporting and spreading bad news, "often with little context and little scrutiny, let alone accountability after the fact." I saw much the same argument being made on CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday. Being a skeptical fellow, I did a little research and discovered that nothing could be further from the truth.
Dahr Jamail is an independent journalist covering the war in Iraq. He writes: "Author and media critic Norman Solomon asked the following question recently: 'According to the LexisNexis media database, how often has the phrase air war appeared in the New York Times this year with reference to the current U.S. military effort in Iraq? As of early December, the answer is: Zero.' ...the phrase air war had not appeared in either the Washington Post or Time magazine even a single time this year."
So how did Rummy get away with slipping the phrase "accountability after the" in front of the word "fact"? Easy. Accountability has now been reduced to third person status, a word that applies to everybody but the speaker employing it.

Posted by at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Some incidents are just so strange that they manage to fit their way into the news.

The dek on a recent article on the BBC News read: A sparrow which was shot dead for knocking over 23,000 dominoes in the Netherlands is to go on display at Rotterdam's Natural History Museum.

The public was outraged, the killer was fined and the bird, after being kept in a government freezer following its shooting, "will be placed on top of a box of dominoes in an exhibition on sparrows next year."

It's the kind of story that furrows brows, raises eyebrows and maybe even shakes heads. But it's also the kind of story that grabs attention and that's why it's being made public.

I think it's important to have some respite from the disease outbreaks and bombings and kidnappings. I also think it's healthy to remind ourselves that, while serious issues happen all the time, it does not necessarily mean we always have to treat ourselves as such.

Maybe, then, that's one reason for animal stories. Many people hold a soft spot for little creatures and can't help but double back and check out that story if we missed it the first time around because we weren't expecting to see it. These stories appeal to that soft spot, and occasionally, it's good to appeal to it.

Maybe that's why some of us were so affected when we heard about the animal rescues in New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

Personally, I'm reminded of the deportation of Sabrina the flying squirrel and I remember being hooked on the story, which was covered quite heavily for a subject on a little animal, wondering if Steve Patterson would get to keep his furry friend.

We shouldn't lose sight of the bigger issues, but there's nothing wrong with occasionally acknowledging what can affect some people on a more personal level.

Posted by at 06:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Interesting read in the Star today - a short profile of Martin adviser Scott Reid by Susan Delacourt. It's not so much the stuff about Reid as a person and a professional that's interesting, but rather the glimpse the article offers into one of the more extreme (and unlikely) job hazards of journalism.

The article refers to a "scuffle" between Reid and National Post columnist Don Martin at a "boozy press gallery dinner" a couple months back. As someone who doesn't necessarily look at a future in political reporting, I was nevertheless amused by the picture this painted of life as an Ottawa correspondent. I'm all for boozy dinners - which didn't shock me - but actually fighting with politicians? As the fourth estate I think we often look at ourselves as battling for some cause or another, but it's both frightening and encouraging to see two sides actually willing to come to blows. I guess Parliament Hill is more exciting than I thought.

On another note, is there anyone else besides me who thinks that this horror over a holiday-season election is mostly manufactured by the politicians and the media? It's only these two groups whose work schedules are really affected; other than that, I don't think people have any more problem going to the polls in January than they do in June.

Posted by at 03:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

So the FCC is imposing their unwanted values on broadcasting rights again (free registration required for the link). They're essentially telling Time Warner Inc. and Comcast Corp. (the two largest cable companies in the U.S.) that if there isn't more "acceptable" programming on television, they're going to step in and say exactly what is and isn't allowed.

The Federal Communications Commission has warned the nation's two leading cable TV companies that unwanted conditions could be imposed on their proposed acquisition of a rival if they do not agree to curb the proliferation of sexually explicit programming, according to company sources

...

The cable industry fears that if it doesn't agree to a voluntary solution, policymakers could soon force an alternative on them that would be far more restrictive.

Now, this is an American issue, so I'm not about to discuss the legality involved... I think there is a much more important principle to be addressed.

I believe that it is important that content be flagged as appropriate or disappropriate for certain age groups. I also think it's very valuable to have the ability to self-censor a household through electronically restricting television that offers these same ratings. However, I think no one should have the right to bully around a content provider and tell them what is morally appropriate to show me in my own house. I'm a bill-paying adult. I can choose what is appropriate entirely on my own, and when I have children I'd like to think I will be responsible enough to know what they're watching on television rather than resort to the television for a babysitter.

