In honour of the self-aggrandizing page-filling year-end lists that inevitably pop up everywhere this time of year, I present to you a list of my personal favourite lists. Got that all? Here we go:

1. The 2006 Year-End Google Zeitgeist: A listing of the top searches from Google News and Google.com, divided into the basics plus various categories. Interestingly, I had to use the #6 Google.com search to figure out what the hell the #1 search means.

2. Regret the Error's Crunks '06: One of the best blogs out there for journo-nerds, Regret the Error runs down the best media errors and corrections from the past year. Look for a few Canadian highlights, including the National Post's "Iran Eyes Badges For Jews" story (tied for Error of the Year) and the Ottawa Citizen captioning a cardboard cutout of hockey player Mike Fisher as though it were the man himself (Best Photo Caption).

3. Time's Best Photos of the Year 2006: Though heavily American and highly indicative of how troubled our world truly is these days, this set of (mostly) stunning photographs is a testament to the power and reach of photojournalism. The inclusion of "A Horse that Wouldn't Quit," however, is a tad inexplicable...

4. Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year 2006: For the first time, the dictionary giant offers a list of the year's top words (as determined by user submissions). This set is a testament to the power and reach of Mr. Stephen Colbert, as "truthiness," his linguistic creation from 2005, topped the list with a 5-to-1 majority.

5. IFILM's Worst Trailers of 2006: It's one thing to make a bad movie, but producing a truly horrible movie preview -- which is, of course, supposed to highlight the best parts and qualities of the film -- is a particularly noteworthy feat. IFILM gathers together their top 10 picks for worst previews of 2006. Of course, all of the movies previewed in these trailers stank as well.

Happy New Year from the RRJ!

Posted by Graham Silnicki at 04:01 PM | Permalink

Who doesn't love the fluff that passes for news between Christmas and New Year's?

When I am a paid journalist, I too will enjoy compiling lists at the end of the calendar year. If I have to work when most of the country is digesting leftover turkey and the remaining bottom of the barrel baking, then I will take pleasure in making best and worst dressed lists. I will enjoy playing God and determining who was hot and who was not in the year previous. I will relish the opportunity to shamelessly feature Lindsay Lohan in my otherwise serious publication.

For the same reasons, I mustered up all of my restraint to ignore the magazine with the following enticing headline: "Most Annoying People of 2006, and Why We Love Them Anyway." Unfortunately, the magazine was American - as were most of the other publications at the airport. So, I had to turn to the terminal internet-cafe for my Canadian news coverage. My browsing led me to The Globe and Mail online, and of course, my first instinct was to check out "2006 Year in Pictures." Because this blog is meant to cover Canadian journalism, I chose the "national" section.

The pictures I saw were certainly NOT the best pictures of the year. In fact, 50 per cent of them featured old, white, boring Canadian politicians. Ugly pictures of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper are, of course, what the Globe does best. But can't the web get a little creative? Isn't it enough that I have to look at the blank, stunned mugs of our country's politicians every day in the paper?

Perhaps they could only choose from photos that were already in the paper. That would explain a lot. Canada is full of fascinating people of all races and genders, so why is the Globe so obsessed with Ottawa's tight whities?

Posted by Julia LeConte at 03:49 PM | Permalink

All news and views junkies have their habits. Mine is reading a few newspapers first thing in the morning, scanning globeandmail.com, intensely missing cable when a breaking story happens and turning to the internet for full newscasts, clips of politicians making blunders and reruns of the latest Rosie O'Donnell vs. Whomever battle.

Then the holiday season arrives and my relationship with journalism changes. There are no newspapers delivered to my parent's home in rural Nova Scotia and running to the corner store isn't an option. Alternatively I can turn on CBC Morning even before getting out of bed. But it would seem Christmas time is not the best time to enjoy broadcast journalism - just read some of my colleague's previous blogs - there are only so many shopping and weather stories a person can be expected to take.

So I take a deep breath, relax and make time for guilty pleasures and favoured pastimes. I browse the back issues of Star, People, and National Enquirer that I find at relatives' homes. And I select new books to add to next year's reading list while making time to start enjoying a few. To name some I'm looking forward to and may be of interest to you: I recently picked up Paul Wells' Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism; Donald J. Savoie's Visiting Grandchildren: Economic Development in the Maritimes; and John Vaillant's The Golden Spruce:A True Story of Myth, Madness and Greed.

I'm sharing the above insights on 'how I spent my Christmas vacation' because I suspect many journalists have similar stories.

Finally, I will leave you with this absurd way of engaging and examining journalism this holiday season. If you are looking for some gory escapism, I've come across Dead Rising (available on X Box 360 and rated Mature 17+) This violent video game is the story of Frank West, a smart talking, rugged wartime photojournalist, who as a result of getting too close to the story finds himself trapped in a mall full of blood-sucking zombies and 72 hours of gory battle to survive all while getting a Pulitzer-winning shot.
Happy Holidays everyone!

Posted by Shannon Wilmot at 11:29 AM | Permalink

Perusing the Globe and Mail online today, I was excited to discover a sidebar called "Quotes of the Year." Whether shocking because of how much a simple sentence can reveal or just plain good for a laugh, a compilation of quotes is almost always worth reading. Some of my favorite late night TV skits have been Bush blundering as he botches, at an alarming frequency, the English language. I mean, who doesn't like to hear politicians sounding like idiots when most of the time they try so hard to sound over our heads?

So settled in for at least a few chuckles I clicked the link. I should have known when the quote featured on the link was, "He was not my master. I was just as strong," (said by the Austrian teenager who escaped from her kidnapper 8 years after she was snatched) that the 15 quotes weren't going to be funny. And they weren't. But besides the aforementioned quote, they weren't terribly interesting either.

Okay, one was a little amusing. And of course it was said by an American - what is it with those Yankees and their quotable quotes? This one is good old Dick Cheney saying, "I said, 'Harry, I had no idea you were there,'" to a friend he had shot on February 11. Only in the U.S...

