Mistakes in science journalism will remain a problem for as long as journalists are not scientists. The recent news coverage of a study published in Nature, which claimed that scientists found a way to remove a single cell from an embryo without destroying it, turned out to be wrong. The research was misleading and neither peer reviewing scientists nor journalists caught the mistake. The New York Times, Washington Post, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and CBC all reported a lie, accidentally of course. This begs the question: Could the inaccurate news coverage have been avoided? If scientists didn't catch the mistake then certainly journalists couldn't be expected to.

Some scientists argue that journalists shouldn't cover science news because they don't understand the complex scientific topics they report on. These scientists argue the consequences of reporting incomplete truths to the public are too large. They suggest that journalists oversimplify science to the point of distortion. Admittedly, this is a problem. If the mistake in Nature was not caught, the implications could have been significant. Opponents of stem cell research may have lost one of their main arguments. So yes, journalists should be diligent with the details. They should take their time reading through studies to ensure they understand them.

But I digress. Scientists make mistakes all the time. As new research emerges, scientists constantly re-evaluate what was once scientific fact. Oops, the Earth is round not flat. Oops, eating an apple treated with Alar probably won't kill you. Oops, the toxins in fish are much higher than we thought. Oops, soy products are not without flaw. The list goes on. Just as it's ridiculous to suggest scientists stop conducting research because of the potential for error, it's equally ridiculous to suggest journalists stop reporting science because they don't fully understand. Scientific information is useless to the public unless it is popularized and this is the job of the journalist. We relay important environmental and health information to the public to prevent people from getting sick or dying. To not report this information, would be careless. We will never live in an error-free society. It's time to relinquish control.

Posted by Shereen Dindar at 08:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October is drawing to a close, and consumers of Canadian health news can be glad for it.

News is cyclical. In December, newspapers sparkle with holiday stories. September sees a spike in terrorism coverage. Now, thanks to breast cancer, news agencies country-wide have something to latch on to in October.

Breast cancer is indeed a very serious issue, but when it becomes a month-long celebration of "awareness", the pumped out coverage inevitably bypasses quality in favour of quantity. Imagine what news would be like if every month had a frightening disease hovering over the media. March could be morbid obesity month and April could be dedicated to anorexia. Reporting for the sake of reporting would be so much easier - and stories rooted in genuine importance, relevance, and timeliness would fall by the wayside.

Breast cancer, it seems, is nobody's fault. Its innocent (mostly female) victims and their pastel pink ribbons aren't offending anyone, and they slip too easily into newspapers and on to television sets.

According to the Canadian Cancer Society, one in nine women will develop breast cancer in this country. Statistics say that one of my first cousins, one or two of the RRJ Spring masthead, and one of my closest girlfriends will get the disease. Women in this looks-obsessed society are cutting off their breasts to save themselves.

I should care more, but I don't have the energy. I've been too busy reading about quickie boob exams and the latest in breast cancer swag.

Posted by Julia LeConte at 09:38 AM | Permalink

I haven't had cable in more than two years. The few channels I do have are unreliable so appointment viewing easily leads to heartache. For the most part I've managed. I missed out on Lost, even though I'm sure I'd love it. And my evenings are no longer filled with Seinfeld reruns. But so what?

Well, it isn't prime time I crave - it's the news and current affairs shows. Yep, I miss that scrolling ticker tape and everything else that comes with the 24-hour news networks. Not to mention political shows and investigative reports on the American networks. In the past when I wrestled the TV away from roommates and the Life Network I was happy spending the evening channel surfing the news channels.

Now, just when withdraw was becoming too much, I discover new opportunities every day for the internet to feed my inner news/politics junkie.

More and more newscasts and current affairs shows are available online and bravo for that. Some are better than others. My joy is when I can click and watch the entire show as one clip. NBC's Meet the Press is good for this. As is Don Newman's Politics on CBC. Politics even has the commercial breaks in there. You can fast forward through them but even if someday they make it so you can't that's okay; the ads are an easily acceptable necessity. CBC's The National - same deal. My pet peeve is when I have to attempt to organize different segments into a whole show. Mike Duffy Live, Question Period and Rick Mercer - oh why do you make me enjoy your shows as incomplete jigsaw puzzles? Going back state side I wasn't much of a Fox News viewer when I did have cable but there is so much video available on the Fox site that I find myself routinely visiting.

So, what does all this mean? It means the information journalists provide is available to more and more people. It means I'm an increasingly happy television viewer -through the internet and if you haven't yet checked out all the possibilities beyond You Tube do so. And if you can't find anything on, visit CPAC for a full-day of programming! It's only going to get better I hope. Bring on more shows and live feeds! Imagine not waiting until 7 p.m. to see Newman's 5 p.m. show! And ABC's and CBS's websites advertise full episodes of some of their top dramas and sitcoms if you are viewing from the U.S. So, maybe appointment viewing of Lost is in my future.

Posted by Shannon Wilmot at 01:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Once upon a time in Mexico, there was a Latin America bureau. At least until the '80s that is. Then many a bureau at many a Canadian newspaper closed down. The Latin America bureau made a come back at the Toronto Star sometime in the '90s until at least 2001, when Linda Diebel was filing from Mexico City. But a phone call to the newsroom this morning confirmed what I already knew - it no longer exists.