A trend set this way has a fairly obvious development. Any organization that is allowed to determine what is appropiate content for consumption will set a precedent for those in power to filter content further, demoralizing journalism and destroying democracy. No one has any right to judge or censor any content beyond flagging it acceptable for certain age groups and allowing the consumers to make their own decisions following. Public trust in the mainstream media is already falling, with perpetual suspicion of content catering to owners and advertisers. Allowing content filtering to this degree would only accelerate the process.

I think the FCC needs to be sent a very clear message, and I think it needs to be sent by everyone.

It's just too bad you'll never hear it on the radio.

Posted by at 07:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I read an article on the December 9th edition of CNN.com about how NASA is soliciting bids from private space companies to carry cargo to the International Space Station when the Space Shuttle Program retires in 2010. Apparently NASA's new space exploration vehicle, which will replace the aging and problem-plagued shuttle, won't be ready for use until 2014.

Personally, I think that the whole space shuttle program and its planned replacement are a colossal waste of money, resources, and in the cases of the tragic loss of shuttles Challenger and Columbia, human life. If humanity seriously wants to learn more about the universe around us, we should be investing more in unmanned space probes. Space probes can be developed and operated at a fraction of the cost of the shuttles, can gather enormous amounts of data to transmit back to Earth, and human lives will not be put at unneccessary risk.

Let's take a look at the comparative costs of the space shuttle versus space probes. NASA's Discovery probe missions, which launched with the Mars Pathfinder probe in 1996 (the latest probe being Stardust, a probe to collect comet samples) has cost less than $150 million to fund so far. If the Discovery program lasted for as long as the shuttle program (33 years at this point) the overall cost would be far less than a $1 billion. Compare that with the $145 billion that the shuttle program has cost from its launch in 1972 until this year. When the shuttle program is finally mothballed in five years, that figure will have climbed to $174 billion. Just think, with that extra money we could quite literally save our world from the afflictions that ail it. We could feed more hungry children, fund research into finding cures for devastating diseases. The list goes on and on for what that kind of money could be put to better use for.

I'm all for manned space flight--eventually. As a kid watching Star Wars in the movie theatre, I dreamt about it. But that's what it should be for now--a dream. One day, as H.G. Wells said in 1920 in The Outline of History, humanity will "stand upon this Earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." Until we can realize a genuinely cost-effective and safer space vehicle to allow us to travel and expand our "realm" into space, we should narrow our focus on space exploration to unmanned space probes.

Posted by at 07:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to the ProQuest Newsstand database, the phrase "pink is the new..." has made headlines 15, 812 times.

And why do I know this?

First, I read about the new M&M. Now you save the pink ones for last--or is that Smarties? I didn't think much of it when the Calgary Herald wrote about cowboys in pink or when the National Post announced "pink is the new red" for Boston Red Sox fans this summer. But after the Post told Saturday's readers to forget about red and green and decorate in pink this holiday season, I am beginning to think pink is the new replacement for a slow news day.

Visit www.pinkisthenewblog.com for celebrity gossip or buy a "pink is the new black" t-shirt at www.hottopic.com. If you're still craving your pink fix, take a shot of Pepto-Bismol and reread this blog entry--that should to the trick.

Posted by at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Like everyone else, hard at work, little time to blog.

But I always get a kick out of the monthly NYTimes.com 10 most read articles. It's like, what really mattered this month to the 0.4 or so percent of Americans who are NY Times readers.

Here's November's list:

1. 100 Notable Books of the Year
Published online: November 23, 2005
The Book Review has selected this list from books reviewed since the Holiday Books issue of Dec. 5, 2004.

2. Saying Goodbye California Sun, Hello Midwest
By MOTOKO RICH and DAVID LEONHARDT, Published: November 7, 2005
After a decade of soaring home prices, a growing number of people are leaving California for other parts of the U.S.

3. Young, Assured and Playing Pharmacist to Friends
By AMY HARMON, Published: November 16, 2005
Confident of their abilities and skeptical of psychiatrists, a sizable group of people are deciding on their own what drugs to take.