But if you're going to go to the trouble of compiling great quotes from the year past, put a little more effort into it. Peter MacKay's infamous line, in which he referred to his ex, Belinda Stronach, as a dog, is a good start. But surely some Canadians said more interesting things in the press in the last year? And include a few stand-alones. Quotes are almost always funny or revealing contextually, but it would be nice to see a few where an entire paragraph of explanation was not a necessary accompaniment.

Posted by Lisa Paul at 12:02 PM | Permalink

Tis the season to skip the country. Or so that's what Graydon Carter's executive assistant would have me believe. This is close to the tenth excuse I've gotten, conveniently slipped in between the positive reactions to my interview requests. I'm beginning to wonder if this guy is schizophrenic.

When your interview subject is way down in New York City, editing one of the most popular glossy magazines in America (Vanity Fair), opening a new restaurant in the West Village (The Waverly Inn on Bank St.), and spending a portion of his year in Los Angeles ingratiating himself with the Hollywood elite (Barry Diller, Jeffrey Katzenberg), he's understandably a difficult guy to track down.

At first there was some interest in my story and a plan to set up an interview for the end of October. Then Carter was jet-setting to the west coast to meet with some movie producers and his assistant was full of excuses. But shortly after this, I received an email from the assistant saying:

"I think this is a great project, you have excellent sources, and I want to help."

Who knows where he's spending Christmas. Carter could be at his country home in Roxbury, Connecticut with his third wife, he could be jet-setting over in Europe, or he could even be visiting his brother in the suburbs of Ottawa. If he's spending any of his holidays in his hometown then he's a mere fifteen minute drive from my parents' house, and I am closer to getting him than ever.

But he has some disdain for the Canadian press and has been burned in the past. "Canadians do have a certain love-hate thing I think with people who have left," he told Simon Houpt in a 2002 Globe and Mail interview. This was after he nearly kicked Houpt out of his office because he didn't like one of his questions. So he does have his guard up. But I will keep chasing Carter until the day I hand in my final draft.

Posted by Jennifer Paterson at 11:21 AM | Permalink

Every year around Christmas I read Tuesdays with Morrie. And this year's no different. I've packed the three literary journalism books I'm supposed to have read for next semester, but it's my trusty ripped copy of Mitch Albom's book that I crack open on my train ride home for the holidays. Although it may not be a great work of literary journalism like the ones I have been assigned, it never fails to put me in the holiday spirit. Albom, a Detroit Free Press sports columnist and WJR daily radio host, rekindles his relationship with his old college professor, Morrie Schwartz, in the final months of Schwartz's life. During these final months, the two meet on Tuesdays to discuss the meaning of life. I always cry at the end; but, this time through, it's this passage near the beginning that startles me:

"I had developed my own culture. Work. I did four or five media jobs in England, juggling them like a clown. I spent eight hours a day on a computer, feeding my stories back to the States. Then I did TV pieces, traveling with a crew throughout parts of London. I also phoned in radio reports every morning and afternoon. This was not an abnormal load. Over the years, I had taken labor as my companion and had moved everything else to the side."

It startled me because the life that Albom writes about -- the work driven life he ends up resenting -- is the life many of us are working towards. Journalists are in a unique position because the news never stops. Many are constantly thinking about what their next story will be or the lede for the one they've already started. Journalists must be able to draw a line between their professional and private lives because as Albom points out: a life filled with only work isn't very satisfying.

Posted by Dayna Dayus at 10:20 AM | Permalink

The second last thing I did before going to bed on Christmas eve (the last being writing this post) was check my e-mail. I had only one e-mal message at 11:55 on December 24 from This Guy:

Way back, before the 2004 election and when Michael Moore was still relevant, I signed up for his e-mail list. This entitled me to three to four messages a week from the Academy-Award winning filmmaker. He wrote about George Bush as the devil, the Republicans as more devils, and why General Wesley Clarke or Oprah would make great presidents.

Then Bush won his second election. Moore was devastated that Fahrenheit 9/11 hadn't galvanized the nation - not even Ohio! - into casting away imperialism and corporate greed by voting Democrat. He practically stopped sending out e-mails. I'd receive the odd message where he would gripe about Iraq and regurgitate statistics in his patented Michael Moore style. And for the last six months the e-mails stopped entirely. That is, until last night, when I received this:

Some Christmas Pudding from Michael Moore

December 24, 2006

Dear friends,

What better way to get the Christmas dinner conversation going than with some fun facts!

This is the first of THREE Christmases left under President George W. Bush. THREE.

Ok, that's not too cheery. Let me try again.

If the daily death toll continues at this rate, sometime on Christmas Day a U.S. soldier will die in Iraq and, with his or her death, more U.S. troops will have been killed in Iraq than all the people lost on 9/11 (2,973).

On second thought, skip the politics for a day and just enjoy the pie.

Merry Christmas to each of you, and peace on earth, wherever we Americans have dropped in.

Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

Moore is still doing the two things he does best: griping and eating pie. As far as I can tell, he has oficially made himself irrelevant. The 2004 election acted as a knock-out blow for his brand of "journalism." He can't talk about anything new. He can't spin his message in any new ways.

I always had mixed feelings about Moore - I didn't like his techniques, but I thought he offered a needed viewpoint in American media. Jon Stewart has surpassed Moore as the left-leaning voice of American college students. But Jon Stewart isn't journalist. Whatever your opinion is about Moore, he at least got people interested in journalism.

The last I heard about Moore, he was working on a new documentary about HMO plans and it was going poorly because no one would talk to him. I guess he is stalled.

It's depressing writing about Michael Moore's career on Christmas Day, but his time at the top, as critcized as it was, had a new generation interested in journalism. I can't say I miss him, but Michael Moore's style at least got people talking.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Christmas activities.

