George Orwell, long before he dreamed up thoughtcriminals or newspeak, lived in Spain in the 30's. He went to write newspaper articles but joined the Republican Army instead. He got shot, and never fully recovered. Homage to Catalonia is the product of his time spent in trenches while mortar exploded around him and his poorly trained, poorly organized, and poorly equipped comrades. The other side was just as bad off: this was the Spanish Civil War. The war he experienced wasn't the war he'd heard about from the unceasing propaganda coming from all sides.

"The fighting had barely started when the newspapers of the Right and Left dived simultaneously into the same cesspool of abuse. We all remember the Daily Mail's poster: 'REDS CRUCIFY NUNS,' while to the Daily Worker Franco's Foreign Legion was 'composed of murderers, white-slavers, dope-fiends and the offal of every European country.' ...The New Statesmen was treating us to tales of Fascist barricades made of the bodies of living children (a most unhandy thing to make barricades with), while [another paper] was declaring that 'the sawing-off of a Conservative tradesman's legs' was 'a commonplace' in Loyalist Spain."

Even in 1938, Orwell had a pretty good take on the twisted patriotism in reporting a war:

"The people who write that kind of stuff never fight; possibly they believe that to write it is a substitute for fighting. It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot never gets near a front-line trench, except for the briefest of propaganda-tours. Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him."

As usual, Orwell makes me feel guilty for not standing up to The Man, or, in this case, our media for framing our own war as a fight to spread democracy and fight evil. In truth, the horrific, freedom-stifling acts of the Taliban we've heard so much about actually pale in comparison to the corruption and mass-rape of the government they overthrew--and who the West are trying to put back in power. So let's not pretend this is a war about Good and Evil. Recognize propaganda when you see it, and demand answers. Let this eerie Orwell prediction sink in a little, and ask yourself, when your time comes, will you shout or will you fight?

Posted by Dana Lacey at 11:54 PM | Permalink

About a year ago, an editor at Hong Kong's major English-language daily newspaper, The South-China Morning Post, spoke to my class of second and third-year journalists at Hong Kong Baptist University. She told us not to think of journalism as a calling, or as some kind of higher profession for which we are destined. Journalism, she said, is just another job, and journalists should not consider themselves special in any way. Bringing the news to the people is not a noble duty, but just another societal task that needs to be handled properly. She was a stern, British woman in her early forties - and she frightened the class into an even deeper silence than was normal. She was far from inspirational, but perhaps she was right about journalism in societies like Hong Kong, Great Britain and Canada, where reporters are free to do and say as they please.

I didn't like the woman, but I agreed with what she said, and I buried her talk somewhere in my memory for future reference. Then I read this week's New Yorker. Michael Specter's "Kremlin, Inc." tells the disturbing story of government corruption in Russia. Driving the narrative is Anna Politkovskaya - an outspoken journalist who was murdered in her apartment building for speaking out against Vladimir Putin's Kremlin and the atrocities in Chechnya. I wonder what the Post's editor would have to say about Politkovskaya. To work through years of death-threats, abuse and torture, Politkovskaya must have felt compelled to do her duty as a Russian. Though her family begged her to give up, she persevered, saying "How could I live with myself if I didn't write the truth?"

What bothers me now about that Post editor one year ago, is that our class, of around twenty students, probably contained at least five students from Mainland China. A couple of those students might remain in Hong Kong after University, but some would inevitably return to China - where journalistic freedom is far more limited. If they followed that editor's advice, there would be none among them who might contradict the Chinese government - or question their practices.

As a fourth year journalism student, I am sometimes disappointed with a profession that appears to be driven by money, advertising, and celebrity reporters. But there is something to aspire to beyond Editor-In-Chief of the Globe, or polished anchor on CBC. There are still journalists in the world who pursue the truth, and do so with the purest of intentions. And for that small percentage of our profession, I can graduate Journalism school optimistically.

Posted by Julia LeConte at 07:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here's one ripped from the Halifax headlines.

On the night of November 24, 2006, in downtown Halifax, one car allegedly rear-ended another and the driver - who witnesses claim smelled of alcohol - left the scene before authorities were called or insurance exchanged.
A witness followed the driver to a nearby parking garage and confronted him in the hallway. He filmed the encounter on his cell phone.
What the witness may have thought was material useful for an isolated police case became the subject of headlines when the man in the videotape was later identified as Nova Scotia MLA and human resources minister Ernie Fage. Witness became reporter when the video was first aired on CBC and a police investigation intensified.