In a 2003 RRJ piece called World Domination, which discusses the failure of foreign coverage, then-foreign editor at the Star, Bill Schiller, called bureaus "cornerstones of international coverage." So how does their disappearance influence the information Canadians are getting about the rest of the world? For places like Latin America, it means we have to rely on the big machines for stories, like the CPs and Associated Presses of the world, or on ambitious freelancers and stringers.

Case in point - reading the Star online this morning, I came across an AP article about a New York journalist killed in Oaxaca, Mexico. I was quite surprised because I wasn't aware that the situation was so tense in a place I've always associated with queso fresco and fair trade coffee. And more than likely the article appeared because a U.S. journalist was killed. Thinking about the kinds of stories in which Mexico is featured in the daily news, what comes to mind are tropical storms or politics (if there's an election) and of course more recently the Ianero murders and the ridiculous "wall." Not to downplay the importance of reporting such stories, but surely there is more going on in that huge country...

Edward Greenspon sheds some light on the Globe's lack of a Latin American bureau here .

Not that I blame solely the papers. I also blame myself. I mean, let's be honest. with access to the Internet I can seek out news about anywhere in the world if I make an effort. And obviously I should be making more of one in order to keep myself well-informed about world events, like the political tension in Oaxaca. But still, as a soon-to-be journalist in the field, I believe in print media. And I would like to see Canadian newspapers sending staff to cover issues in places other than the Middle East. Likely in this day and age - read 'a time when newspapers simply don't have the budgets' - a Latin America bureau is too much to ask. For now the responsibility falls on me, the reader. So that when I see an article like the AP report on Oaxaca, I won't only see only the headline screaming out that an American was killed. I'll dig up the context. I'll investigate.

Posted by Lisa Paul at 08:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Whenever my grandfather calls me from Ottawa, the conversation hovers around journalism. When I visit him at his house, CBC is blaring from the kitchen and there are always stacks of newspapers and magazines littered around the living room. And it may take him longer than it used to, but he does read every single word. He turned 70 this past month, so he doesn't get around to doing all the things he used to do. But one thing you can count on is that he has read his Globe and Mail, Ottawa Citizen, Time magazine and Macleans. That is, until this past year.

Lately, when we speak on the phone, he complains about the new format of Macleans. In fact, he took the ultimate stand recently and cancelled his subscription. My grandfather has been reading Macleans every single week throughout my lifetime and now he's had enough.

As an article in last year's Ryerson Review of Journalism so aptly stated, the new Macleans is "sexed-up, hyped-up, juiced-up, and jazzed-up." I understand the instinct for change at the magazine; a format adjustment may be just what the struggling newsweekly needed. However, in doing so, Macleans has alienated its core audience.

And what has it gained in return? I don't know anyone that has started reading the magazine since it's dramatic makeover. While my sister, with her short attention span, will now browse through a copy when we're at my grandparents' house, she will not become a subscriber simply because it looks like a tabloid. I don't think that changing the format of a Canadian institution is going to change the fact that perhaps we just don't have the attention span at all anymore.

Anyone who owns a computer and surfs the Internet has access to the hourly news. And what is Macleans doing? They are summing things up at the end of the week, once we already know what happened. My grandfather watches the news every day and listens to the radio, but he refuses to buy a computer and will never be on the Internet. A magazine like Macleans is designed for him. He needs the experiences and opinions of the week all tightly bound in one magazine. And now, though my grandfather did try to stick it out, Macleans has lost another long-time reader.

Posted by Jennifer Paterson at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Technology is continuously advancing and changing the way we conduct our lives. There are now video stores popping up throughout Toronto that employ no staff. Instead, there are vending machines where you can rent and return movies. In New York, I'm told, there are similar machines where you can order whole meals. And they call this progress. Well, progress took its latest victim last week: the Canadian edition of TV Guide.

Canadian TV Guide, which started in 1976, announced the magazine will no longer be sold on newsstands and will only be available online as of Nov. 28th. The main reason they cited for the change was lack of readership as most people now get their TV listings from digital and satellite services. Although their decision to be solely web-based makes sense economically and environmentally (they will be saving plenty of trees from becoming glossy pages in the magazine), I can't help but feel saddened by their announcement.

I know this might just be nostalgia, but TV Guide has had a constant place in my family's magazine rack. We consult it, not only for the night's TV listings, but to read the latest about our favourite TV shows and actors. After a long day spent on computers at school and at work, it is nice to not have to look at a monitor and instead curl up on the couch with the magazine. With the Toronto Star already putting out an online-only afternoon edition, and the TV Guide now moving solely to the web, I fear this is where all magazines and newspapers are heading. I know there is no stopping progress, but I dig down my heels anyways.

Posted by Dayna Dayus at 01:02 AM | Permalink

Photo: Team America World Police

What's the point in amassing a nuclear arsenal if the average schmoe is still going to laugh at you?

Kim Jong Il should be asking himself this question right now. Sure, his nuclear joy rides have yanked international attention back towards the isolated country he rules. Sure, he has fixed himself as the most dangerous and unpredictable man on the planet. And sure, he may have thrown South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the US into a diplomatic quagmire. But at the end of it all, the media still gives Kim no respect - and I think this is a problem.

I find display copy and visuals particularly portray Kim as a dejected cast member of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. The Toronto Star ran a headline last week that said "Kim Jong Il - crazy... like a fox." And the Economist's cover has featured the laughable dictator strapped to a nuclear weapon with the title "Rocketman." These are just two examples of the media poking fun at Kim's personal appearance (the North Korean Barber College haircut) and his eccentricities (he allegedly buys $700,000 worth of Hennessey a year).

