Before I begin reading an issue of The Walrus, I flip quickly through the pages to see if anything catches my attention. If I don't see anything particularly compelling, I go back to the field notes to warm up before the long, draining features.

In the December/January issue, a photo essay entitled "Our Weekly Bread" made me pause. It featured 15 families from around the world - each one posed with their weekly intake of nutrition. With a natural human obsession for all things edible, I stopped, read and was surprised. How sweet, a family from Kuwait, they're just like us! Oh, and how adorable - there's little Yuqi, posing with an impressive array of vegetables and soy sauce.

The essay was going along quite nicely, when all of a sudden I stopped. I stared! I couldn't believe my eyes. Could it be? A healthy, smiling, beautifully clothed African family, posed around - no, it can't be - food! Thank you Peter Menzel for finally putting a positive image of African life in the media. The Natomo Family, from Kouakourou, Mali is not an anomoly. There are millions of healthy, well-fed people in Africa, but you wouldn't know it from how the entire, diverse continent is portrayed in the media.

Certainly, Africa is not given enough coverage in Western Media. But the reporting we do read is overwhelmingly negative, and would have us believe that every single country - there are well over 50 - is in shambles. There are parts of Africa that do need help. And those countries deserve to be seen on the world stage. But for the West to have even the faintest understanding of Africa, it needs to see the continent in all of its vibrant complexity - its good as well as its bad.

The Walrus is a good place to start. It dedicates a fair bit of coverage to African issues. But, as my Great Journalism class learned yesterday from Ken Alexander, this might be due to the fact that the Editor has a background in African history.

A good friend of mine, Lisa Paul, blogged about The Walrus and Africa only two days ago. I almost changed my topic, fearing that our subject matter was too similar. But that would be doing a disservice to Canadian media - and the tiny part our rrj blogs play in it. I would print ten blogs in a row about Africa if I knew they would have the same effect on the readers as the photo of the Natomo family had on me.

Posted by Julia LeConte at 07:55 AM | Permalink

While researching for an assignment recently I came across a 2004 survey done by Pew Center for the People and the Press. This American survey examined media influences on voters during the 2004 presidential election. There were two sections I found of particular interest, "Young People Leaving Traditional Sources" and "Comedy Shows Matter." These were some of the findings:

- 21% of Americans 18 to 29 regularly learned campaign news from a comedy TV show such as The Daily Show or Saturday Night Live. In 2000 it was 9%. (note: in 2000 Politically Incorrect was listed with Saturday Night Live rather than The Daily Show)

- 29% of Americans 18 to 29 sometimes learned campaign news from a Comedy TV show.

- 23% of Americans 18 to 29 learned campaign news from network news such as CNN. In 2000 it was 39%.

- Americans 18 to 29 who said they regularly or sometimes learned about the campaign from Comedy TV shows were asked if they ever learn things that they had not heard before, and nearly half of them said they had learned something new.

- Conclusion: Comedy programs are increasingly becoming regular sources of news for younger Americans, and are beginning to rival mainstream news outlets within this generation.

So, I almost don't want to make a comment here and instead just let the stats tell the story but I have to say it - I'm disturbed. The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, Rick Mercer Report - not news! Right? Or have we fallen through some sort of rabbit hole here? Sure we can be critical of mainstream media and should be but that doesn't mean we elect Stewart our Cronkite, Mercer our Mansbridge and SNL our political-affairs programming. This isn't where you should be hearing your news for the first time. Besides I don't think these comedians are looking for the job. I was a huge fan of Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect (wrongly cancelled after 9/11) and remember during his opening monologue one night he discussed letters he received from fans saying they watch him for the news of the day. Maher was less then impressed, expressing that there's something wrong with our society if that is the case.

Admittedly I'm far from a Daily Show junky but my understanding is that it is a funny show that can be insightful and informative and is on at 11 o'clock but it's not the 11 o'clock news. Right?

See the Pew Center survey by clicking here.

Posted by Shannon Wilmot at 11:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thank you Gerald Caplan for articulating something that has been on my mind. His article, "The Conspiracy Against Africa," appears in the November issue of the Walrus. A good friend of mine, who moved to Toronto four years ago from Uganda and is studying journalism at Ryerson, has often talked to me about this very topic - the West's failure to step up and identify itself as a major contributor to Africa's problems, and even worse, continually adopting an overly paternalistic approach to fixing the continent, as though Africa is incapable.

Sadly though, I fear the article's place in the Walrus means it's only preaching to the converted or at least the already aware. This fear was confirmed when I came across a critique of Caplan's piece following the article's online version (see the link above for the full comment). An anonymous person calls the piece, "utterly vapid; devoid of any shread of new insight. Masquerading, unsucessfully I might add, as important, urgent and interesting." (how can we take them seriously when they spell unsuccessfully and shred wrong?).

I don't intend to argue this, although I would like to say the issue is in fact terribly important, urgent and interesting. The point I would like to make relates to why the issue has been on my mind. An acquaintance of mine, not from Uganda, went on a 20-minute rant a few weeks ago about how he is sick of hearing about poor Africa and sick of Canada's money going to help a continent that can't or won't help itself. Interestingly, he knows nothing of the intricacies of Africa, but relies on bits and pieces of negative news in the papers. I should back track for a minute - we were talking about Africa because I spent some time in Tanzania this summer working for a newspaper. I think the said acquaintance's rant illustrates the importance of Caplan's article. Maybe the intellectual elite of Canada considers the information old, but some people out there could obviously benefit from reading it. Unfortunatley those people probably never pick up the Walrus. I'll be sending the link to that acquaitance of mine...