Posted by John Mather at 12:00 AM | Permalink

In an attempt to capture what the holiday season has meant to me through the way the media focusses on it, I include a Christmas poem of sorts:

C- CTV news broadcasts that were done live from various malls around the GTA.
H- "Happy Holidays" and any other politically correct sayings that are used instead of "Merry Christmas" in an attempt to avoid offending anyone .
R- Really sappy 'feel-good' holiday stories.
I - International affairs that get bumped to make room for the aforementioned feel-good holiday stories.
S- Stories about crazed shoppers fighting over the new gaming system. (Shopping coverage in general)
T- Televised consumer culture. Is shopping news?
M- Magazines that used up precious editorial space for the annual 'gift guide'.
A- Any network news program that has included a story about Christmas lights. (there have been a few)
S- Santa Claus picutres that are featured on page 1 of newspapers. (the smaller the newpaper, the more featured he seems to be).

HAPPY HOLIDAYS FROM THE RRJ!

Posted by David Pratt at 01:34 PM | Permalink

In Cuba, deep in the country in a clearing that no road leads to, sits a grave-stone sized monument. It's there to mark the spot where, before Castro's reign, before he had any real power at all, he was interviewed by the New York Times' Herbert L. Matthews. The article brought the backwoods revel--who was hiding in the mountains with a small group of faithful men--into the national spotlight: the rest is history.

Last month Anthony DePalma gave a talk about his new book, The Man who Invented Fidel: Castro, Cuba and Herbert L. Matthews of the New York Times. He wanted answers to some long-unanswered questions: how did an American reporter end up on Castro's guest-list? How had Castro's pathetic "army" wound up as a mighty force in Matthews' article? Years and years later, Matthews' story is twisted with myths and legends and half-truths, which DePalma tries to unravel. The book shows some of Matthews' notes, written on tiny pieces of paper (a notebook would have tipped-off guards) and signed by Castro himself, as proof. DePalma traveled to Cuba to retrace the reporter's steps and piece together some gaps in the story...and found that crumbling stone monument.

Imagine that, a tribute to a conversation. Matthews' words immortalized him as national hero in Cuba (and considered a traitor in the US.) DePalma explores the idea of responsibility in journalism: maybe Matthews "scoop of the century" shouldn't have been trumpeted across the world. But what would you do? Isn't that what every journalist wants, to have had a lasting impact on the world? Does anyone think it's still possible to write articles that can change the world? Should we use the media to immortalize ourselves?

Posted by Dana Lacey at 06:03 PM | Permalink

I heard an interview with Robert Fisk, a British foreign correspondent for the Independent, on The Current on Tuesday. Fisk, who has interviewed Osama bin Laden three times, and has a penchant for biting analysis of the West. He talked about the rise of Hamas, he talked about the Armenian genocide in Turkey in 1911, and he talked about how Iraq and the Palestinian territories are interconnected. Since listening to the interview, I have heard Fisk called a rabid anti-semite and read that he is a deluded apologist for the violence of 9-11. I liked hearing his opinions on the Middle East, where he has spent most of his reporting career, but now I'm skeptical about his bias.


His latest book, The Great War for Civilization: the Conquest of the Middle East might help me decide whether I trust him. He is such a figure of controversy that there is even a blogosphere term named after him, "fisking or to fisk," which describes the act of refuting an argument point by point and in minute detail.

Posted by Gena Smith at 06:17 AM | Permalink

The end of this semester marks the end of my time in the course Great Journalism. This, combined with the fact that I just watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, is making me quite nostalgic for Hunter S. Thompson.

The Great Shark Hunt (Gonzo Papers, Vol 1.) opened with Thompson contemplating suicide, something he actually carried out twenty-six years later. Until last month, I'd never actually read his suicide note, so I thought I would post it for any one else who missed it.

"No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun -- for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax -- This won't hurt."

Posted by Ann Ruppenstein at 12:55 AM | Permalink

The holiday season is impossible to ignore. First the crowds, then the string of Christmas-related posts on the RRJ editorial blog and now Christmas "news" stories.

I was watching CBC Newsworld over a bowl of Cheerios the other day and caught the end of a feature on holiday shopping. A reporter was sent to the mall to ask people what they wanted for Christmas - a gag-worthy streeter already. To top it all off, the entire script rhymed - mimicing "The Night Before Christmas".

A few days early, I turned on the CTV news at noon, and instead of news there was a segment on buying that perfect holiday gift, followed by a short fashion show.

This is not news. Yes, the malls are busy. Yes, people are buying presents and doing other holiday activites. But I'm positive there are many, many more important things happening in the world, in Canada and in our city that this time could be used to discuss. Many issues aren't covered because of funding problems and time constraints, so why are news organizations wasting money and time on a fluff pieces about the hottest gifts of the holiday?

Sure, these pieces are providing information some people may want and need, but there are other more appropriate outlets - like talk shows. They don't belong on a newscast.

Posted by Erin Tandy at 12:22 AM | Permalink

Candy canes, lighted trees, chestnuts roasting on an open fire... navigating through the sweaty masses at the Eaton Centre, when all you want is to get to the subway - ah yes, smells like Christmas.

If you're like me, you just realized it's T-minus six days before the Big Day (TM) and you've managed to buy nothing on your Christmas shopping list (unless you count that cute top - for yourself.) But there's no need to panic. I'm here to help.

They say the journalism world is a tight community, so chances are, you need to buy gifts for your fellow truth-seekers. Well, this should be at the top of every journalist's Christmas Wishlist:

Newshound.

Combining the childhood fun of board games with the adult intellectualism of newspapers, Newshound is the reporter's Trivial Pursuit.

Players are asked questions from five categories: 21st Century, 20th Century, Arts & Entertainment, Sports, and Science & Technology, which they can "scoop" (answer without hints, and gain an extra turn) or respond to from multiple choice. Each of the game's 600 questions is based on actual news headlines, dating back to 1900 (here's your chance to invite that cute archivist from the ninth floor over.)

And those who are especially patriotic will be pleased to know the game was concocted right in downtown Toronto by advertising and writing duo Gary Carr and Alan Marr just four years ago. This fall, the game hit the market and can now be found next to Pirates Of The Carribean-opoly at your local toy store, just in time for the holidays.

More proof that the news can be fun.