Personally, I never have been able to take Kim seriously since he starred as himself in Team America World Police. Thanks to the guys from South Park, whenever I picture the man, I visualize a puppet with a speech impediment.

The scary part is Kim Jong Il is no one's puppet. Right now, the only people being tugged by strings are the diplomats scrambling to determine a "measured" response to North Korea's nuclear program. And that leads me to think that maybe this is all part of Kim's plan. After all, he is crazy... like a fox drunk on cognac.

Posted by John Mather at 01:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

One of my favourite interviewers to watch is not as well known as Wallace, Walters, or Mansbridge. He has a show on PBS-- Tavis Smiley. He has an ease and relaxed approach to his interview subjects--a very difficult and, for me, enviable skill. His shows are usually split in two halves. In the first half, he usually interviews a political figure, and in the second half, an actor, or musician. He gets things out of his guests that I know other journalists couldn't get, simply because of his effective approach. Now, about his approach. . .

Tavis Smiley is an African-American, and often has African-American guests on his program. I have noticed a distinct difference, although subtle, in his tone and approach to guests of his own race as opposed to guests of other races. Perhaps subconsciously, he slips in slang, and says things like calling Sen. Barak Obama, "a brother from Illinois." He doesn't use this kind of language when interviewing Burt Reynolds (another recent guest). I am tentative in making this observation as a Caucasian Canadian, but I'm trying to look at it simply from the point of a viewer, a member of his audience. Perhaps he changes the way he speaks to relax his subject, or relate to them, or for some other reason. But I think it alienates viewers, and it's unprofessional. Another TV personality I have seen fall into this same trap-- Oprah. She breaks out the Southern slang at certain times on her show, saying things like "po' folks."

I just think there is a time and place to slip from professional interviewing language to more relaxed slang. The thing that bothers me is that both Tavis Smiley and Oprah are amazing interviewers, and I just see it as unnecessary. They are strong and confident enough without distracting and alienating viewers by changing themselves depending on who they are interviewing.

Posted by David Pratt at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Montreal: Arrived last night STOP This internet cafe practically charges by the e-mail STOP I spent most of the train ride last night arguing with the person next to me STOP which is my fault because when they asked "business or pleasure" I said journalism. I immediately wished I'd said anything else. Next time I'm off to meet a long-lost twin brother to donate one of my kidneys. But without thinking I'd labeled myself as someone who could tell their story. They'll rubberneck your notebook thinking; someone should write about me. Insert long-winded life story here. People love talking about themselves--good for journalists, bad for off-duty journalists who want to sleep instead of hear about interesting uncle so-and-so who, would you know it, had a neighbour that once worked for the CBC. Maybe you know them? I've made the same mistake in waiting rooms, but it's a long haul between Toronto and Montreal with no interruptions save when I faked falling asleep near the end.

The part I dread the most is when, inevitably, people will want you to explain the story you're working on. They'll rubberneck your notebook wondering if they're interesting enough to write about, and start in on their life stories. But a quick snapshot isn't enough, they want the Reader's Digest version of your whole article. They want to read it before it's written, know its nuances and characters. They want my angle, they want to know the socio-cultural significance...And my co-passenger was no exception. I got lots of unwanted advice on what was wrong with journalism and what I ought to write about (uncle so-and-so). This guy was more critical than my editor.

This happens all the time. Thanksgiving dinner where once-a-year relatives grill you for not having written anything about the family. Massage therapists giving insight and story ideas while you're at their mercy. Hairdressers who criticize while they shampoo.

Normally I love talking to people, hearing their stories. It's part of being a good journalist. And I've gotten good information or ideas or anecdotes from people, just from mentioning my story. I bounce ideas off people to see their reaction. It works, so I'll keep doing it. What I'm learning is that old adage--about a journalist always being on the job--isn't expense-able. Luckily the train ride was.

Posted by Dana Lacey at 08:05 PM | Permalink

In our English elective, the first book we read was Maximum City by Suketu Mehta. This work of literary journalism, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer in 2005, used the often misinterpreted word "schizophrenic" as a metaphor for the city of Bombay. And he didn't mean Bombay has a biologically-based illness in its brain. He meant it in the sense of schism, or that Bombay is straddling two different worlds. This metaphor is one of my pet peeves. Yes, I know he is a literary journalist, but he should still know better. He is only adding to the persistent misunderstanding of what it means and does not mean to have a mental illness.

The New York Times ran one of their in-depth features today on one family's struggle to help their mentally ill ten year old Haley. In "Living With Love, Chaos and Haley", the writer, Pam Belluk gets it right. In telling one family's story, Belluk exposes the stigma that continues to surround mental illness. Haley's case is severe and complex and the fight to get her effective treatment has been an uphill battle. Add that to the fight to get people in their lives to believe them at all -- that she isn't just being "manipulative," that they are entitled to disability support payments, that even though Haley can seem normal, she is not -- and you have one stressed out family. What I liked about the story was how it raises the bar on mental health coverage.

In the RRJ feature Lost in Translation, writer Soraya Roberts describes the challenges facing us in the Canadian media when we report on this subject. Roberts writes, "CMHA [Canadian Mental Health Association] also reports that newspapers provide 58 per cent of the public's knowledge about mental illness, yet readers rarely glean more than a vague understanding of mental disorders from the dailies."