Here are some made-in-African news sites to check out, including the Tanzanian paper I worked at:
AllAfrica.com
AfricaDaily.com
The Guardian
the Arusha Times

Posted by Lisa Paul at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's difficult to look at how technology is affecting us today without sounding as though you're a senior citizen decrying the rapid pace of change. But the blogosphere -- and all the opportunities it affords for us to rant, vent and blaspheme about the state of everything -- still manages to blow my mind.

Take, for instance, the current liberal leadership race. The Globe and Mail outed an anonymous blogger who has been posting pro-Bob Rae and anti-Michael Ignatieff messages on the Internet. The source of the blogs was tracked down to a Montreal advertising firm called BCP, who designed buttons, posters and t-shirts for Rae's campaign, leading many to suggest that the online smear-campaigning is coming from within Rae's camp. "Skip" - as the blogger is called on the Dissension Delivered website - posted negative remarks against Ignatieff, such as "vote for him at your peril."

I appreciate a space for open commentary, however "Skip" seems to have been scared off after being outed by the Globe. After reading the piece in Saturday's paper, I logged onto the Dissension Delivered website and found that it had been closed down. I suppose if the blog is coming from Rae's own camp, than censoring it is the right thing to do. But it also leads me to ask: what ever happened to a little thing called freedom of speech?

Here are a selection of interesting blogs that are still in action and are following the twists and turns of the ever-exciting Liberal leadership race:

www.altavistagoogle.blogspot.com
www.towardsajustsociety.blogspot.com
www.indiescribe.com
www.liblogs.ca
www.liberalleadership06.blogspot.com

Posted by Jennifer Paterson at 12:58 AM | Permalink

I can't sleep. And it's not the stress of the RRJ keeping me up at night; nor is it the several cups of coffee I consume daily. I'm haunted by the grave sites of the Canadian soldiers lost in Afghanistan. A month ago I travelled to Ottawa for my feature, and after a day of shadowing Ottawa Citizen photographer, Wayne Cuddington, he suggested that he take me on a mini tour of the city before I caught my train back to Toronto. He took me past the Parliament buildings, 24 Sussex Drive, and the stables of the RCMP's musical ride. But it's our last destination, the National Military Cemetery that has me unable to sleep.

In 2002, I was scared when I read Canadian soldiers had landed in Afghanistan. And I was disturbed months later when I heard four of our soldiers had been killed by "friendly fire." A month ago I realized that even though our soldiers are still over there, my reaction had faded. Hearing about the horrid events occurring in Afghanistan and in Iraq became routine for me -- not to say I wasn't saddened by these stories. But that was the extent of my grief. I was sad for those two minutes it took me to read or watch the story, but after the story was over I was back to thinking about my own life -- what shoes I would wear to a party, the paper due the next day, and what I would have for lunch. You know the important things.

All this changed October 27th. Standing in front of the freshly covered grave of Pte. Blake Williamson (a name I had probably read in a paper, but didn't remember), I was overwhelmed with grief. His grave stone said he was only 23. As we walked past the other graves, Cuddington, who photographed their funerals, told me about their
families -- their wives, their parents, their children. For years I've been watching journalists decked out in army gear report from Afghanistan, but for the first time the stories seemed real.

Back in Toronto, I'm still haunted by Williamson dying in combat so young. This brings me to the question: What can reporters do to evoke some of these feelings in their readers? How can they change their stories to have more of an impact so Canadians never get used to the events taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq? I don't have the answers. If I did, maybe I could sleep.

Posted by Dayna Dayus at 01:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It's that time of year again.

No, not Christmas. Or Hanukkah. Or Kwanzaa. It's summer internship time - a time of great existential crises for graduating students.

So far, the big three gigs - the Star, the Globe and the Post - have accepted all their applications. Coming up in the new year is Maclean's, and in between is all host of other possibilities.

As a student in fourth year, this is the big time. The convention is that students need to land a job and start working their way up the journalism ladder - which, to be more accurate, is more like snakes and ladders.

I have so far been lucky in landing summer jobs, and I've never started thinking about it until March. But I can't anymore. From perfecting my resume to trying to actually write a creative cover letter, the application experience is taking up a lot of my time. As a result, I've spent more time thinking about my future career as a journalist. And I know my colleagues have too. Hello existential crisis.

As we are all aware, journalism is not a particularly lucrative industry. And it's becoming less and less stable. Every year, a few of my classmates have given up on the whole idea - either by dropping out or, when that was no longer practical, sticking it out and planning for grad school.

I don't know where I am going with this, and likely I am experiencing the confusion and uncertainty of any soon-to-be graduate. What I have concluded is that the application process is stressful and at times feels useless - but it is a great way to find out how much I want to be a journalist. So, now I am immeresed in the process of selling myself to any editor who will take me.

I am not sure if it is worth the price. But, as Soren Kierkegaard said: "During the first period of a man's (or women's) life the greatest danger is not to take the risk."

I love the Danes.

P.S. Since Dana opened up the whole video with the blog thing, here's some guy who might help people with upcoming interviews.

Posted by John Mather at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I am writing this blog entry from New York City. The Mecca of Western journalism, as far as I'm concerned. Arguably the best newspaper in the English language is based here, (the New York Times) the best source for long-form journalism, (The New Yorker) one of the best city magazines, (New York) as well as being the home of many famous past and present journalists that set the standards for what is done today. This doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that many major and influential broadcast stations are based here, etc. etc. ad nauseum. We all aspire (even secretly) to be accepted by the city that has birthed such greatness. (The way a Canadian singer hasn't really 'made it' if they aren't popular in the U.S.). How many huge news stories come from here too? UN meetings, global business mergers, and of course 9/11 are all set against the backdrop of this city. Can this much great journalism only come from such a great city? Is it the city itself that creates the environment that makes this journalistic work possible? Perhaps. Or perhaps that is just the view from a naive Canadian journalism student looking at New York from the outside looking in. Is it the mythic status of the city that is a draw for great minds, and is it this act that simply perpetuates all these ideas? I must say I've thought it would be nice to be the next Malcolm Gladwell (small town Ontario boy who makes it in the Big Apple). Or can the production of such great journalistic work be a result of so many important things happening within such a small geographic area filled with so many creative minds? What paper would any of us rather write for than the Times? What is a higher forum for magazine writing than the New Yorker? It seems as though the city breeds the best of journalism in every medium. And maybe it's because of these dreams of stardom, like a singer's dreams of a Broadway stage, that lure people away from Canada and away from Canadian news outlets. (Why doesn't Malcolm write for the Walrus?)
Maybe I'm nothing but a name-dropping, wide-eyed, young journalist that sees New York as a place to actually make it 'big' in journalism- to make a name for yourself and make some money. Whatever your opinion is, it's a hell of a town.