Posted by Jennifer Fong at 01:15 AM | Permalink

Last week I was in the process of coming up with an online RRJ story idea. There were several topics that I was interested in (where I have had previous experience), which translated into stories that I was reluctant to pitch. My fear was being rejected due to conflict of interest.

The first story I pitched for the Ryerson Review back in September was about teen magazines (specifically, Faze Teen). One of the concerns with this (among others) was that I had done a co-op placement with them while I was in high school. Conflict of interest. At the same time, another student tried to pitch a story on Glow magazine, where she had been an intern. Same problem.

While I can understand the concerns for these stories specifically, I am confused about where, ultimately, to draw the line. On one hand, we are encouraged to write about subjects that we are passionate about and have a good knowledge of. On the other hand, we are discouraged from having any previous relationship with the people or companies we are writing about.

As we gain more experience with a variety of publications and our contact list becomes longer, how do we avoid this? How is it possible for freelancers to develop a niche?

Speaking of freelancers, David Hayes was criticized in Toronto Life's November issue by National Post Editor-in-Chief Douglas Kelly for his "Post Mortem" story (October). In writing about the National Post, Kelly feels that Hayes should have mentioned the fact that he was a former National Post contract employee.

Ironically, Hayes had every intention of doing so. After the disclaimer was edited out of an early draft, Hayes suggested that perhaps Macfarlane could mention it in his Editor's note. But both Hayes and his editor got caught up in other duties and it fell through the cracks. To satisfy Kelly and set the record straight, Hayes provided The Review, with a "really accurate disclaimer:"

"David Hayes was, for 18 months, senior correspondent at National Post Business on a freelance contract. When the editor illegally fired him halfway through his second year during a round of budget cuts, he successfully sued the National Post and received an unprecedented three-quarters of his remaining fee."

Posted by Vanessa Rodriguez at 02:57 PM | Permalink

Whenever I'm supposed to be working but am really just messing around on the internet, I can't help but check out what the most e-mailed articles and photos are on various news websites. Is it just me, or is this way more tempting than any "top" or "breaking" stories?

When a really big news story or event rolls around, like an election or disaster, these are understandably sent to friends and coworkers (who like me are probably also slackers). But what about today? Not much going on right now. People reading TheStar.com are sending a piece about alcoholics whose brain grows after they quit drinking (another popular story involves a snake strangling a man). Are these the most interesting, entertaining or important stories? Could be. Or maybe, like me, readers are interested in what everyone else is reading. Virtual peer pressure. If everyone is e-mailing some story about a three-legged cow (please note: to my knowledge, no such story exists, so refrain from googling it) it's probably worth reading.

Of course, I'm sure "uncool" yet worth while stories go un-emailed. Sigh. Maybe if they were flashier, and maybe dressed up a little better, they too would be popular stories. Don't you worry, stories about science or fluff pieces about kids visiting Santa (I mean not offense to the writers of such stories), your mom thinks your cool.

Posted by Amanda Pereira at 01:20 PM | Permalink

Canadian folk singer Loreena McKennitt won a ruling in Britain that blocks her former friend from publishing a memoir and effectively extends the definition and limits the publication of "private" matters.

Niema Ash's memoir is about the time detailed she spent working with McKnennitt. McKennit objected to the accounts of how she coped after her boyfriend drowned and things like how many bunk beds she put up in her house when visitors came to stay.

Her boyfriends drowning was something she'd spoken of in the past and the bunk beds aren't exactly scandalous, her contention was that the information was obtained through a "position of trust" and that was wrong. And the courts agreed with her.

In regards to McKennitt's cottage:

"It is not her only house, but it is nevertheless a home. That is one of the matters expressly addressed in Article 8(1) of the Convention as entitled to "respect". Correspondingly, there would be an obligation of confidence. Even relatively trivial details would fall within this protection simply because of the traditional sanctity accorded to hearth and home. To describe a person's home, the decor, the layout, the state of cleanliness, or how the occupiers behave inside it, is generally regarded as unacceptable. To convey such details, without permission, to the general public is almost as objectionable as spying into the home with a long distance lens and publishing the resulting photographs."

This is Britain's first test of a European Court of Human Rights ruling that found German courts failed to protect the Monaco's Princess Caroline's private life from journalists who had photographed her and her family going about their daily lives.

"It is a decisive step towards a fully fledged English privacy law via the (European) Court of Human Rights." Hugh Tomlinson, an advisor of Prince Charles, told The Sunday Times's Margarette Driscoll.

"The boundary between public and private life has been moved a long, long way. The position that has now been reached in English law is that anything that pertains to your private life, and that includes what you do in the street, such as going shopping, is private, and its publication will not be justified unless it contributes to a debate of public importance."

I'm probably a terrible man for saying this, but privacy bugs me. Or public privacy does. There was a case in Quebec where a woman on the street sued a paper successfully for photographing her sitting on the street on the grounds that it violated her privacy. It must be nerve-racking find your face in the paper the next day, but she was in a public place and not invisible. You can't walk around downtown and ban people from looking at you. If you're that worried about it, stay home.

I don't find any more logic in deeming personal, mundane conversations private. You can't ban people from speaking about anything you've ever done, why can you do for certain people in certain situations. It's like putting a gag order on someone that's specific to speaking in Connecticut.

Posted by Joe Rayment at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

For our sizzling summer issue, I suggested to our front of book editor that we conduct a survey to determine the sexiest Canadian journalist. We could bring sexy back to the magazine, if "bring sexy back" meant "bring sexy for the first time ever, complete with a fruit basket to meet the parents, who will then require numerous bottles of bubbly to celebrate the occasion." Or "bring sexy for the second time, since the attempt at shiny tabloid goodness got such mixed reactions last year."

Alas, racy and RRJ do not belong in the same sentence (and by writing this sentence I am clearly going to cause an imbalance in the cosmos). Said front of book editor, however, of whom I remain a fan (happy belated birthday!), did admit her attraction to Ian Hanomansing, but suffice it to say that the poll will not be appearing in our pages. That is the province of People and, uh, Durex. (Daniel Craig > Clive Owen? Not according to my pheromones.)