We can avoid the trap of misunderstanding and misinformation by educating ourselves. The Mood Disorders Society of Canada is a good place to start. If we continue to engage our romantic beliefs about madness, like Mehta, we do everyone a disservice.

Posted by Gena Smith at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Three days ago, I was sitting in my room when the internet stopped working. There's nothing out of the ordinary about that. Usually I unhook the modem, fiddle with a cable or two, and everything resumes itself. But not this time.

An hour later I was anxious, already experiencing serious withdrawal symptoms. My roommates and I decided to call Rogers to find out what the hell was going on. Customer service being their greatest strength, we were left on hold for what felt like an hour, until finally we were told the news- they shut us down! They cut us off!

Did we pay the bill? Check. What else could it be?!?

My roommate Amy hung up the phone and said, "They think we're hacking into networks and accessing illegal information." (I confess, the exact wording of what she said may have been slightly different -- I did not use a tape recorder and I do not have 94% recall.)

At first I was amused. I felt like I was on the TV show 24. I do consider myself slightly technologically inclined, but I could never pull off a scam like that. Then I grew mad. "Were they even going to call?" I asked. "How would we have known about this?"

We were left without the internet for many painfull hours.

The point of this little ramble is, I'm addicted to the internet and I have no idea how journalists survived without it.

Posted by Ann Ruppenstein at 07:09 PM | Permalink

This year we're getting quite a taste of what it's like to be "real" journalists.

The other day, I got so caught up in fact-checking and interviewing that I forgot to eat. (Now that sounds like a new trend: the RRJ diet. Anybody with me?) Besides nutrition, I've found that amongst the first things to go in my new, much busier life are my beloved magazines. They've being collected much more dust lately and many of their perfect-bound spines haven't even been cracked.

Luckily, I have found a solution. Slate magazine's "In other magazines" is my new favourite internet thing. Every week, they offer summaries of the stories that appear in the big weeklies, i.e. The New Yorker, Time, and the New York Times Magazine (sadly, no Canadian titles are included). This allows me to get a taste of what I'm missing and try to make time to read the more interesting pieces.

As an added bonus, it is an opportunity to end one of my pet peeves: people who read entire magazines in front of newsstands. I know we're all poor students and magazines are expensive, but if you're going to read it in the bookstore, move out of the way, or better yet, go to a library.

Posted by Erin Tandy at 11:20 PM | Permalink

Critics be damned; I love Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip. It's my favourite new show to hit the airwaves this season - honestly, you can't go wrong with such a star-studded cast. But when I'm watching, I'm not neccessarily paying attention to how former Friend Matthew Perry or West Wing alumnus Bradley Whitford are faring in their new roles. During the show's last two episodes, all I've been dissecting is the performance of guest star Christine Lahti.

Lahti plays Martha O'Dell, Pulitizer-winning journalist who has set out to give Vanity Fair's readership of "influencers and pleasure-seekers" all the behind-the-scenes dirt on the fictional sketch-comedy show Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. For the most part, she's been pretty convincing. Until this week, at least, when we saw her hound Studio 60 star Harriet (Sarah Paulson) with questions about her relationship with show writer Matt Albie (Matthew Perry). As Harriet began to open up, she asked Martha: "You don't need to write any of this down?"
"No."

Really. I've only heard of one journalist who has ever claimed to have 94% recall of all conversation and his name was Truman Capote. And I don't even really believe that.

Okay, true - maybe I'm just bitter because I've got an astoundingly bad memory. Ask me what I ate for breakfast and I wouldn't be able to tell you. Which is why I'm always awkwardly scribbling notes at the most inopportune times, 'cause who wants to be sued for libel? But Hollywood, as always, makes it look so easy. Chances are, there are few of us who can actually pull an article out of a 10-minute interview without so much as one word scrawled on a used gum wrapper.

But who knows. Maybe you do exist. If so, consider this an open call for you to prove me wrong (and give me some memory-expanding tips, while you're at it. I'm not opposed to mind-altering substances, Hunter S. Thompson-style.)

Posted by Jennifer Fong at 01:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I really think Blogs are like reality TV.

I mean no disrespect to blogs. But think about it. Blogs have the power to make nobodys famous, promote an individual's agenda or project someone's seemingly dull life onto the world (here's looking at you, Christopher Knight's reality show). They're also more cost effective than their alternatives. Blogs - like reality shows when they first came out - are incredibly overhyped. Reality shows were supposed to change TV when they first appeared, remember? Weren't scripted sitcoms supposed to be a thing of the past? I'm not saying that blogs will disintegrate into the literary version of someone eating worms for cash. I'm just saying that blogs are very media trendy right now. Every major news website had a blog because THEY HAVE TO. I'm sure that to some degree blogs will be with us forever. But - like all those reality shows that sprung out of nowhere (R.I.P. Temptation Island, Joe Millionaire, The Mole, Paradise Hotel) - I think the weak blogs will be weeded out and we'll be left with a few core ones. But that's just my two cents. And yes, I see the irony of blogging these thoughts.

Posted by Amanda Pereira at 10:32 AM | Permalink

My Nan (grandma) sent me an email the other day. It was the first time we've ever communicated through a computer. I always make the mistake of trying to read emails as if the person were talking to me and it throws me through a loop with some people.