4. Just Googling It Is Striking Fear Into Companies
By STEVE LOHR, Published: November 6, 2005
As Google increasingly becomes the starting point for finding information, companies are beginning to view the company with some angst, mixed with admiration.

5. Just Try to Sleep Tight. The Bedbugs Are Back.
By ANDREW JACOBS, Published: November 27, 2005
Bedbugs, the stealthy nocturnal creatures, are spreading through New York City like a swarm of locusts on a lush field of wheat.

6. New Disclosure Could Prolong Inquiry on Leak
By TODD S. PURDUM, Published: November 17, 2005
Bob Woodward has set off a frantic new round of guessing about who that source might be and a wave of public denials.

7. Lobbyist Sought $9 Million to Set Bush Meeting
By PHILIP SHENON, Published: November 10, 2005
The fee was to arrange a meeting between President Bush and the president of a small West African nation, documents show.

8. Gimme an Rx! Cheerleaders Pep Up Drug Sales
By STEPHANIE SAUL, Published: November 28, 2005
Drug companies seeking attractive sales representatives have opened a recruiting pipeline to top college cheerleading squads.

9. Shop-Till-You-Drop Specials, Revealed Here First
By MICHAEL BARBARO, Published: November 17, 2005
At least three Web sites are dedicated to digging up sale secrets well in advance of the biggest shopping day of the year.

10. For '73 Rape Victim, DNA Revives Horror, Too
By JULIA PRESTON, Published: November 3, 2005
DNA cannot do one thing for Kathleen Ham: She must still take the stand, and with that can come a measure of pain.

(The articles are available at NYTimes.com, after you register with the site for free.)

Bonus: Here's today's most e-mailed article so far.

Posted by at 02:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A section in the past issue of Elle Canada amused me. There was an advice column section where Jann Arden was answering people's love advice, financial advice, the works.

One of the questions goes something like this:

Dear Jann, I've been with my boyfriend for almost seven years. Why won't he get off the fence and marry me?

I'm sorry, but she's supposed to know because? It reminds me of that "ask Miki" section in the 24hrs newspaper, where a psychic answers your love advice. The answers Miki gives are sometimes obvious like, "Do not expect much from a relationship with someone who happens to already be in one." (I could have told you this). And others are just guesses such as "I do not see you two together in the future."

I know this is just Jann's opinion, but I would rather see a mini-profile on Jann Arden, and a love expert answer Jann Arden's question - especially since some people who idolize Jann may take her advice to heart (and what if she were to say something like "dump him right now!" or "marry his best friend and make him jealous?"). More importantly, she may not know what to do since she does not specialize in this - if it were a question in music, I'd understand.

Sometimes I think celebrities are given too much importance. Another example is a past issue of metro that took up the whole middle of a page talking about how Britney Spears laughed at her husband's singing. Meanwhile, an article on how two men assaulted a TTC bus driver took up a tiny section in an unnoticable corner. Thus, more people will know about Britney Spears making fun of her husband than they will about this poor bus driver that was shot (did I mention Britney's page was in colour?). I mean, that space could have been used to give readers more information about this assault, so that we can prevent this from happening again. Newspapers and magazines need better judgement in their reporting.

Posted by at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Have you ever heard the phone ring and wondered if it's a personal call or a solicitor? I do just about every time because we don't have any fancy features like the long distance ring or caller ID. Generally I have the sense to hang up the phone when I hear that dead silence present just before the telemarketer clicks in, but sometimes I'm not fast enough.

For some reason the ones I'm not fast enough to hang up on are the ladies asking me if I'd like to buy a subscription to the Toronto Star. I have fielded this call at least six times this fall. Once I think it was three times in the same week! Don't they mark down on some list "no" or "previously contacted this month?" I feel for these women (it hasn't been a man yet), because I've been in similar situations and it's not a fun job. I kindly tell them I can get the paper at school for free. Last year one very pleasant woman laughed, "Well I can't compete with that!" She's the only one who's gotten it so far. They press on, telling me about weekend subscriptions. I claim I won't read it on the weekend. I don't know if I wouldn't for sure, but I'm a student and just don't want to spend my precious funds on it.

What boggles my mind about the whole thing is that I've never, ever been subjected to another paper personally begging for my hard earned babysitting money. Is the Star's campaign working? Is this how they stay at the top of the circulation game? Are they alone in this phone attack?