If ever a vote were to be taken, though, I suspect it will be heavily skewed towards current Toronto Life cover boy George Stroumboulopoulos, who will also be featured in our aforementioned sizzling summer issue. And a while ago, my fabulous colleague Diana Cina blogged about amour and anchormen. It's all well and good for TV personalities, who are expected to be telegenic, but generally, journalism is not a sexy profession. Unless you're undercover... at the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show... trying to evade government agents in a stylized chase sequence. But most of us aren't.

Nobody knows - or really cares - what we look like. Aside from the columnists with perfectly posed mugshots, newspaper and magazine reporters don't live in the public eye. But I think that the part of people that romanticizes writers - and the part that gets a kick out of checking out the author pic on the book jacket - wonders about the body behind the byline. And certain writers just possess a particular brand of sexiness that I like to call paper charisma. They're witty. They're engaging. They tell a story that resonates within us, touches our hearts. We sigh after reading a well-turned phrase, wanting to believe that beautiful prose reflects the beauty of the writer.

Unfortunately, paper charisma is as dangerous as online dating. But regardless... come one, come all! Choose from the worlds of broadcast (radio too, because we all know the value of a sexy voice) and the printed page. Cast your vote for the journalist who makes your word count go up!

In quasi-related news, FHM is "hanging up the g-string." I figured I might as well make this the sexiest post ever to appear on the RRJ blog.

Posted by Andrea Lau at 12:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

They are doing much better than English CBC and we have a lot to learn from them. The Quebecois nightly talk show "Tout le monde en parle" has been kicking butt with its ratings since its debut in Sept 2004. Now in its third season, it's pulling in two million viewers every Sunday from 8-10 p.m with producer and host Guy-A. Lepage, often compared to Rick Mercer. The show makes news almost every week and features a wide array of guests from the Pussy Cat dolls to Michael Ignatieff. The guests even drink wine on the air!

Come on, it's time for Anglophones to let lose. Why aren't we doing a show like this for English Canada?

Also, Radio Canada's morning show, "C'est Bien Meilleur Le Matin", has booming ratings, not to mention that their radio programs in general are doing well. Once regarded in Montreal as an old, boring, elitist radio station, Radio-Canada has re-branded itself as a younger, hipper, more "with the people" station. "C'est Bien Meilleur Le Martin" is the most listened to morning show in Montreal, beating out the other commercial radio stations. Maybe its success has something to do with its name, translated as, "It's much better in the morning", a reference to the idea that sex is better in the morning.

So again, why aren't we incorporating the lessons of our Quebecois friends? Why are English CBC radio ratings still sucking overall? It's time to shake things up.

Posted by Shereen Dindar at 01:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

If he hadn't overdosed on Valium and Darvum in 1982, Lester Bangs would be 58 tomorrow.

Bangs is widely recognized as one of the best music critics who ever wrote. This is partly because of the passion he infused in his Gonzo-style writing, like this 1971 rant on adulthood: "... Going at the same time every day to some weird building and doing some totally useless shit for hours on end just so you could get some bread and have everybody respect you." His freelance career started in 1969. Before his death at age 33, Bangs had written for, among others, The Village Voice, New Musical Express, Creem, and Rolling Stone, which fired him in 1973 for being "disrespectful to musicians."

It's all very well and good that Frank Sinatra has a cold, but the best-written magazine story I've ever read is quite possibly Bangs's account of spending six days on the road with The Clash. The three-part story, originally published in NME in December 1977, is reprinted in the Bangs compilation Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung: The Work of a Legendary Critic. The piece contains elements of travel writing, music criticism, biographical musing (I in particular love the line, "Usually you just wanna get home, get the story out and head beerward"), sociological theories, and even critiques of journalism. Bangs was paid seven and a half cents a word for that story. This is how he ends part one:

"The politics of rock'n'roll, in England or America or anywhere else, is that a whole lot of kids want to be fried out of their skins by the most scalding propulsions they can find, for a night they can pretend is the rest of their lives, and whether the next day they go back to work in shops or boredom or on the dole or American TV doldrums in mom'n'daddy's living room, nothing can cancel the reality of that night in the revivifying flames, when for once – if only then – in your life, you were blasted outside of yourself and the monotony which defines most life anywhere at any time. When you felt supra-alive, when you supped on lightning and nothing else in the realms of the living or dead mattered at all."

I would write more (or at least offer a half-hearted apology - this entry is basically the same as last month's on Annie Leibovitz), but I suddenly have the urge to go watch Almost Famous. Again.

Posted by Angela Kozak at 11:34 AM | Permalink

It seems as though a couple prominent media outlets in this country are beefing up their contract terms for freelance writers. Over at the Canadian Journalist blog, they copy a press release from the Professional Writers Association of Canada, in which the group urges freelancers in London, ON to reject a new contract from Sun Media's London Free Press newspaper. Though none of the contract details are reprinted (and I can't seem to find them anywhere), the release calls the terms "unexpectedly negative."

Adding to this, however, is a comment from Barry Rueger which includes an excerpt from a CBC contract that he'd been sent by an American journalist. It reads, in part, "CBC shall own and hold exclusively in perpetuity all rights, including, but not limited to copyright, existing now or in the future of every kind and character and whether now known or unknown in and to the services performed pursuant to this Agreement, and any and all products, results and proceeds thereof (the "Works"). [...] The Contractor hereby waives all moral rights with respect of the works in favour of CBC and/or any of its licensees or assigns." In non-legal terms, that basically means that CBC owns your soul, you freelancing biatch.

These measures are probably a response to the Heather Robertson case I blogged about in October. In short, Robertson won a suit against the Globe claiming that they didn't hold copyright to reprint her freelance works on Internet databases. Now it seems as though the CBC and the London Free Press are ensuring they won't face similar legal actions when using freelance material beyond its initial appearance.

I guess what I fail to grasp in all of this is, Who cares? Though I'm a (very) green member in the freelancing writing world, I'd be happy to see my work reprinted up the wazoo. As far as I'm concerned, media outlets purchase a product from a freelance writer; what they choose to do with that product after purchase is entirely up to them. If you don't want that to happen as a freelance writer, then don't sell your work.