More frequently seen on TMZ exposing the shenanigans of young Hollywood, the cell phone video was now in the middle of a political scandal.

On January 4, Fage resigned from Conservative cabinet and more recently has taken a personal leave from caucus. An investigation into the incident wrapped up on Friday and local police say they are now reviewing the findings and consulting the appropriate authorities on what happens next. Meanwhile for Premier Rodney MacDonald the political consequences are yet to be determined.
Throughout all the twists, turns and accusations of this case what is apparent and interesting to me is that the story became headline news across the country due primarily to one man and his phone.

Oh, and an added note of interest on the story: The car rear-ended was occupied by two Halifax Chronicle-Herald journalists.

Posted by Shannon Wilmot at 12:46 PM | Permalink

Writers beware. Technology is not our friend. It is our mortal enemy, just waiting to beat us when we're down. Oh yes, you might think that with all the pretty toys out there meant to make our jobs and lives more convenient, like digital recorders, digital cameras, blackberries, laptops (the list goes on), we have it made as journalists now. But just wait until things go wrong. Because now when they wrong, they go far more wrong than before we had all these gadgets. We have become slaves to technology, you see.

Why such paranoia? Take as a case in point the recent incident of Colin Mayes' personal e-mail (a joke about the government, a native man and a bull, which incidentally was far more derogatory to the government) gone public. How many of us (and I know my fellow students are hanging their heads in pseudo-shameful agreement) have sent e-mails intended for a very specific audience - with words that could, if seen by the wrong people and out of context - be quite damning to a budding journalist's reputation.

Anyway, the real reason I'm writing about the burden of technology is not because of an issue in the news. It's because of something that happened to me personally: the hard drive on my few-month-old Mac laptop died suddenly one fateful morning. One week before my major feature was due, and in the middle of working on several other assignments. Beyond the obvious stress this created, from simply not having a computer with which to work on my draft, to convincing me that I'm the carrier of some sort of computer death-curse, there was also the stress of losing my files. I backed up some things, but I just didn't do it often enough; hence we get to the reason for this blog. If you rely on your computer the way I do now, remember to back up your data. All of it and as often as possible. When I went to pick up the Mac with a brand new hard drive, more than a week later, there were two other people in the shop in the middle of similar catastrophes. They both depended on their computers to make a living. Avoid loosing your source lists, pictures, all those electronic copies of published work, essays in the works etc...

My friends used to call me the Queen of the Stone Age because I was so technologically inept. Maybe nothing has changed. Probably everyone reading this backs up their stuff once a week or more and I'm the only sucker. So if that's the case, I can at least offer two pieces of advice in the event that your computer dies and as a freelancer you're without your moneymaker. 1. Always have a friend on stand-by who will lend you their computer in the event of an emergency. 2. Failing that, if you have warranty, force your computer company to rent you a computer for the time yours is being repaired. Mac had offered to do this for me when I made it clear how much I depended on the thing. Finally, make a point of communicating how unhappy you are about the incident to the service rep, adding that you will never buy their product again due to this inconvenience. At least you might get a free Ipod or something out of the disaster. Just what you need, more technology.

Posted by Lisa Paul at 06:59 PM | Permalink

This week I tuned into Oprah to procrastinate further on my feature and my research project. What I found was a fascinating debate about whether women can have it all. The timing was interesting because I am currently doing research with my group about women in prominent positions in Canadian newsrooms.

Elizabeth Vargas, of ABC News, joined Oprah and made some interesting points. In January 2006, Vargas became one of only a handful of women to co-anchor ABC's World News Tonight. Only a couple of weeks later, her co-anchor, Bob Woodruff, was injured by a bomb in Iraq. (In fact, yesterday was the one year anniversary of that tragic event.) Days later, Vargas found out that she was pregnant with her second child.

In May 2006 she chose motherhood and completed her last broadcast. In doing so, she reignited the debate about women in the workplace.

Recently, Vargas has returned to the journalism world, but not on World News Tonight. She is instead one of the co-anchors of ABC's 20/20, which gives her more time with her two young children.

But I wonder if she misses the fast-paced world of the newsroom or if she believes that she has made the right choice? She told Oprah she feels a combination of the two.