"hi joe, i am figuring out the internet so so, ... i do not think the golden key thing is a cult, you take after your mother for smarts eh? you know she skipped a grade. ... I heard about your other article coming out in Maisonneuve. Where can we get that magazine? I have never heard of it. If we cannot get the magazine up here then you should send us a couple of copies so we can read it and brag about you. Ilove you , take care, Nan!!!"

I can't reconcile this message with the woman. If I try, she's just shot an armload of statements at me, screamed her name and left the room. Nan's on cocaine. But of course that's not what she would have done in person. The medium we communicate through changes what we say; McLuhan was talking about my nan.

About a week ago Chris Richardson blogged about how blogs convince everyone of their own importance making it impossible to weed through the crap to get to what's significant. This is true to a point -- we're all famous on MySpace -- but I don't think it's a bad thing for people to think what they have to say is important. We give ourselves such credit as journalists sometimes that it's nice to have a place where we can see how real people feel about events. It's refreshing that some people once again feel important enough to offer their own version of things.

And I like that most of what hits the blogosphere is inconsequential. It gives us insight into the human world that's so easy to miss if you spend too much time reading the news.

But I didn't come here to talk about blogs, I just wanted to tell everyone email my Nan and welcome her to the Internet.

Posted by Joe Rayment at 01:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Growing up as a minister's daughter was not fun.

One of the worst things about it was the reading material. Since my dad refused to have a TV in the house, my sisters and I quickly took up reading. But because we didn't own any children's books, I would pick up my dad's seminary textbooks, flipping through endless pages of theology and doctrine at the age of 10. Talk about child abuse.

Unfortunately, my life took a jaded turn and I abandoned the Christian lifestyle altogether. Recently, I've been curious to see what I've been missing in the Canadian Christian community over the past few years. Naturally, I looked for a magazine.

After a few weeks, all I could find were American publications. Canadians had newsletters, websites and newspapers. But no magazines. My search turned into a mission. How could there be NO Canadian magazines for young adults within a topic as broad as Christianity?

The current issue of Masthead introduced Beyond Ordinary Living, a recently launched Canadian Christian magazine for adults. I picked it up at the World's Biggest Bookstore on Thursday.

The cover was boring and seemed to disappear next to any other magazine (I walked past it four times before a sales lady had to point it out to me). The layout was cheesy. The stories were feel-good. It basically sucked in every imaginable way.

My search continues, accompanied by a mounting sense of frustration. I don't believe the Christian community in Canada is neither small nor poor. So why isn't anybody capable of publishing a decent magazine??

Posted by Vanessa Rodriguez at 12:17 AM | Permalink

It's not often that I get to relate television shows to my journalistic education, unless you equate the stuck-in-a-fishbowl-boardroom-at-school thing with the marooned-on-a-flashback-inducing-island thing. So I'm pleased to tell y'all that last week on Veronica Mars (Tuesdays at 9 p.m. on the CW and SUN TV), Veronica went undercover at a sorority because her campus paper wanted her to investigate the rumours of rush week debauchery. Unfortunately, it's a kind of assignment that I'll never go on, because a) my campus doesn't have any sororities to infiltrate, and b) I think my cover will be blown much, much faster than the time it'll take for Martin Scorsese to make a movie about it.

But I digress. During the episode, Veronica discovers that the secret room isn't being used for orgies, but for growing pot. Then she finds out that the sorority's den mother has cancer, so the marijuana may be for medicinal use only. It's too late, however, because Veronica's editor is so bent on exposing institutional scandal or whatever that she ran the story, in spite of Veronica's cries of, "Can't we get a fact-checker in here?" And Veronica has a crisis of conscience and quits the paper, choosing instead to work at the library. I wish her fun in the stacks.

She didn't really object that vehemently to the story being published, though. I mean, she's Veronica Mars - if she really wanted to, she could've come up with a way to stop it from going to press. She wouldn't sit back and let her editor rewrite her article and then slap her byline on it, which is like the fourth circle of journalistic hell. And it just seems to me that investigative journalism should come easier to her, since it's very similar to her detective work. I'm just sayin', she should be used to enemies by now, since she makes a job out of digging up dirt.

Also, her undercover work was wasted - wasn't the initial goal to find out whether the sorority was in league with the campus rapist? Her editor completely forgot about that when she caught the scent of weed. I wonder how this will all figure into the season mystery...

So that was me applying J-Skool thinking to VM plot holes. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Posted by Andrea Lau at 01:36 AM | Permalink

In my media ethics class we had a discussion about how accuracy and depth is sacrificed in news reporting because of our efforts to get information out as soon as possible. The pressure to be first is even stronger in online news. There is obviously a bit of immature ego play between news organizations. Like a bunch of children, we want to be first to show we're well connected, have the best resources and are generally "cool".

My concern is this: why is it important in our culture to have information immediately? As a reader, what difference does it make to my life whether I find out some meaningless PR statement Stephen Harper made about North Korea today or a couple days from now? Personally, I would rather find out what he said a couple days from now feeling confident that the information is accurate and with more background and context to give his statement meaning. Now I know this isn't for everybody. Some people just want to read the first couple paragraphs of a news story and move on to the next because they don't have time to read more in-depth, contextual pieces. I respect this and I do this too. But I'd suggest people who do this probably read the news fairly regularly and can extrapolate meaning from the news because they are so immersed in it. I'm more concerned with the majority of the population who don't read the news. Could this be the reason they don't? It has no meaning for them? Is it not our responsibility as journalists to provide enough information so the news has meaning for the public? Following the news is a bit like following a soap opera. If you're in, you're in, but if you're not, you're lost. Instead of preaching to the already converted, we are talking to the already interested.