There is, however, the small fact that no one is purchasing my product...and maybe I'd feel quite differently about the whole matter if they were.

Posted by Graham Silnicki at 01:12 PM | Permalink

Not unlike Superman and Clark Kent, there are two sides to me. Yes. On one side is the caped journalist who is always looking save the public from boring writing and the other side is the average woman, who is just trying to live a normal life. The problem is that I can't shut off my inner journalist. The division line is blurred. Everytime I hear a conversation or overhear people talking on the subway, I'm thinking how can I exploit this...just kidding..I'm thinking wow, that's a really cool story idea or I can't believe that just happened to me, I need to tell the public. Why do I do this? Can I ever have a normal life, where telling my friends and family is enough? I don't think so. When Clark Kent finds out about some shady things are going down somewhere, he's there as Superman to set things right. Maybe that's what a journalist must do too. As the human we hear things but as a journalist we process them.
It is such a strange situation when you feel it necessary to write about everything you observe. The other problem is that so many of my friends are journalists too. So when I tell them something they automatically say, "You should write about that." I can't escape this circle. And I guess they can't either.
Now I'm not saying that all journalists are superheros (we don't look as good in tights) but we share some similarities: the need to inform/help the public, always watching and observing the world and the inability to turn off their inner superhero. I guess the next article you read from me will be about something that I overheard, so unless you want to be written about, try not to sit near me on the subway!!!

Posted by Diana Cina at 01:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In the current issue of The Walrus, Andrew Mitrovica writes about how the media failed Maher Arar. Some journalists used anonymous leaks from government sources--and became complicit in a smear campaign to portray Arar as a terrorist--while others pursued the truth and demanded that the Canadian government take responsibility for helping to put Arar in jail in Syria where he was tortured.

Mitrovica follows the paper trail to show where the media failed and where it lived up to its editorial responsibility to challenge the government. It seems to me that some journalists lived up to their moral responsibility to report the truth, and others gave in to post 9/11 paranoia and racism. Mitrovica goes on to say that the journalists who contributed to labelling Arar as a terrorist should name the names of sources that lied. By not naming sources that lied, journalists are failing to do exactly what they are supposed to do, to be watchdogs for those in power. They are sanctioning future lies. In which case, who will pay the price for that?

Posted by Meena Nallainathan at 05:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Facebook made the cover of the last two Ryersonians and Eyeopeners at Ryerson University. Who cares, right? Well, apparently enough people to warrant front-page coverage about the website. In fact, many students voiced opinions about the group "I'm a white Minority @ Ryerson" in the last few weeks. Sure, they were probably more racially-charged sentiments than technological. But they were, nevertheless, talking about a bloody internet site.

Where I'm going with this is simple: When does virtual reality become journalistic turf? In case anyone missed the story, Reuters now employs a full-time bureau chief in Second Life, a virtual reality world on the internet. Adam Pasick writes about the goings on and technical news transpiring in a place that doesn't physically exist. I'm sure he is simply the first of many. Once Reuters does it, Canadian Press, Agence France-Presse and all the others are bound to follow.

Who, of us here at journalism school, will be assigned to myspace coverage or the google beat when we're finally employed? A few years ago, this would have sounded crazy. Even today, it hasn't quite hit mass appeal. But it looks like that's the direction we're heading in. Journalists used to go places by car, bus or plane and report on things for readers and audiences back home. Now they turn on a computer and ask questions. How far will this go?

Internet geeks, I'm really interested in where you see the future of cyberjournalism. I know you're reading this...

Posted by Chris Richardson at 12:24 AM | Permalink

As a student I tend to spend the meagre money I possess on things such as rent, food, and booze. After I take care of those three essentials I rarely have funds left over for luxuries such as newspapers. After all, why would I spend cash on a paper when I can read its contents online and avoid getting black, inky fingers?

However, there seems to be a gap in quality editing between what goes online and what goes into print. For example, the other day I was reading Richard Ouzounian's article about Truman Capote's party of the century on the Toronto Star website and I found a pretty major mistake. Ouzounian refered to the murdered family in the book In Cold Blood as the "Cutters" rather than the "Clutters." I emailed him to bring the typo to his attention. He thanked me and stated his surprise that both he and his editors missed it. Now everyone makes mistakes of course, but as the week continued I found many more.

Maybe I was just looking for it, but I read stories that had quotes with attributions missing, literally there was no name after the quote and the word "said." Said who? Tense errors, missing words, repeated words, tell-tale signs of someone not proof reading after cutting and pasting paragraphs around. I could link to these stories for you, but it would be useless since after a day or so of being up someone finally catches the errors and corrects them. So why the shoddy editing for online stories? Is it because it's more difficult to catch things when you're staring at a screen? Or perhaps it's the race to be first with a story.

Either way, I'd rather deal with the typos than fork out a few bucks for that paper.

Posted by Rachel Hahn at 12:06 PM | Permalink

As I write this post, Edward Greenspon, editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail, is taking questions from readers, live , in real time on globeandmail.com. I started this post with the rather melodramatic feeling that I was about to witness a grand manfestation of the power of the Internet and the true beauty of interactive media; readers throwing their voice in the ring, having their say, no holds barred. And while things got off to a helluva slow start, I have to say that an hour in and I'm still feeling pretty warm and fuzzy about the whole web forum thing.

He'd been live for 11 minutes and not a single comment had been posted outside of a welcome from Globe executive editor Jim Sheppard, to get the ball rolling. "Banquo's Ghost" finally jumps into the ring despite the adjudicator's warning that "preference will be given to those who ask questions under their full name, rather than pseudonyms." It had, after all, been 16 minutes without a question. But Banquo dove in with a critical opinion about Globe coverage of Afghanistan.