This Oprah episode stood out for me because I am in the process of delving into a similar topic for a research paper. My group and I are looking at women in Canadian newsrooms and wondering why few of them are able to climb their way to the top. Some of our research has shown that the long hours that are required by editor-in-chiefs mean that women must choose between their careers and their children. Many women end up on the communications side when they reach a certain level because the structure is more realistic to their busy lives. And the problem is compounded by a real lack of affordable daycare.

Anyways, Dana Lacey will be writing about this topic for her upcoming online piece, so check it out for more details. I think it gives all us female aspiring journalists and mothers a lot to think about.

Posted by Jennifer Paterson at 01:47 PM | Permalink

I've got over my fear of cold calling sources. I've even stopped worrying about posing tough and personal questions. However, there is still an aspect of the journalist's job that bothers me -- the inevitable awkward goodbye. Last month, I had an interview with a source who seemed pleased and eager to talk to me. After 45 minutes of chatting, I realized I got the information I needed from him and didn't have any further questions. However, he waited on the other end of the telephone with baited breath. I proceeded by saying my standard end of an interview line: "Well, I think that's all the questions I have for you. A fact-checker may be contacting you shortly. Thanks for your time. I really appreciate it." To which he responded coldly, "No problem. Bye."

I mentioned how I was disturbed by the ending of this interview to a classmate over coffee the other day. She says that she sees a journalist's relationship with a source similar to a therapist's relationship with a patient. Sources pour out information to journalists just like patients flood therapists with their feelings, and then "times up." In the patient's case, they get to meet with their therapist perhaps the following week for their next appointment. However, in the source's case, it's likely they will never hear from the journalist again.

This is the part that I find awkward. Throughout my limited experience as a journalist, I've interviewed a lot of interesting people -- people who've opened up to me about personal topics. And like always, we say the inevitable awkward goodbye; never to speak again. I know that we can't become life long friends with all of our sources. And I realize the industry is set up this way. But you have to admit, the relationship between a journalist and their source is nonetheless odd.

Posted by Dayna Dayus at 01:02 AM | Permalink

This blog is being posted later than I wanted.

Why? Because I slept in. No, not until 5 p.m. - my alarm clock fritzed during the night and I just reaped the benefits until about noon. And since then I have been racing to keep up with my day. And I am now getting around to the blog - which I wanted to post by 10 a.m.

What does this have to do with journalism, you ask? Well, I will take this opportunity to quote my personal poet laureate Nas: "I don't sleep, because sleep is the cousin of death."

I think journalists have adopted this mantra. Most I know rarely sleep: Working throughout the day, catching up with family or friends in the evening and then, when everyone else have gone to bed, staying up late and warming to the glow of the laptop light.

So why doe we consider a 6-hour rest over-sleeping? Do we work to hard? It's a North-American trend to pack in 12-hour days. So part of the journalist's sleepless life is a reflection of the people he or she covers. The other part, I believe, is our need to know.

The downside is journalists have a tendency to remove themselves from the world. They hang out with other journalists. We know about the world because we read about it, and not enough because we experience it. Don't get me wrong. I know all journalists aren't asocial recluses, who never go anywhere. But we don't need to be journalists all the time.

Sleeping threw off my whole day. But I feel rested for the first time in a while. The lesson I am taking is it is okay to take a break.

So you should too. Right now. Seriously, stop reading this.

Posted by John Mather at 05:07 PM | Permalink

Only a few days into the Robert Pickton trial, and reports say that this trial (the first of at least two) will last about a year. This made me reminisce (not fondly) about trials in the past that become media circuses, and dominate news agencies while other stories fall by the wayside. There is no denying that the crimes he allegedly committed were horrific, and that it will be one of the biggest murder cases in our country's history. Where I have a problem is the amount of coverage it is bound to get. We can only hope that it does not follow the pattern of media-fuelled trials of the past: Michael Jackson, Paul Bernardo and OJ Simpson are some pertinent recent examples. During the time these trials were going on, one could seldom pick up a newspaper, magazine or watch the news without being fed a daily update of a new witness, a new piece of evidence or a new gruesome detail.
The point is that these trials are turned into entertainment events and turn those involved into celebrities. (Johnny Cochrane, Kato Calen, Michael Jackson's lawyer with the crazy white hair, Karla Homolka, etc.)
Although I believe that a general knowledge of these cases (the crime, the verdict) is worthwhile news, the minute details of every facet should come out later in a book or something, so news agencies can focus on other news without giving these criminals more attention than they deserve.