Posted by David Pratt at 12:02 AM | Permalink

Google knows where you live, what you buy, listen to, read, watch and wear. One day, it might provide it all for you.

Epic2014, a documentary made in 2004 by Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson, predicts the quiet death of journalism. Right now, GoogleNewsis edited entirely by computers, prompting the film's possible-future to read; "the News Wars of 2010 are notable for the fact that no actual news organizations take part." Epic 2014 imagines Googlezon--Google's 'unparalleled search technology' paired with Amazon, the 'store that makes suggestions' with their limitless commercial reach--and it's stealthy and effective takeover of the way we digest the world.

A year later the pair released an update called Epic2015 to draw more lines between Google-as-Big-Brother and the all-encompassing fictional EPIC, a service the film says would render traditional news sources an obsolete 'afterthought.'

"The 'Evolving Personalized Information Construct' is the system by which our sprawling, chaotic mediascape is filtered, ordered and delivered. Everyone contributes now--from blog entries, to phone-cam images, to video reports, to full investigations. Many people get paid too--a tiny cut of Googlezon's immense advertising revenue, proportional to the popularity of their contributions.

Epic produces a custom contents package for each user, using his choices, his consumption habits, his interests, his demographics, his social network--to shape the product.

A new generation of freelance editors has sprung up, people who sell their ability to connect, filter and prioritize the contents of EPIC." -EPIC2014

The film ends when, without debate or talk of ethics, The New York Times loses a lawsuit against Big Google and goes offline; "in feeble protest to Google hegemony, the New York Times has become a print-only newsletter for the elite and elderly."

Will this be what the death of journalism looks like? If they decide to make an Epic2016, they'll have to amend a few of their predictions to include the rise (and Google acquisition of) social network religions like MySpace and YouTube. It doesn't end there. Now history can be written and edited by Wikipedia . News can be amassed, filtered and delivered directly through blogs and amateur video.

But it doesn't have to end this way, according to a modest proposal from the Atlantic Monthly. Michael Hirschorn suggests that newspapers should take advantage of the web the same way Google has; creating customized news based on your readers' personal interests. Why just publish one story, he asks, when you could give the reader the whole package? He describes the pioneer territory Associated Press is exploring:

[AP] recently signed a potentially breakthrough deal with Google, in which Google will pay the AP for access to its stories; and the AP has launched a broadband player that Web sites can use to access AP video content. Its content goes where the readers are, and the AP gets paid, no matter what.

AP isn't the only company seeing web potential. Two American examples illustrate a new strategy newspapers can use to battle sagging circ and the flight of advertisers to the web; join (and profit from) the competition, because it's only going to get bigger:

-Two top Washington Post politics reporters quit their jobs to create what one media blogger calls "a sort of one-stop shopping for your political news and coverage online." It will piggyback on CBS.
-Seven news organizations, including the Times and 175 other dailies, partner with Yahoo to share "content, advertising and technology."

It's David vs. Goliath, but nothing is bringing the Google giant down. Where does that leave the journalists? Employers will covet 'ability to repurpose' as a resume must-have. News will be multi-faceted and ever-changing; research brought to you by Globe and Mail, video by CBC, advertising by Google...all custom-tailored by you, the reader.

If you're not quite ready to join the ranks yet, there is at least one way newspapers can take advantage of a Google-saturated world, virtually cost-free (assuming you don't value "wit, irony, humour or stylish writing.")

Read about it at the Times, while they're still around.

Posted by Dana Lacey at 01:04 AM | Permalink

"Did Cruise have growth spurt on the big day?" sneered the headline on the front page of the Toronto Star yesterday. A noticeably taller Tom Cruise poses with his lovely new bride. Far be it for me to deny the readers of Toronto their fun... I just feel sorry for poor Tom, or not. The writer uses him as a news hook for her feature that explores the world of shoe lifts. What better way to cut a celebrity down to size?

And on page two: Michael Richards, the actor who played Kramer on Seinfeld, apologizes publicly on The Late Show With David Letterman for spewing the N-word at hecklers in comedy club. Richards joins the illustrious ranks of "Other Celebrities Berating Badly" in the sidebar, including Mel Gibson and Paris Hilton. Now that's just pathetic... but at least it's news, or not.

P.S. See how the pros do it. Here's a story about a Tomkat photos from my favorite celeb gossip site, Lainey's Entertainment Update.

Posted by Gena Smith at 09:07 AM | Permalink

Yes, I love free things. Free samples, free food, free music, you name it - I'm there. However, when I was given free passes to see the Dixie Chicks documentary, I hesitated. For starters, I'm not an avid country music fan. A second later I decided for it, since I appreciate any artists who actually play their own instruments and I knew my roommates (hardcore country lovers) would want to go.

Shut Up and Sing is based around the Dixie Chicks's infamous show at Shepherds Bush Empire in London back in 2003. It's when lead singer Natalie Maines said 15 words that changed their careers. "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

It started as harmless banter, to get a quick reaction from the crowd, but it wound up spinning ridiculously out of control. After Maines was quoted online, a huge backlash started back home. They were banned, boycotted, received death threats and became a huge media frenzy. (So much for freedom of speech!)