So I'd like to challenge journalists to write for the disinterested. The growing crisis of the relevancy of news is not going away thanks to the internet. We have a bad case of info glut. We are sick and we need to make ourselves better. Too much news spreading like a virus and we don't know how to make sense of it all.

Posted by Shereen Dindar at 10:54 AM | Permalink

For the final assignment of our Critical Issues class a few months ago, I interviewed the editor-in-chief of my local paper to see how well visible minorities were represented. I asked her about the response she gets from readers and what they complain about most in terms of coverage. To my surprise, she said most readers take offence not at the scant coverage of minorities, but at the paper's political cartoonist.

Political cartoons have long been recognized as legitimate (and controversial) forms of reporting. Cartoonists can openly display opinion and provide scathing commentaries of current events that robotically neutral journalists can't. And as best seen last year, when Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, pictures can do much more than just tell a thousand words.

Since 1922, the good people behind the Pulitzer Prize have been awarding editorial cartoonists on the basis of "a distinguished cartoon or portfolio of cartoons... characterized by originality, editorial effectiveness, quality of drawing, and pictorial effect."

Check out this year's winner, Mike Luckovich (who also won the award in 1995), and his predecessors to get an idea of the type of freedom cartoonists have in their work. And then perhaps you could all join me in throwing down the tape recorder and embracing the sketching pencils. I don't think I can draw, but it's got to be easier than writing these crazy features.

Posted by Angela Kozak at 12:06 AM | Permalink

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada announced their ruling on Heather Robertson's class action case against The Globe and Mail/The Thomson Corporation. She launched the suit way back in 1996 on the grounds of copyright violation; the Globe thought they should have complete freedom to republish freelance work from the paper in electronic databases, Robertson disagreed. Though the battle isn't finished -- the case now has to go on to trial -- the Supreme Court's ruling has big implications.

Here's what they said: "Newspaper publishers are not entitled to republish freelance articles acquired for publication in their newspapers in Info Globe Online or CPI.Q without compensating the authors and obtaining their consent."

While this is certainly good news for freelance writers, I can't help but feel that it's bad news for everyone else. Let's assume that newspaper publishers will have a hard time compensating the thousands of past freelance writers who didn't give express permission for their work to be included in these types of databases. That means a lot of freelance content is going to disappear from these sources -- important tools (especially CPI.Q) that journalists and non-journalists alike rely on when conducting research.

More significant, however, is that online databases are quickly becoming the primary archives of journalism in Canada and around the world. If the content of these databases takes a hit like this, a significant chunk of our written history will instantly become far less accessible. Does this danger not outweigh the issue of copyright?

Posted by Graham Silnicki at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

To whom this may concern,
I've been having these feelings for a long time now. I get sweaty
palms, a racing heart and butterflies just before I watch the news.
Some people are addicted to drugs or alcohol but not me. I'm addicted
to anchormen. Every night at 6 o'clock, I grab a glass of wine and
watch them work. The perfectly coiffed white hair, the Armani suits,
the expressionless story telling, the trail of white paper before them
(oh to be that blank white paper amongst my anchormen!!) How can I
stop being so interested in these mature, father-figure males? Who
doesn't trust their father wholeheartedly? I tried everything to stop
these irrational thoughts. I even tried watching The Hour with George
LongGreekName but I couldn't stand it. How can anyone take him
seriously with that youthful complexion, the dark hair and the jeans!
He's like a little brother and I can't trust him. If Lloyd or Peter
says it's true, it's true. Who are we, the public, to disagree? But
there is one man who stands alone. One man who makes makes any
anchor-lover clap with joy...Anderson Cooper. I have to wait a little
later for him and I have to endure CNN's rubbish but it's well worth
it for a little salt and pepper.

My point: Be good to your anchorman. He loves you and cares about you.
Don't let some young hot shot tell you what's making headlines. An
older anchorman by any other name would still be as trustworthy.

At 7 o'clock I have my dinner and day dream about the next time I'll
see my anchormen again. As they say, parting is such sweet sorrow but
so is watching Seinfeld reruns until Anderson comes on!

Posted by Diana Cina at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

blackfly magazine launched the "inaugural issue of Ontario's new progressive voice"--September 2006. The brainchild of Jenn Watt, a Ryerson University journalism student--blackfly is a new voice in independent media. (Available at Pages, Book City and World's Biggest Bookstore.)

Short pieces cover anti-poverty activists scoring "a major coup as city council voted to turn a major Queen Street property into social housing" in July 2006, the risks of nuclear power, and a how-to piece on requesting government files and records. One feature outlines the dire consequences of Dalton McGuinty's cutbacks to the Special Diet program--an allowance that basically enables the poor and the sick to buy organic food and supplements to deal with illnesses like hepatitis C, cirrhosis of the liver, irritable bowel syndrome, mental health conditions, etc. This monthly allowance is crucial for people who simply cannot eat the food provided at food banks because of their specific dietary requirements.

The Special Diet story struck home with me because I spend a lot of money on organic food and supplements in order to deal with health issues. I had no idea this Special Diet program even existed. This is why independent media is important--to be a watch dog for so much that is missed in the mainstream press.