Posted by David Pratt at 10:21 AM | Permalink

Virginia Woolf said that to be a successful writer, a woman needed a room of one's own, and money to support herself.

Here are a few other things we need.

First, a half-decent chair. Mine is all wrong, but I like it because it lets me tip backwards really far before falling over. But if you're spending hours and hours screaming at the same sentence, you're gonna start hurtin'. You should get up, stretch, exercise. But, as we all know, writers are lazy. And poor. So here's a cheap and easy way to improve your posture.

Next, music. You should have a constant soundtrack while you bang out those beautiful adjectives. If you think you prefer quiet, it's because you haven't found the right write band. Don't tell me you can't write and rock; even Shakespeare had rhythm. Try Peter Bjorn and John's "Writer's Block"

Finally, for sanity's sake you need distractions. Blogging is one way, but who really wants to write MORE then they have to? A room with a view is not ideal; windows are a tease--you're not going anywhere for a while. What a writer needs is something simple, something that a short attention span can quickly tire of, a quick break from the computer screen. So, the logical conclusion is that every writer should own a cat. They don't demand much, just wave a string at them--you'll find it just as entertaining as the cat does. Here's one writer whose work was largely influenced by his cat.

happy writing

Posted by Dana Lacey at 02:25 AM | Permalink

Art Buchwald, the celebrated humourist who died last week at 81, delivers his own obituary on the website of the New York Times. The interactive feature, called The Last Word, features a footage of Buchwald shot last July. "I want to be remembered as someone who makes people laugh, feel better," he said. Imagining his memorial, he said: "I'd have a Blue Angel navy plane fly over the site. I'd be cremated and my ashes would be dropped all over every cocktail party on Martha's Vineyard. All the sailboats would fly their sails at half mast and everyone would say what a wonderful guy I was."

Jim Romenesko, Senior Online Reporter at Poynter reports that 10 or more video obits have been shot and edited by the New York Times so far.

Buchwald shocked his doctors by outliving their predictions that kidney failure would kill him within three weeks last February. He lived in a hospice for five months, where he defied expectations of how a dying man should act. "People are afraid of death and talking about death. They don't know what to do about it," he said. He put his friends and family at ease by making them laugh, and went on to live and write for another half year at his home on Martha's Vineyayd.

Buchwald's life-long practice of journalism and humanism helped him keep his sense of humour about death. He seems like a happy man who loved his work satirizing politicians (he says his biggest disappointment was not making Richard Nixon's enemy list). He overcame a traumatic childhood to focus on engaging the readers of his columns, first in Paris and later in Washington. Journalism can be a way of life, like humour. Buchwald was a smart guy. Lucky him, lucky us.

Buchwald wrote a "final column" in a hospice after he went off dialysis to be published after he died. Read it here.

Posted by Gena Smith at 06:24 PM | Permalink

I don't even know where to begin. I've only seen one episode, but already I'm disappointed in I'm from Rolling Stone. Reality tv has a few requisites and that's no doubt why the six undeserving "journalists" featured on the show are cliched, beautiful, and/or overly confident. Their personalities generate enough drama to make the show entertaining to watch, and that's about it. For journalistic integrity, look elsewhere.

Four years into my journalism degree and as an aspiring music journalist, I find it insulting to watch the tv-friendly cast. In this particular episode, Colin (the indie guy) has a horrible interview with the group We Are Scientists. His lack of preparation results in a lack of co-operation from the band. Another contestant, Krishtine, is shocked at the idea of a re-write, and complains about having to do a follow up interview.

The only encouraging element about the show, is that it makes you realize you can do better. And now, there's a chance to prove it. Each week on rollingstone.com a new writing contest is revealed for viewers to participate in. I can't help but think there'll be more talent in these entries, than the show will ever see.

Posted by Ann Ruppenstein at 02:56 AM | Permalink

In this city, the Toronto Reference Library is supposed to be the source of all sources. Every book and every publication imaginable, from back copies of the Canadian Mining Journal to that obscure book on the art of basket weaving, is stored in its endless stacks. If it's on paper, it's here.