I didn't see it coming, but I walked out of the theatre liking the Dixie Chicks. (As people or as musicians? I have yet to decide.) I was also instilled with a newfound sense of fear about how easily something we say (or write) can spin out of control.

P.S.: I'd like to send out my gratitude to Rogers for suspending my Internet connection for an entire week (smack in the middle of one of the busiest weeks of school, no less) and for charging me, even though I didn't receive their services. Many thanks.

Posted by Ann Ruppenstein at 11:11 AM | Permalink

As we all know, the interview is a complicated and delicate art.

We worry about asking the right questions, then listening carefully to the answers. We scribble subtle details on our notepads and think about what to say next -- all while making sure the tape recorder is still rolling.

A few days ago, I had an interesting conversation with a colleague. She was worried about an interview she had with one of the main characters in her story. She feared one of her questions may have revealed too much to the subject, thereby changing the course of future interviews and ultimately her story. This led to a discussion about a bigger question: How do journalists themselves alter the story they're reporting, just by reporting it?

Our conclusion was how can we not? The fact that there is a reporter interested in what is happening somewhere, at some time, affects the story. People act differently when they know someone is watching them, especially if it's the media. The questions we decide to ask, and when, and how we ask them also change the story.

This post is also influenced by someone whose work we've been reading in Great Journalism class: Hunter S. Thompson. Thompson didn't just report on what was going on, he often contributed to the action himself. I know not everyone is a future Hunter S. (although I'm sure many a reporter has considered some of his methods to liven up a dull story), but even without such extreme involvement, can we believe we are not affecting the natural course of a story by simply being journalists?

Posted by Erin Tandy at 11:08 AM | Permalink

Journalists are a lot closer to celebrity than one might think. Like actors or fashion designers, our names are what we sell. A movie that stars Brad Pitt, no matter how bad, will undoubtedly find an audience. That Prada bag is puke-green but hey, it's Prada. And does that byline say Hunter S. Thompson? References to speed be damned, we'll print it.

It's not something you immediately realize on your first day of journalism school. When you're just starting out, you'll write anything for anybody. All you want is someone who actually wants you to write in the first place, and, of course to see your name in print. But how much of that is going to come back and bite you in the ass later?

If I've written about entertainment or "fluff," as some may call it, does that mean I've lost all hope of being taken seriously? Sorry, fangirl, no politics for you! And with the wonders of the Internet now, I can only imagine how easy it would be to find every article I've ever written, which, by the way, can be embarassing for other reasons. (No one should be subjected to reading anything I wrote six months ago, not to mention four years ago.)

The point is - as much as I dream of having a recognizable, household name because my writing is just that awesome, I'm also a little wary. And for the first time, I think I might actually understand why some celebrities go a little psycho. No one wants to get typecast. So I get you, Ben Affleck. I get you.

Posted by Jennifer Fong at 01:16 AM | Permalink

Why would anyone EVER tell anyone anything "off the record?"

In one of my classes last week we debated what we would do if someone gave us some pretty juicy material for a story: the only catch was we couldn't tell anyone. I'm sure this same situation has been happening to most of us while writing our RRJ features. So this begs the question, why say it in the first place?

Most will probably say that they want you to find the information elsewhere or at least have it for background/general knowledge. But we pick sources for a reason. They are the authorities on the subject and sometimes a comment isn't quite juicy UNLESS it's coming from them. Coming from anyone else it may just sound like some crazy conspiracy theory or drunken rambling.

But let's move on for a minute. Because whatever their reason for spilling, most of us are pretty grateful. But what to do with that precious info? Here comes the reason I'd never, ever pull the "off the record" card: there were a couple students in class, future journalists, who waved their metaphorical hands at the "off the record" agreement. They'd publish any material. Their argument? You're talking to a journalist. You know the nature of their profession. They're not here to make friends.

While most of us aren't so cut throat...we'll there's always one who is. And with my luck I'd end up talking to them if I were ever interviewed.

Posted by Amanda Pereira at 01:49 PM | Permalink

Yesterday Ripplewood Holdings Inc. bought Readers' Digest for $2.4 billion.

For years, Reader's Digest was the only magazine delivered to my house. And to this day I can't remember ever reading an article. It constantly surprises me when it shows up on newsstands. "Didn't they go under?" And when I see it again the next month, "Who the hell reads this?"

Reader's Digest reaches an obscure niche market of 7.2 million people. One-quarter of Canada. I'm out of touch.

With the exception of Dana Lacey, who's reporting on it for the RRJ's summer issue, no one I know reads Reader's Digest. Or at least of the people I see on a day-to-day basis: journalist and academic types. Writers. My mom reads it though. My aunts, uncles and both sets of grandparents all read it. I assume the trend stretched beyond them.

I had an article in Maisonneuve this fall. It's a magazine I read regularly so I was happy with the accomplishment. A handful of friends from school congratulated me unprompted having come across it on their own. When my mom told all my relatives they came back with the same answer: "What's a Maisonneuve." She visited all Midland's magazine racks and couldn't find a single copy. She went to the town next to it and had a similar experience. About a month after the magazine came out she drove 45 minutes, picked up a stack of reserved copies and proceeded to hand them out to family members. The Rayment Family Distribution Network.

I'm going to start encouraging people to write for Reader's Digest. To write well for it. I think getting high-hifalutin "artistes" to write on topics that interest and reach the larger Canadian public, in a way that they'll want to read it, can only help the country. And I think forcing writers to write for people other than ourselves can't hurt either.

Links: FolioMag.com - Reader's Digest Agrees to be Sold in Biggest Consumer Deal of the Year.
Canadian Magazines blog - Reader's Digest sold for $2.4 billion,
The big dogs muscle in with PMB results.