Things lulled a little when a couple of gushy Globe-lovers chimed in with "kudos" for a site well done and minor suggestions. But then things started to get pretty good. Questions like: "How do I trust old media in this day and age?" and "...how can you honestly claim to be unbiased?" arose from one commenter. Another wondered about why and how editorial boards endorse political parties during elections. And the Globe's decision not to cover World AIDS day or the 17th anniversary of the Montreal shootings were questioned by readers as well. I thought Greenspon brought up interesting points that reflected the thought that went into the coverage or lack of. Agree with the editorial decisions or not, the ability to bluntly question the editor-in-chief of a major national daily on why story x or y was not covered is a damn good use of resources.

Greenspon signed off with a note to readers about his commitment to interactivity: "It is important that we don't get isolated from our readers and this is an important forum to ensure that doesn't happen." It's important to note that at least two or three of the comments praised the Globe site, whether their comments and questions were critical or not. I have to agree.

As news outlets struggle to make sense of their places on the web, it is small moves like this hour-long discussion with Greenspon that allow me to believe that innovation and change do not always inspire panic in the powers that be at our old-media broadsheets. There is so much talk about the web and what to do with with it: how to keep hard-copy readers, how to make it profitable, how to package content, how to break news and a whole host of other problems. A willingness to experiment and take risks is crucial. More and more, readers desire to participate rather than consume.

An interesting Poynter article quotes Philip Seib, author of Going Live; Getting the News Right in a Real-Time, Online World. "News organizations that fail to exploit the Web's interactivity will almost certainly be relegated to second-tier status in terms of use and trust...aloofness will not sit well with a cyber-audience that expects to use the Internet for true back-and-forth communication, not merely one-way transmitting and receiving."

In January of this year, the Washington Post held a fairly extensive online forum on interactivity and ethics after it made the decision to shut down their comment posting capabilities because of personal attacks and profanity. They gathered together a bunch of people who are active in the American blogging world--Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis among them--to discuss the issues around Internet commentary. It's worth reading if you're into this stuff.

As the old media giants are finding their way to express on the web, it's satisfying to see the Globe taking on the interactivity challenge and proving that communication can run in two directions.

Posted by Regan Ray at 12:28 PM | Permalink

Derek Finkle, editor of Toro magazine, went to court recently in response to a crown subpoena that ordered him to hand over all of the notes and research he gathered for his book No Claim to Mercy about the Robert Baltovich murder trial.

Finkle wants to refuse to give the courts his personal documents. The magazine editor isn't backed by a big Canadian media institution, so he has to pay for legal defence with his own money. And he was quoted saying that he has already spent so much on legal fees, he may not have enough money to continue to fight the court order. Now, press organizations have stepped in to financially support Finkle in his battle over the seizure of his notes.

But this raises a question: Why is there no protection for journalists operating outside the realm of the big, mainstream media outlets? If you wrote a contentious story, what would you do if you got sued or ordered to hand over all of your personal research?

Posted by Julia Belluz at 02:19 PM | Permalink

"How Jewish are you?"

This was the first question I was confronted with during my qualifying interview for a free trip to Israel with the Canadian Israel Experience. It's a trip for jews 25 and under and is designed so they can connect to their roots, get friendly with their faith and participate in the whole return to the biblical homeland/ bridges of Babylon experience. It's all very mystical and ancient when you think about it. All very noble and life changing in that Oprah "remember your spirit" kind of way. Why all of this? To go to Israel is appearently the birthright of every jewish person living--that's how the pamphlet justifies it.

Part of me thinks, "sweet! free trip to Israel." But then my journalistic skeptism kicks in, combined with my own jewish cultural inclination, and I immediately thought," there must be a catch--there's no such thing as free." My interview was the begining of the fine print...

"So depending on my answer, does that hurt my chances?" I asked.

Luckily, it didn't and I qualified.

But, "for research purposes" I had to take this survey conducted by the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Jewish Studies at Brandeis University in Waltham, MA. It was pretty extensive, asking me what my poltical understanding of the mid-east conflict was, how important I thought marrying jewish was, what I thought Jewish values were etc. I got to think I'll be asked the same survey after the trip, and that the researchers and whoever else gets access to these results will be hoping that my opinions will shift toward a pro Israel outlook following my experience.

Finally, I am ready for the "authentic Israel experience" the one where they told us where to go and what to do. The one where they put us up in a five-star hotel that westerners would be accustomed to. The one where we avoided the darker areas of Israel like the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for security purposes. Granted, I'm just as much against potentially dying as the next guy, but I can't help but thinking we're not going to be told the full story when it comes to the true Israel experience. I fully expect to be spoon fed the notion that Israel is just as safe as any other country and that everything we see on CNN is inaccurate. You know it's funny, as I look out my window I don't see armed soldiers. "Why is this night different than all other nights?" seems to be a question that doesn't just apply at a passover sedar. .But all this" authenticity" is okay right? The Birthright trip is the Israeli tourism board's dream. The government wants us to come back and contribute to their economy, why show an objective Israel. Gulp!... I can see already that I'm going to have a few debates. I hope they don't throw me out!

I know... I shouldn't be kvetching! It's free and it'll be fun. I should just take it like a "Good Jewish Boy" and drink the kool-aid. Too bad all this school seems to show that my "Good Jewish Journalist" side is kicking and screaming.

oy gevault...i'll tell you how it goes next time!

Posted by Aaron Broverman at 04:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Did anyone check out this week's issue of the New Yorker? As someone currently writing a profile of a radio show, I was happy to see the article entitled Voice of the Cabal, by Marc Fisher. I expected a story about Bob Fass and the WBAI studios, which, of course, was there.

But has everyone but me hard of Radio Unnameable? Countercultural radio?

To follow in past bloggers' definition footsteps,

cout-ter-cul-ture. n - A culture, especially of young people, with values or lifestyles in opposition to those of the established culture. Connected to hippies and the beat generation.

ra-di-o. n - The wireless transmission through space of electromagnetic waves in the approximate frequency range from 10 kilohertz to 300,000 megahertz.