At least, theoretically. On a recent trip to the reference library, I discovered that this claim is becoming less and less true. I was on a quest to find back issues of newspapers from across the country, and in some cases, from the U.S. and Europe, for a story I was working on. In particular, I wanted to look more at images and layout, less at text. I was able to get my hands on a number of papers but there were many holes in my search: some papers would be missing key dates, other papers weren't available at all. "You should try the Internet," suggested a librarian. "The databases have everything. We're trying to phase out physical papers so we can move towards electronic archives."

Makes sense. We are living in a technological age after all. But as much as I love databases... no, actually - they don't have everything. The articles are all there, but I have yet to come across a database that was able to show me what an actual newspaper page looked like. But art direction, while sometimes overlooked in journalism circles, is just as important to telling a story as words are.

Proquest has no way of showing me what photo was used on, say, the cover of the Globe and Mail last year, its size, or its placement on the page, all of which are factors that, when combined together, makes a statement about the story and its significance.

No, databases are cold and black-and-white, and definitely not flip-friendly (I want to be able to scan a page quickly, and flip through my paper for what I want to read, dammit! Let me flip!)

Even though I love my Internet (I just had a nervous breakdown two hours ago when I thought I would be Internet-less for two days - thank you, Sympatico), I'm afraid that in a fistfight against pen and paper (or, in this case, ink and newsprint), the Internet would still lose. So the library should really reconsider giving up on its centuries-old staple so hastily. Because it's true what they say - ain't nothin' like the real thing.

Posted by Jennifer Fong at 12:48 AM | Permalink

So tonight "news" hosts Bill O'Reilly from the O'Reilly Factor and Stephen Colbert from the Colbert Report will visit each others shows. I don't know about you, but I've been hearing nothing but hype about this since it was announced last week. Ah, the stuff youtube dreams are made of.

I can't actually figure out why they're pulling the stunt. It's not sweeps and Colbert's show, where he pretty much created an alter ego that permanently mocks O'Reilly, has been on for more than a year. So still the shows be any good?

The short answer is maybe. When John Stewart, of the Daily show which precedes the Colbert Report, appeared on CNN's now defunct Crossfire he pretty much annihilated the bow tie off one of the hosts Tucker Carlson (last seen on Dancing with the Stars..eliminated on the first round. Yes, I watch Dancing with the Stars).

But O'Reilly and his people will probably be prepared for the 'ol Colbert one-two (One, pretend you agree with whatever your guest says. Two, get them really excited to have an ally, and make them look like a loser).

Guess we'll just have to wait and see. I, personally, would happily welcome them on the next season of Dancing.

The O'Reilly Factor is on @ 8pm on Fox News
The Colbert Report is on @ 11:30pm on the Comedy Network

Posted by Amanda Pereira at 09:31 AM | Permalink

The debate is over: blogging is journalism. In New Brunswick at least.

Charles LeBlanc covered the protests at the Atlantic Conference in St. John, New Brunswick for his blog this summer. Everyone went crazy. Protesters rushed a meeting between the chamber of commerce and board of trade members from Atlantic Canada and the New England states, masked, carrying signs and sticks. Police retaliated and started making arrests. Leblanc was taking pictures with his digital camera when police arrested him as well and deleted pictures from his camera. He was charged with obstructing justice.

The ruling came down November 24.

"Mr. LeBlanc is a "blogger". I'm sure that many, if not the majority of Saint Johners, are not familiar with this word. ...I went to the computer in an attempt to find a definition. "The Google website defines "blogger" as a person who writes weblogs, and a blog as a shortened version of weblog. "I reprinted the following definitions from the Google website:..."

LeBlanc was apparently not participating in the protests, and other members of the media were allowed to film the event uninhibited. "Mr. LeBlanc was never advised by the police that he would be arrested if he did certain things--He was simply plying his trade, photographing a demonstration for inclusion in his blog when he was arrested." Police would need a search warrant to legally access his pictures. Charges were dismissed.

This lends itself to a lot of debate that's well tread and generally not very intelligent: are bloggers journalists? I don't see why not. Read skeptically, but figure out who you can trust: me.

Posted by Joe Rayment at 11:10 AM | Permalink

Last week we were reminded by one of our professors of the passion we all felt, at some point, for the printed word. He said that in the midst of deadlines and reading and writing, it's easy to forget that we actually like reading and writing. Then he handed out Orhan Pamuk's acceptance speech for the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature.