Posted by Joe Rayment at 09:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This past Sunday a public memorial took place for Sid Adilman, one of the oldest Toronto Star entertainment writers who passed away on October 14th at the age of 68. He died of heart failure in his Toronto home. An obit published at Variety.com reads in part, "Adilman was an enthusiastic champion of Canadian movies, books, music and television. He spent most of his professional life as writer, critic, columnist and, from 1986 to 1991, entertainment editor for the Toronto Star. He also served as a correspondent and Canadian editor for Variety from 1965 to the late 1980s."

Adilman was one of the last entertainment reporters who lived and worked in an era where celebrity journalism was not a joke to the profession, and entertainment reporters got much deeper than the red carpet "How does it feel??" questions.

In last night's The Hour, George Stromboloupoulous and Wendy Mesley (host of new CBC show The Underdog) hung out at a newsstand and made fun of magazine celebrity reporting. George asked if she ever felt like saying, "God, I just want to talk about somebody's divorce . . ." Mesley didn't even pause. Her answer: "No."

Last night I asked David Giammarco of etalk whether entertainment reporting could ever go back to the "good old days." He said, "I'm hoping it will turn around because I think people may get sick of constantly reading about Paris Hilton."

Here's hoping.

Posted by Vanessa Rodriguez at 03:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I don't remember how to write fiction anymore.

Or it's gotten harder, ever since I came to J-Skool. It's worrisome. In first year, I could be heard loudly bemoaning the course restrictions that prevented us from taking creative writing classes, but now our English prof tells us to make shit up in the style of our favourite literary journalist and I can't for the life of me lie on paper.

Problem is, I've been making shit up since the fourth grade. ("Oh yes, she was a regular little Stephen Glass.") But somewhere along the way I found out that it's not really lucrative - it takes a lot of luck to make shit up for a living, and my name ain't Hunter S, so... moving on to Plan B. Novelists lie for a living, but journalists tell the truth, right? Interestingly enough, good ol' Hunter said of gonzo: "It is a style of 'reporting' based on William Faulkner's idea that the best fiction is far more true than any kind of journalism - and the best journalists have always known this." Amigo, I don't think I have the balls to go gonzo like you, because it seems to involve going completely batfuck apeshit insane, but you have reassured me that journalism does not kill the imagination dead, so cheers.

It's not just the shadow of facts that haunt me - lately, I just have a hard time writing about things I haven't experienced firsthand. But if anything, I still talk like a fiction writer; case in point: after my apocalyptic attempt at a first draft, I went around telling people I had to kill three characters to lower my word count.

I was going to make this beautiful analogy about the reporter with her notebook and the dreamer with her canvas, but it's late, and I have to wake up in less than five hours (Twisted Jesus!) to go to class and hear more about Hunter, so just take my word for it. I'm telling the truth.

Posted by Andrea Lau at 01:45 AM | Permalink

My first blog entry on October 14th suggested we, journalists, are not as important as we think we are. I poo poo on us every once in awhile because I don't think we should be comfortable with mediocrity. But we need to have our egos stroked every now and then. So here is an example of why journalists are important.

Check out Sex Crimes and the Vatican, a BBC documentary aired on CBC The Passionate Eye. It's a compelling look at the systematic cover-up of bishop pedophiles in the Catholic Church. BBC journalist Colm O'Gorman tells us how bishops accused of sexual assault are moved from one area to another by the church to avoid accountability. The sad truth is the pope is fully responsible because he protects the pedophiles from legal recourse and makes his members swear to secrecy if sexual assault allegations are made.

So yes, we are damn important. We serve as watchdogs, but not only that, O'Gorman proves that journalists don't have to be objective and emotionally detached from the issues they cover in order to be effective. At one point, O'Gorman sits down on a curb in an impoverished area of Brazil where a bishop sexually assaulted a little boy and cries while he tries to comprehend the church's actions. It's a perfect example of how a journalist's emotional attachment to a story drove it forward and arguably improved it.

Cheers to that.

Posted by Shereen Dindar at 08:06 AM | Permalink

I spent the last few days in New York City, doing all the usual NYC-type stuff, with one notable exception. On Friday I trekked to the Brooklyn Museum of Art to see their "Annie Leibovitz: A Photographer's Life, 1990-2005" exhibition.

This blog will be far from objective; I'm an unabashed Leibovitz fan. She calls herself a portrait photographer, and is most famous for her photos of celebrities that have been published in Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, and many, many books. But what's interesting is the way she poses them. John Lennon curls around Yoko Ono, Jack White throws knives at Meg, Whoopi laughs in a milk-filled bathtub.

In all, 197 of Leibovitz's photos were on display at the museum. Personal photos were interspersed with the celebrity portraits - I saw photographs of Leibovitz's parents, children and siblings at various parts in their lives; her partner, the writer Susan Sontag, and her travels around the world. Her works as a photojournalist were, of course, impressive. There was this one, taken in Sarajevo immediately after a teenage boy was killed while riding his bicycle. The most striking is a photo she took in Rwanda after the genocide. It shows a yellow wall in an elementary school covered with blood from a massacre there. Incidentally, a few photos down was a portrait of Brad Pitt lying in bed in Nevada.

My Leibovitz fangirl-ism is nothing new. According to Vanity Fair, the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery ran out of toilet paper and paper towels during her show there. Unforunately "A Photographer's Life" won't be traveling to the AGO. Class trip to Brooklyn, perhaps?

Posted by Angela Kozak at 09:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When the Canadian Press launched their redesigned website last month, there was a prominent, main-page addition alongside the sleek new black-grey-blue layout. Called "Did we get it right?" the feature allows readers to provide direct feedback on CP's editorial content by way of phone, e-mail or online form.