It could all be true. I don't know off of the top of my head and since I'm working madly on another draft of my feature I'm not going to look it up right now. I do know one thing; I've gotten a lot faster at hanging up the phone.

Posted by at 01:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The most important tenets of liberalism are individual freedom and democracy, which means the American Armed forces must be the biggest liberals in Iraq right now, what with their mandate to spread liberty and all. So isn't it fitting for all you "liberal bias" types out there that the Army was recently caught with their pants down, tricking, bribing and plain old coercing Iraqi media into running stories championing the American "liberation" of Iraq. If this isn't a clear example of liberal bias in Iraqi media, what is?

"Wait!" you say, "there was no coercing. This is just a problem of poorly labeled advertorial. The army is paying for it just like Home Depot does with Chatelaine, GM with Maclean's or even Target and the New Yorker. Everyone does it."

True, army officials defend themselves by saying they're just "trying to get the truth out there" kind of like Home Depot trying to get the truth out about the "New Rococo Cocoa Leather Sonoma Recliner," but the difference between Home Depot and the American Armed Forces is that if Chatelaine staffers were to decide that maybe they were crossing the advertorial line, they'd live to tell about it.

The American Army kills journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan. It isn't a secret. Tarek Tayoub formerly of Al Jazeera is probably the best known fatality. He died when a US missile blew up their Baghdad bureau. With all this talk about the Al Jazeera memo going around, and the fact that at least two Al Jazeera journalists are being held without charge in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib it's becoming clear that Tayoub's death wasn't an accident but a tactic of intimidation.

If money won't persuade you to publish US Army advertorial then the threat of death and imprisonment might. As for liberal bias, it's a stupid charge and meaningless within the greater scheme of things. And if you're reading this and saying to yourself well who the hell cares about some Al Jazeera reporters anyways I would strongly encourage you to read their blog. Yeah, it's a bit corporate but still a hell of alot more real than anything being written in the Iraqi press.

Posted by at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't." That was the justification for voting Liberal in the last election.The Liberals and the media did a fantastic job of demonizing the Conservative Party and spreading fear Bush-style. Suddenly Canadians weren't just afraid of Americans, they were afraid of Conservatives, and still are. Paul Martin has brainwashed Canadians into thinking that being Canadian is synonymous with being Liberal. But the only thing I can equate with the Liberal party is lies.

In this upcoming election I hope Canadian journalists resist the temptation to do the Liberals bidding and be objective.

If you haven't stopped reading yet I have provided a link to an article on liberal bias in the media by Lorrie Goldstein.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2005/09/29/1240075.html

Posted by at 08:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Today we'll be taking a link from prolific hockey blogger and Rye alumnus James Mirtle (which has actually made the rounds in the hockey blogging world, but Mr. Mirtle's a good read that I shamelessly shall link to). The St. Petersburg Times took third place for a photojournalism series on the journey of the Stanley Cup from player to player on the champion Tampa Bay Lightning. For those who don't know, the Cup belongs to each player for 24 hours, and they do whatever they want with it. The whatever ranges from using Lord Stanley as a dog bowl, to using it as a skinny dipping pond for Brad Richard's one-year-old cousin. It's a beautiful photo series, one of those sports stories that couldn't be done any better in writing or on television.

Which brings us to a question of: Who's doing interesting sportswriting these days? Columnists we have no shortage of, as our Canadian sports media is full of talented, passionate people who pen well-written opinions. And lets discount hockey coverage, because the breadth and depth of hockey writing in this country can be left to another post, another volume in defining The Canadian Sports Canon.

I have to give the RRJ sports award to the sports department at the National Post. I don't read it too often (he let's his left-leaning j-school bias show), but what I have seen over the summer has been fresher than the Star or The Globe. Sending writer Aaron Wherry down to the Mike Tyson fight in June one-upped everyone else's wire copy (besides producing a literary take on the last hurrah of a boxing embarassment). And how do you shake up your run-of-the-mill Molson Indy profile of Paul Tracy? Let writer Mike Traikos be driven around the racetrack by Tracy -- in his Toyota Tercel. And then take funny pictures.

But when such...art...as the St. Petersburg Times photos capture the emotion of sports so damn well, why bother with the sports writ sometimes.

Posted by at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)