There's something in there that I thought was worth posting. Here, Pamuk contemplates on why he writes:

"I write because I have an innate need to write! I write because I can't do normal work like other people. I write because I want to read books like the ones I write. I write because I am angry at all of you, angry at everyone. I write because I love sitting in a room all day writing. I write because I can only partake in real life by changing it . . . I write because I am afraid of being forgotten. I write because I like the glory and the interest that writing brings. I write to be alone. Perhaps I write because I hope to understand why I am so very, very angry at all of you, so very, very angry at everyone. I write because I like to be read. I write because once I have begun a novel, an essay, a page, I want to finish it . . . I write because I have never managed to be happy. I write to be happy."

I revised my New Year's resolution to periodically remind myself of this (as cheesy as this sounds). And committed to, at some point in my career, aim for that one story that will change the world. The one that made us all want to be journalists in the first place.

Posted by Vanessa Rodriguez at 08:33 AM | Permalink

As we approach the end of days, aka graduation, many of us are questioning our places in the world. Because we can't all be on Naked News, here are some alternate career paths in the event that this journalism thing doesn't pan out:

1) Go into PR. Although competition may be fierce, since the kids sitting beside, in front of, and two rows behind you are all thinking the same thing.

2) Run for Prime Minister. You've got the starving writer demographic. Keep in mind that this option can't be implemented straightaway, so manage your time accordingly. Hire a life coach or a psychic; ask them about the success probability of your political aspirations if you get a funny haircut.

3) Teach ESL abroad. Or teach high school English, and impress the ageless wisdom of the hamburger essay upon young minds. It should be noted, however, that the chances of running into former classmates while gallivanting about Japan are significantly less than the chances of meeting former classmates while conducting parent-teacher interviews and having to tell them their child loses at life.

4) Practise your calligraphy skills as a scribe in a medieval monastery. Where else can you put that eye for painstakingly copyedited detail to good use?

5) Write Harlequin romances. There are enough trashy novels featuring cowboys and pirates; someone needs to start the Devastatingly Handsome Journalist franchise.

6) Form a rock band called The Washed-Up J-Skool Grads.

7) Create a reality show about yourself and a bunch of other washed-up j-school grads. You can call it Survivor: Intern Island and it will run for three depressing seasons before it's cancelled and you pitch The Newlylaidoff to the network. In other news, a real former intern dishes on I'm From Rolling Stone.

8) Open a coffeehouse. After four years of functioning on caffeine, you should know your stuff. In your spare time, take up curling. You know you want to.

9) Design journalist action figures.

10) Become a literary hoax. First, write a book about your harrowing experiences in journalism school, like the time in first year when you were jailed for assaulting paparazzi in a fit of moral outrage, and how in third year you profiled a Mafia don and he offered you a free hit. Then get your boyfriend's half-sister's newspaper delivery boy to pretend to be you in public, before The Smoking Gun busts you and Oprah chastises you on national television. Here is the somewhat related confession of a teenage fabulist to make you feel better about yourself. You got this far without dropping out, so congrats.

Posted by Andrea Lau at 12:01 AM | Permalink

In my Great Journalism class we read the works of literary journalists. My professor talks about the differences between literary journalism and regular journalism. One of the distinctions he makes is that journalists depict reality, but literary journalists depict reality in order to make a grander statement about the world. In other words, literary journalists either overtly or covertly add meaning into their reporting of events. This is what I think is both a strength and weakness of literary journalism, and here is why.

I am reading a book called Maximum City by Suketu Mehta as part of the course. The author describes racism he has experienced for being East Indian, ironically in India. After talking about how he was refused an apartment in an area of Bombay where they only want white foreign tenants, he says:

"I am one of the great brown thieving horde, no matter how far I go. In Varanasi I was refused admittance to the backpackers' inn on similar grounds: I am Indian. I might rape the white women."

The problem with this passage is that you don't know if the last sentence is actually true. Did the inn really tell him they are worried he might rape white women, or has he inferred meaning into their actions in order to depict his own reality? Obviously, either way, what they did was bullshit, but as a reader, I still want to know if they really said that to him. I like the idea of inferring meaning into your reporting, but I want to know exactly what is fact and what is the author's perception.

That's my two cents.