It's not exactly a groundbreaking development for news media in general, but when it comes to wire services, no one else is taking such obvious steps to ensure the accuracy of their work. Considering the fact that the work of news agencies is consumed by readers indirectly, it's especially important for them to create easily accessible feedback channels; the newspapers, websites, and broadcasters who distribute CP material don't exactly list the organization's contact information in their credits or on their masthead page.

As readers become more and more accustomed to having an open dialogue with news outlets (you can give a big thanks to "citizen journalism" for that), traditional providers will have to evolve and expand their accessibility. Hopefully more will follow CP's lead of offering access front-and-centre, instead of burying it behind a dozen click-throughs of "Contact Us" pages.

Posted by Graham Silnicki at 02:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I've been doing a lot of research on humour journalism (but I can't tell you why..it's a surprise) and one of the issues that has come up is the gender divide in male and female humour for magazines, specifically. Men and women are different and that's no shocker. We all discovered this when boys in grade 2 would shove pencils and glue up their noses while the girls would look over, annoyed, while they changed the diaper on their doll. All of the obvious aside, it doesn't mean we can't take a good joke. Flip through any women's magazine and you will find a cute, "funny" story about a woman who forgot to wear mascara to work and was "simply mortified" the rest of the day. Not that that can't be endearing but come on. Bring it on suckers! Pick up any issue of Maxim or Toro and you will find the most biting humour and satire. And even some potty humour. But guess what, women like that stuff too. Some of my best friends could shock any self proclaimed rude crude dude. So that's not the problem. And it's quite obvious that women are savvy to political satire. So that's not the problem either. Are we destined to be divided by the humour bathroom and with our heads lowered, enter the W or M door for a slice of funny? We're better than this, people. Let's bridge this gap. I'll get the ball rolling: shit, crap, pee, fart, bum, burp, vomit and...genitals.

Posted by Diana Cina at 08:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

In the chaos of journalism school, I think it is easy to forget the freedoms we take for granted in entering this profession.

I was fortunate enough to attend the 2006 International Press Freedom Awards gala last week (thanks to the fact that Ryerson University bought a table this year) hosted by Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. CJFE honoured Abeer Al-askary, a journalist from Egypt who has been systematically persecuted for reporting on state security officers within the Ministry of Interior who have supervised torture against activists and prisoners. Hollman Morris, a journalist from Colombia, was also honoured. Morris has faced persecution, death threats, smear campaigns and attacks for reporting on victims of a conflict that involves paramilitaries, guerrilla groups, drug traffickers and state officials.

Al-askary started to cry when she accepted her award; she took a moment to compose herself, and spoke a few words. She was emphatic as she said that these awards were not being given to them because they had been beaten and tortured, but because they report on the truth. Morris spoke passionately and poetically through a translator. He cried when he talked about the price his family has paid--Morris had to live in exile in Spain for a while, and is now back in Colombia.

As journalism students we are here in school because we are compelled to be writers, because we hope our stories will make a difference. Right now, we only have to ask ourselves what are we willing to give up in order to write a good feature for the Ryerson Review of Journalism.

At the end of Morris's acceptance speech he said that he continued to do what he does because of all the stories recorded on his notepad, tape recorder and film from his TV camera--because his sources had to be brave to come forward with their stories, he owes it to them.

Posted by Meena Nallainathan at 08:56 AM | Permalink

A few weeks have passed since the World Press Photo exhibit was held at BCE Place in Toronto. It was an incredible collection of photojournalism from around the globe and an inspiration to any photographer at heart. Since then, I've been trying to fill the void by reviewing a few photojournalism sites on the net. I thought I should share some of my findings:

fotophile is a great all around source. It compiles photography links to many places. But, in itself, the site doesn't have many photos.

Agence France Press is probably the best of the news agencies. I'm not sure why, but Europeans tend to value images more highly than we North Americans do. Their automatic slideshow is one of my favourite places to go when I have five minutes.

The Globe and Mail's "day in pictures" provides a great visual summary of the day's events. It's available with a click on their home page and works well as a reminder of notable things that went on during the last 24 hours.

Lastly, the World Picture Network never fails to put a memorable image on its homepage with many of the day's top media events covered by one of the their many talented photographers. They use "lightboxes" (little pop-up menus with images) that capture the best photos of each event covered.

If you have more, please leave the addresses with your comments. And don't forget to give your eyes something to look at after having them scan text all day.

Posted by Chris Richardson at 12:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Every year, the RRJ hits up journalists and fellow students alike for cash. What is this cash for you ask? Well, we like to put fancy things into our magazine each year, like colour, and pages 11 +.

Last night we had one of our annual fundraising events. In fact, I'm not going to lie, I just got home from it.

It was a tribute to Truman Capote's Black and White Ball, aka, the party of the century.

Basically, if you weren't there you missed out on a lot my friends. Randy Boyagoda read from his Giller long-listed novel Governor of the Northern Province. Also, Edward Keenan read from a very R rated work of fiction involving Bingo and pubic hair. Seriously. You think it's making you uncomfortable to read this? Just imagine hearing about it with your mother in the room. That's right, my mom was there.

Oh, and we had lovely prizes. My room mate won an one year subscription to This magazine, so I'm excited.

Did I mention that the whole thing was CATERED by Dish? No? Well it was. And can I just say: yummy.

Thank you to the fundraising committee. It would not be possible without you. Thank you to all our donators who gave us lovely and extravagant prizes to raffle off. Thank you to The Social for having us. And thank-you to everyone who came. What a good party eh?

I have the hiccups.

Posted by Rachel Hahn at 03:00 AM | Permalink

Those who don't know Daniel Johnston--an American songwriter and musician who made a name for himself in the Austin, Texas music scene in the mid-80s--personally, now know the details of his life through the story told by filmmaker Jeff Feuerzeig. I rented "The Devil and Daniel Johnston" the other night. Watching the documentary film of Johnston's strange, sad life made me think about the responsibility that journalists and documentary filmmakers take on when they produce or write profiles.