On a slightly different note, but still to do with independent media, I can't let this blog go by without mentioning the death of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Politkovskaya reported on the Putin government's human rights abuses in Chechnya and social justice issues. According to BBC online, she had enemies among the business class and crime syndicates. She was found shot dead in a lift of her apartment block in Moscow on Saturday. The newspaper she worked for, Novaya Gazeta, was a small press that faced great difficulty in distribution. Our duty as journalists and the importance of independent media is underscored by people like this 48-year-old mother of two who pay the highest price for their courage to challenge people of power on behalf of the voiceless.

Posted by Meena Nallainathan at 11:49 AM | Permalink

The problem started last week. Someone asked if I’d read a particularly scathing blog and I quickly replied, “I don’t read blogs.”

That really pissed off my colleague.

You have your own website but you’re against blogs?

I’m not against them, I said. I just don’t read them. There are too many. There are too few that appeal to me. And, on a side note, my website has no blogging space.

Whenever I hear the word, blog, I think of episode 335 of The Simpsons. No, it’s not the one where Homer says, “The internet! Is that thing still around?” This episode, entitled Fraudcast news, deals with the daunting topic of media concentration. It’s the one in which Lisa starts her own newspaper and quickly finds herself in a showdown with city tyrant Mr. Burns. Maybe this is jogging your memory? Yes, it’s also the episode that ends with Smithers and Mr. B. facing an imaginary camera and praising Rubert Murdoc, owner of Fox News and a myriad of other media outlets.

My problem – and the one Lisa finds herself in at the end of the episode – is that as soon as one person creates a blog, everyone creates a blog. In The Simpsons, you have The Lenny Saver, Willie World News and dozens of others. Which is great. And certainly better than one evil CEO owning everything. But how do you navigate the news when “news” in google’s blogsearcher brings up 74-million hits? Anything from “Insight into the fetish world” to some group’s take on anything Chomsky ever said.

It’s too hard. So you read a newspaper. You pick up a magazine – probably the RRJ if you’re reading this. And you rely on its editorial team to tell you what’s going on. Now, I’m not claiming it’s a perfect world out there. Advertising plays too heavy a role in all of this as does bias and other factors. But with everyone blogging and expressing their views and opinions…are we really better off?

Maybe I'm the only one completely underwhelmed by this new technology. I'd like to see some comments on this.

Posted by Chris Richardson at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

It's a great Canadian past-time: making fun of ourselves, our celebrities and most of all, our politicians. That's why I was excited for the season premier of the Rick Mercer Report. Last Tuesday the show started its fourth season and I was happy to see Mercer's infamous rant was on a subject that had been sparked by the premier of another show. It was Monday September 25th when Steve Paikin's interview with Lord Conrad Black aired on TVO's new political analysis show The Agenda. During this interview Lord Black mentioned he was going through the regular channels in order to regain his Canadian citizenship. The next day it seemed like the media couldn't get enough of Lord Black's hunt for citizenship.

I remember feeling a bit fuddled the days following The Agenda's first show. With the war in Afghanistan, the leadership race for the Liberal party, and even the other goings on of Lord Black's court case, I wasn't quite sure how his want of Canadian citizenship made its way to the front page and an A1 spread in some papers. Do Canadians really care that much about Lord Black's citizenship status? Yes, it's news-worthy, but am I the only one who thought the proliferation of coverage was a little overboard?

Finally I found solidarity. Good old Mercer to the rescue with a shared opinion on the topic. No one does sarcasm like Mercer. It's debatable whether his show and others like it (Air Farce, This Hour Has 22 Minutes) are journalistic, but they do a good job of keeping the media, politicians, and everyone else for that matter, on their toes.

Posted by Rachel Hahn at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Just over a year ago Paul Jay, who is one of the founding folks at the monster documentary film fest Hot Docs and who brought us counterSpin on the CBC, launched the website for an ambitious new television network, Independent World Television (IWT). Jay and a slew of left-leaning journalists, activists, celebrities and other progressives from around the world have a grand vision of a network not beholden to corporate interests and advertising commitments. IWT—since re-branded as the flashier The Real News—aims to be citizen-funded journalism of the highest investigative quality.

The business plan calls for a quarter of a million people worldwide shelling out fifty bucks to the project each year, which, along with public membership campaigns and funding from various foundations will bring in enough cash to keep it all afloat. The Real News will be broadcast on the Internet and on television stations (via carriage agreements) in English speaking countries around the world and will start with a flagship daily news show. The plan is to have the proposed segments for the news show (pop culture, counterSpin-esque debate, media criticism, documentaries, religion, Africa-based news etc.) morph and grow into five hours of further programming that will round out the network in the future.

So, if you’re into the vision of an independent news network, join the likes of David Suzuki, Gore Vidal, Amy Goodman, Naomi Klein and yep, the original daytime talk show host, Mr. Phil Donahue in the campaign for “The Real News.”

And suggestions are now being accepted for “exciting individuals who won’t take spin for an answer” to anchor the show. Any ideas?

Posted by Regan Ray at 10:24 AM | Permalink

I just received Maisonneuve’s fact checking guide. Expecting a house manual from the Montreal-based mag, the email attachment led to a scanned copy of Cynthia Brouses’ A Guide to Fact Checking Magazines, copyright 2002.

This comprehensive handout can probably be traced back to a magazine fundamentals course taught by the Ryerson prof. From there, I suppose former students distribute it to hungry checkers around the city. I would know: just last summer, I left a copy of said guide for my successor at Azure. I’ve heard that The Walrus uses her handbook. And last week, students in the RRJ masthead classes received the guide to lead them to checking certainty in their features. From class, the copyrighted photocopy will surely disperse, across the city, country, even across borders. I wonder how far this little manual will wander.