So, countercultural radio is a wireless "stick it to the man". But so much more. Fisher writes:

"..Each night creating a program with no format, an improvised melange of live music, speeches, and random phone calls. 'Radio Unnameable' was a radio party line on which Fass piles one caller atop another and said, 'Speak among yourselves.' It was a forum for eyewitness reports from war zones and urban conflicts, recitations of poetry and prose, solicitations for political causes, testimonials for illegal drugs, and experiments with noise and silence."

This is incredible. This show, started in the early '60's, didn't just embody an era. It didn't just jump on the hippie bandwagon, it was an art form. An art form that's still on his show today. After reading this, I happened to mention to a friend whether I thought this kind of show could start up now. He just shrugged and said, "If it happened now, people would just say that it's been done, and turn the dial". Humph.

But maybe that's not the point. Fisher ends the piece with a quote from Fass:

"But the moment - the immediate moment - that's what it's about."

Posted by Paige Magarrey at 10:19 AM | Permalink

I've never been big on parties that centre on television countdowns. Or rather, I always seem to be anywhere but in front of the tube when the moment of truth arrives. I spend three hours watching the same commercial, listening to the monotonous chatter of hosts/ commentators and then, when I get up to grab a drink, the ball drops, the world goes easy on a pimp or " Bonsoir, madames et monsieurs. Tous Ensemble!"

Posted by Amy Packwood at 02:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Not to be confused with the "citizen journalism" discussed last post, "civic journalism" seems to be the latest buzzword circulating at the CBC.

So that we're not confused, a definition first:

(From Wikipedia) "The civic journalism movement (also known as public journalism) is an attempt to abandon the notion that journalists and their audiences are spectators in political and social processes. In its place, the civic journalism movement seeks to treat readers and community members as participants. With a small, but growing following, civic journalism has become as much of an ideology as it is a practice."

It was announced Friday that Canada Now, the CBC's national 6:30 news program has been axed, with the corp now favouring one-hour regional broadcasts.

In a way, it's a return to old territory. The CBC aired hour-long local suppertime broadcasts before Canada Now's debut in 2000. But this time, there's a twist. This time, your local news will be "civic journalism."

According to the report on cbc.ca, the ceeb hasn't completely figured out what "civic journalism" will look like on their re-branded 6 o'clock newscast. There will, though, be encouraged participation from viewers--through commentary, and viewer-submitted news video and photos--made possible by through the CBC's website.

From CBC.ca: "'What we want to build here is the local news service of the 21st century --a news service designed from the beginning to run on all platforms simultaneously,'CBC Vice President of English Television Richard Stursberg said."

Sounds fine, sounds exciting, even--provided they put a ban on cell-phone vids of viewers' mentos-rocket experiments and stupid cat tricks.

As for the new focus on regional news, even just from a viewer perspective, it seems like a good choice. It's rare I'll actually tune in for both the local Toronto 6 pm broadcast and Canada Now. In my own lazy, dinner-watching observations, there's often a fair amount of overlap between reports (stories being recycled between the two programs) that makes the exercise of watching for the full hour redundant. It seems ridiculous--especially when a quick change of channels to one of the commercial news broadcasts will show there's local news going untold on the CBC regional show.

And, as mentioned in the CBC.ca news item, the focus on regional news will in theory strengthen CBC outlets in communities across Canada.

(CBC vice-president of English radio, Jane Chalmers): "This should help create distinct voices for each region, similar to the distinct formats used on local radio programs. [...] Communities across Canada are all distinct. We want a broader range of perspective between newscasts in different regions."

Again, sounds exciting. But it of course has yet to be seen whether it will work. An early fly in the corporate ointment: funding.

From the Canadian Media Guild website:
"'We're happy the CBC is getting back into local news on television,' says Lise Lareau, national president of the Guild. 'But I am very concerned that no new money is being devoted to the expanded local programs. Despite everyone's best intentions, you have to wonder whether it will be possible to do this right.'"

Lareau's not the only one with concerns. Some CBC office comedian's been circulating an email spoofing the new mandate of "civic journalism" as a nifty cost-cutting move. "Ouimet" of CBC insider blog The Teamakers broke it, here.

Posted by Leah Collins at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Is open-source reporting, alternatively dubbed citizen journalism, a threat to good ol' fashioned news outlets? Reuters doesn't seem to think so. At least, that's what its $100,000 grant to Jay Rosen's open-source experiment site NewAssignment.net suggests. The president of Reuters Media, Chris Ahearn, said that, "Reuters is hopeful that NewAssignment.net will foster the kind of hard-hitting journalism that the public is hungry for, and will be more inclined to trust." Looks like August's "Reutersgate" has them thinking--or sweating.

Although, it doesn't look like their hope is misplaced. Projects like NewAssignment.net, or Vancouver-based NowPublic, are not the anger-infused, skewed rants that many nay-saying journalists have come to associate with citizen journalism. Headed by a three person team of tech savvies, NowPublic boasts 31,000 reporters spanning 130 countries. Just over a year old, the organization lets its readers define the news via the ability to post articles found across the world, and by allowing them to post their own reports and photos. NowPublic even claims that during Hurricane Katrina it had more reporters on the job than most news organizations had on staff.

NewAssignment.net, which is currently in its experimental stage and plans to launch with editor early 2007, has a different take on how to increase reader participation. It does stories "the regular news media doesn't do, can't do, or already screwed up." Professional journalists will write the stories and--so the theory goes--be paid by donations from a readership who are keen to keep the story alive. And wary "stick to the facts" journalists can all heave a sigh of relief--Rosen is dedicated to producing highly researched, sourced fact-checked investigative pieces.

It's no secret that investigative journalism in Canada, and the rest of North America, is starving. If we want to stave off the rise of puff news we need to break tradition. We need to look toward new publications and new methods of newsgathering like NowPublic and NewAssignment.net. Sure there are lots of questions like, "Can it work?" "Can it break news?" and "Can it live up to profession standards?" But, our readers are telling us we're missing something, that we're not satisfying their need to be informed. And we need to listen--before they stop listening to us.

To learn more about Jay Rosen, open-source reporting and NewAssignment.net download this seven minute interview.

Posted by Lauren McKeon at 12:21 AM | Permalink