Attempting to record even a fraction of a life, one experienced only briefly from the bizarre, outside perspective of a documentarian, is quite a task. And one that should be taken seriously. Johnston lives a semi-public existence. He's obsessive about music and has gained a certain career status with nods from bands like Sonic Youth, Wilco and David Bowie. He is manic-depressive and this complicates his life and the life of his family. Feuerzieg clearly has a lot of respect for Johnston and the film is frank and fantastically put together. But the fact that this version of Johnston's life is one that will stick around after both men are gone, has to weigh heavily on the filmmaker.

I think most people love the glimpse into an unknown life that a really good profile--written or otherwise--can provide. There's nothing like sinking into the details and oddities, extreme or mundane, of an unfamiliar life. The New Yorker's profiles are so popular that they've been compiled into a couple of different books. But as a journalist, the power of a profile can, and should, be a huge burden to carry.

Posted by Regan Ray at 12:31 AM | Permalink

Muckraking, dirt digging, dogged reporters: go to London! You might not know it, but a landmark House of Lords session (Jameel vs. Wall Street Journal Europe) recently freed journalists in the UK from libel threat. And that journalism watchdog, Ivor Shapiro, pointed out that the Canadian media didn't even cover the case. Perhaps Canada doesn't want to lose its top reporters to the motherland.

The ruling said that if a journalist can prove she reported fairly and responsibly with public interest in mind, she may publish allegations about even the most powerful public follk--even if she is not completely sure of the veracity of the claims. So, if you have a really well informed hunch that you can prove, nothing shall stop you from reporting the truth as you discovered it.

So I challenge you: if this law was implemented in Canada, and you were free of libel tyranny, which public figure would you most like to rake the muck after (bearing in mind you still need to do serious, investigative, truthful, accountable journalism)?

Posted by Julia Belluz at 09:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood"-Robert Frost

Two people each choose the same path independent of, and with no knowledge of, one another only to find out they share a deeper connection by happenstance. This is not the latest episode of Six Degrees. This is my life. My father's friend, Winnipeg rock radio legend, Howard Manchine was reading The National Post and happened across a theatre column by one enterprising young journalist named Alison Broverman. Of course, Dad called on me to investigate. After reading her blog column "Theatre Eaters" and reading a few articles ( After all, I'm not going to make contact with someone who has my last name if they can't write well.) I set about making contact. This was too wierd, not only did this person pick my same career path, but she too was interested in Arts & Entertainment journalism. Soon the rabbit hole goes deeper as I find out she is a staff member on the Torontoist online magazine. Just to recap: She is a journalist, she writes Arts & Entertainment and now she lives in Toronto! Well, this was definetly something worth pursuing. ( If it weren't for the last name, any reasonable person would say first date material.) Now that you have that visual, let me present my first foray in geneology:

Subject: No, your not emailing yourself

Hi Alison,
>
> I am a journalism student at Ryerson University in
> my final year of the magazine stream. My father's
> friend informed me of your existence and so the
> inevitable question was, how many Broverman's are
> there in the world and it could it be possible that
> I'm not related to some of them? The second answer
> is probably, "no" so that means I'm probably some
> how related to you somehow. I knew about you for a
> couple of weeks and didn't do anything about it,
> until I was interviewing Barbara "Quebecistan" Kay
> today and she made a comment about the Braverman's
> coming off the boat and the immigration officer
> replacing half of our names with "O's". I then told
> her that there was someone named Alison Broverman
> working at the post and she had never heard of you.
> That's what brings me here. I can't help, but
> recognize the irony of two journalists named
> Broverman independently making the decision to
> become journalists without knowing about each other.
>
> If you know definitively if I am some long lost
> relative, or if you remember me from some bygone day
> let me know.
>
> Keep in touch,
>
> Aaron Broverman

son of Morton Broverman
>
> grandson of Hy Broverman

She then wrote back:

Hi Aaron,

If I had a nickel for every time some Broverman or
other contacted me like this...well, I'd only have the
one nickel.

We are definitely cousins, third, I think. Our
grandfathers were brothers - my grampa was William
Broverman. My dad is your dad's first cousin, Sam. I
remember meeting your grandpa Hy a few times in
Winnipeg, and my dad is in pretty regular contact with
his (and your dad's) cousins Colleen and Layton.

It is a funny coincidence, though. Are you enjoying
the program at Ryerson? We should grab a coffee
sometime and dish about Brovermans.

Alison

Mystery solved. God connects two long lost relatives, and to think I would've never been told about her had I not been taking journalism and I would never have the chance of meeting her had I not been in Toronto at this moment.

Coincidence? No such thing!

I think I'm going to take her up on that coffee now...

Next Month's Entry: Preparing for the Middle East--Look for it Dec. 5th

Posted by Aaron Broverman at 03:08 PM | Permalink

My sister is in town this weekend, visiting from Windsor. Her visit has become somewhat of a yearly tradition, always landing in that stretch of time between the end of summer and Christmas. What has also become a yearly tradition is her obsession with the number of free newspapers you can get on every street corner across the city.
Plus, the commuter papers in the subways.

She's amazed by the amount of free news that is available to me, that I don't read. As we walk around the city, she diligently picks up Now, Eye Weekly, Metro, and any other publication the street corners have to offer.

It was nice - it gives me a fresh look at the amount of free dailies and weeklies that are available to us. After years of being around them, you definitely start to take for granted that they're around.

Just something to think about as you're wandering the city this weekend.

Posted by Paige Magarrey at 10:50 AM | Permalink

Dear George and Bess,

Hello from Cornwall, Ontario!