Anyone who has spent time sifting through “facts” and turning them into facts, can appreciate the importance of fact checking in the editing process. But this homogeneity in checking manuals makes you wonder: is Cynthia the only person in Toronto who has put any thought into checking? Shouldn’t she receive some kind of compensation for the seemingly universal usage of her rules? If you’re reading this, and you’re guilty of using Cynthia’s guide, please come forward.

Posted by Julia Belluz at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"Journalism is just a gun that's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right you can blow the kneecaps of the World!"

This quote is not a maxim that came up during a meeting of The Committee of Concerned Journalists. It's from a comic book called Transmetropolitan written by Warren Ellis with art by Darrick Robertson. It follows a Gonzo Journalist named Spider Jerusalem as he battles the president in a war of words through his column, "I Hate it Here!" and tries to prevent his city from becoming more dystopian and consumerist than it already is. The comic looks at incidents like The Kent State University protests and the death of Matthew Sheppard, giving a scathing critique of society at large and of course criticizing George dub-yuh with his own words: "There must be limits to freedom" is used as a campaign slogan for the The City's president, "The Smiler".

Spider Jerusalem is my inspirational totem as I make my way through this mutant of the real world they call journalism school. His book offers those things we want to spit at our editors but because of civilized decorum keep to ourselves. I mean who hasn't had an explosive argument with an editor on their cell phone while sitting naked on the porcelain alter? Huh?...Yeah, you know what I'm talking about! The book embodies that back handed slap we wish we could give to corrupt corporate mongrels and accused child molesters, but don't because of that pesky thing called "journalism ethics".

When I met the artist, Darrick Robertson , he drew Spider giving me the finger with an inscription that read:" Dear Aaron, Keep it up!" So when you've just made a deadline by the skin of your teeth, or you want to bitch slap your editor I encourage you to "Keep it Up!" figuratively Speaking, and curl up in a hovel with this inspirational escapist rag---Transmetropolitan!

If you are looking for real journalism and other societal critique in comic book form, check out:

DMZ (Vertigo/DC Comics)

Joe Sacco's Cartoon Journalism

Posted by Aaron Broverman at 11:52 AM | Permalink

Home Depot will have their new shelter magazine, Eco Options, distributed throughout their stores this month. Masthead Online wrote, “The oversized, 82-page premier issue is an extension of the retailer’s “Eco Options” merchandizing strategy that flags a selection of environmentally friendly (or less damaging) products.” It's produced by Toronto’s Green Living Enterprises.

OK. I'm not a huge fan of magalogues, and I know that they carry with them many debatable qualities (Check out Sarah Hartley's RRJ feature, The Magalogue Mess). But I'm giving Home Depot some credit. Here is one of the largest home improvement retailers in the world, and they're giving their customers eco-friendly options on a silver platter.

Canadians should not require so much assistance in making the earth more sustainable, but if this magazine acts as a "manual for sustainability" for Home Depot shoppers, I don't think it's a waste of paper. A lot of people shop there. This magalogue could open up a lot of earth-friendly choices for them.

Check out the magazine online here.

Other Eco-Friendly mags:

Grist Magazine
The Ecologist
Natural Life Magazine

Posted by Paige Magarrey at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Oh, here it comes kids. Get out your bored faces and annoyed sighs ‘cause some feminist anger is headed your way. I don’t mean to be that woman, honestly. It’s just that Domestic Violence Awareness month (aka October) began with the targeting and killing of at least five girls. And September ended with another school shooting/rape targeting girls specifically.
And then tonight, CTV broke a story about a judge sexually harassing a woman applying for refugee status in Canada
And that’s just this week, just what’s been reported in national news, just major networks, just the U.S. and Canada.

Just when you thought it was safe to be a woman. You didn’t? Good thinking.

Posted by Amy Packwood at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It seems to me that one of the common habits of the magazine intern is transcribing. On the grudgework totem it's somewhere beneath fact-checking and research and at least a peg or two higher than other menial tasks such as fetching coffee. In my own brief experience I remember being given approving clucks for my wpm. (Check your own, here. See if you can beat my 88 WPM, champs.)

Of course, typing isn't a skill that'll get you much advancement beyond more typing work, and in my bleaker moments I'd fret that my BA degree would soon take on little more significance than a particularly expensive secretarial certificate. And in these black moods I'd daydream of one day having interns of my own to transcribe my scads of interviews.

I found myself in that frame of mind yesterday. I was seven hours into transcribing interviews, and patting myself on my hunched-over back for having the good sense to just take notes during the 25 odd informal interviews I conducted over the weekend for my online feature (coming soon to RRJ.ca). In a moment of procrastination, I decided to search the web for a new best friend--preferably some sort of benevolent robot who might do my transcribing for me and possibly braid my hair.

Sadly, no robots. There are however, several free software packages that claim to aid the transcribing process. Save them away for when you've got the dreaded 40 to commit to Microsoft Word.

A smattering of software**:

Express Scribe Transcription Playback Software

Transcrivia (For all you Mac nerds out there.)

Transana

**(Please note I'm actually too lazy to review each of these packages, although I'd be interested in knowing what your experience might have been with similar programs. Comment away.)

Posted by Leah Collins at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)