I took the roadster for a spin to get a break from Ned and from that whole girl detective scene but wouldn't you know it? Mystery just seems to follow me! I stopped in this little town for a break ( I'd been driving for over twelve hours. Imagine!) and came acrosse the most curious scene in a coffee shop.

Here's what I've uncoverd:

A Mr. David Marshall was mentioned in three major dailies yesterday. The Globe and Mail focused on the money he'd lost that day ($90K thanks to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's decision to tax income trusts), the Toronto Star played up his blue collar retiree status (Marshall is a retired truck driver) and the National Post focused on his party swinging voting record (usually a Liberal, Marshall switched his vote to the Conservatives last election in order to keep his trusts tax-free).

So who the hell is David Marshall (Pardon my French, Bess but you know how I get when I'm on a case)?

Is he the person who stands to lose the most because of this new tax plan? Surely not. Even in Canada $90K is not an astronomical sum of money.

Is he the man worked the hardest only to be beaten by the system yet again? No.

So why would all these papers use the same person? Why would all of them send photographers to Mr. Marshall's house in Cornwall?

How did they even find this fellow?

I tried to find him through Canada411.com and had a positvely spine-tingling experience. The only listing for D. Marshall in Cornwall, Ontario is indeed a very pissed off individual. But Diane was mostly upset becuase she works nights and has been recieving phone calls for David Marshall for the past three days, her prime sleep time. I apologized on behalf of all detective-typyes but wondered who else had been trying to track down Mr. Marshall using the same rudimentary research methods?

How had these other people heard about the mild-mannered Mr. Marshall?

It was beginning to look like the dailies might be missing a page in their reporter's handbooks; the one about not using public relation firms for story filler.

Anyway girls, it seems I'll be up here for a little while 'til I get to the bottom of this. Let me know if you come across any leads back in Illinois and do give my love to Dad and Hannah. Tell Ned I'll call him when I get the chance but who knows? With all this secrecy, it may be months 'til I solve this riddle.

Love to you both,
Nan

Posted by Amy Packwood at 10:36 AM | Permalink

To all you Upper Canadians, I'm sure Alberta's prolonged love affair with Ralph Klein is a curiosity. So to all you Toronto-based j-schoolers, the following news might seem even stranger than it does to me.

This just in: Ralph Klein appointed Mount Royal College Chair of Media Studies.

The Globe reports the story, here. And the Edmonton Sun, here.

Over a few pints of Grasshopper, I've heard plenty of gags about the Klein's new gig, mostly about the retiring premier's rep on education issues--his being a high-school drop-out, a slasher of post-secondary funds. And despite the fact he's long-since been cleared of any allegations of cheating on his assignments, the old story of his being accused of plagiarising a correspondence-course essay makes for an easy crack.

Klein's reputation (partially) aside, I'm just puzzled by the school's decision to appoint such a high-profile former politician as its chair. And to name the newly created position after him, no less. Historically, I suppose there's often some career slippage between politicians and journalists. Reporters go into politics and vice versa. Klein was a reporter himself, covering civic affairs for a Calgary TV station before he became that city's mayor.

But nobody's going to believe Klein's been selected to lecture Mount Royal journalism students because of the work he did 20+ years ago on the municipal beat. Clearly, Klein's experience with the media is as the guy feeding them sound bites. His perspective on the media, as someone who's spent most of his career on the other side of it, would certainly be intriguing. And 14 years in office and a partially completed correspondence course on communications has certainly given him a unique outlook on journalism.

As taken from a Calgary Sun article:

"...He will impress on students how journalism is now less about the basics of who, what and where than it is stirring up contention.

'I'll explain journalism is no longer the five Ws, it's now all about the five Cs -- conflict, controversy, chaos, confusion and confrontation,' said Klein."

The idealistic and naive journalism student in me flinches. I can't help but think Klein's (and perhaps any other career politician's) so-called dark-side perspective might trouble the way fledgling journalists think of their role.

Posted by Leah Collins at 01:29 PM | Permalink

Last Saturday I went to see Lewis Lapham speak at the International Festival of Authors (IFOA).

It's hard not to gush about Lapham; until Roger D. Hodge recently succeeded him, he had edited Harper's longer than I've been alive. And when he read his essay, "The Wrath of the Lamb," it was hard not be swept away with his prose and his passion. He spoke with dismay, disgust and puzzlement over the religious right's increasing influence in American politics.

The faith-based initiative descends upon the multitude in the glorious cloud of unknowing that over the last twenty years has engulfed cast tracts of the American mind in the fogs of superstition...evident in the challenges to the teaching of evolution mounted in forty-three states, attested by the popular belief that Saddam Hussein possessed a magical store of nuclear weapons...most wonderfully of all by President Bush's offering his ignorance as the proof of his virtue, claiming that America can rule and govern a world about which it chooses to know as little as possible.

Lapham is not fuelling the slow fires of dissent with this essay; he is roasting the government alive on a spit. And, we, the audience, are following along, agreeing all the way with our hoots of laughter, our nods, and our "amen's." We are a tiny pocket of anti-Bush's tucked away in the Premiere Dance Theatre of the Harbourfront Centre. Of course, no one is stopping us.

Which makes the slick, transparent chair set to the side of the stage all the more poignant. On it rests a large black and white photograph of journalist Win Tin, his face framed by prison bars. He has been in a Myanmar (also known as Burma) jail for just under two decades. He stands accused of civil disobedience and campaigning against martial law. When I leave, and the flutter in my heart falls alongside Lapham's voice, I make sure to sign Pen Canada's petition for Win Tin's release. And I am reminded -- although it may sound trite -- for all our own censorship battles, we are lucky to have a voice that can lambaste, praise and sing for change.

In that hour I was humbled by two men. One a legend and one an American unknown. One rousing in his presence and one striking in his absence.

Posted by Lauren McKeon at 08:56 AM | Permalink