Posted by Shereen Dindar at 01:51 PM | Permalink

I ended up watching Hotel Rwanda over the holidays. Since the RRJ didn't let any of us rest over the "break," I found myself comparing Joaquin Phoenix's journalist character in the movie, Jack Daglish, to our seemingly unaviodable future selves.

In one particular scene, Daglish, like any good journalist, is unwinding in a bar after a tough day of shooting. He's just returned from filming a horrific scene of Rwandans being macheted to death in the street outside their homes. Hotel manager and protagonist Paul Rusesabagina (played by Don Cheadle) says to him, "I am glad that you have shot this footage, and that the world will see it. It is the only way we have a chance that people might intervene." After a pause, the bloodshot Daglish responds: "Yeah, and if no one intervenes? Is it still a good thing to show?"

Which is exactly what made me go, "huh?" Yes, as journalists we have a responsibility to head out into the world and report on important things that the public need to know about. But since when do we also have to worry about how much action results from our reporting? Have we somehow failed as journalists if our readers or viewers don't bring about UN intervention, smarter government spending, or world peace as a result of what we show them?

This isn't limited to fictionalized journalists, either. I found this article by the Globe and Mail's African correspondent, Stephanie Nolen, in which she laments the unfathomably high AIDS rate in South Africa and is "furious that AIDS in Africa still attracts so pathetically little international attention, such paltry help." Meanwhile, this article, previewing a documentary on foreign correspondents in Afghanistan, speaks of the reporters' "frustrations of covering a forgotten war."

Strange - as Rachel pointed out in her blog a few days ago, journalists are misguided if they think their reports can bring about any sort of positive change. I can imagine how frustrating it would be to be embedded in a war zone and not see a strong public outcry about it from the folks back home... but maybe we should all take a hint from Daglish and drink our sorrows away in fancy hotel bars.

Speaking of Rwanda, I might as well use this space to recommend Philip Gourevitch's book on the subject, We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families: stories from Rwanda. Langewiesche, Vaillant, and MacKinnon are good, yes, but they've got nothing on Gourevitch.

Posted by Angela Kozak at 10:56 AM | Permalink

A few days ago, Orato announced they'd be applying their brand of first-person, citizen journalism-based news coverage to the upcoming trial of Robert Pickton, the man accused of killing 26 women (mostly prostitutes) in B.C.

But in an effort to get beyond the "Here are the facts" approach that mainstream media will take -- and even beyond the "Here are the facts...and my opinion" approach that traditional bloggers will take -- Orato decided to enlist two ex-prostitutes to cover the story for the site.

As Paul Sullivan, editor-in-chief of Orato, told the Edmonton Sun, "I'm hoping to get a subjective report or series of reports from these two people that talk about their feelings and recollections, as well as the facts that are presented in court."

It's a bold move that will add extremely relevant voices to coverage of this trial, but it also reflects the kind of innovation necessary these days to create original, interesting coverage of events that attract reporters by the busload.

It's also a fantastic example of how citizen journalism, questionable and unwieldy as it sometimes may be, can open the doors for people intimately invested in a particularly story -- and not just those looking for a place to spout their thoughts and commentary on the world at large.

Posted by Graham Silnicki at 01:13 PM | Permalink

I know, I know..everyone loooooves Barbara Walters and every aspiring female journalist wants to be her...allegedly. But I have to tell you, I really can't stand her. And I never could. I've wanted to be a journalist for some time now and when people would ask me if I wanted to be like Babs, I would say yes of course. But that's only because I didn't know any better. Who watches 20/20 when they're 12?

She has interviewed a lot of amazing, exclusive and sometimes scary people. Didn't she interview Osama bin Laden? Someone needs to fact check that. She makes everyone cry, too. I don't think she made Osama cry. That needs fact checking too! The point is that there's no denying that she's good at what she does, to a point, but that doesn't mean I need to like it. Her legacy is behind her. Look at her now. She's tangled up in a Rosie O'Donnell vs Donald Trump arguing match. I'm mad at myself for even mentioning it. I cannot even begin to tell you how much I want to spit on both of them. I'm digressing. Back to Babs. Did she talk smack about Rosie? Well her integrity is on the line, according to some entertainment show. Someone is lying. But the thing is we shouldn't be caring about Barbara Walters anyway. She's so annoying.

If you ever watch The View, all she does is name drop all the people she's best friends with, shared cabs with, or had drinks with. Walters is self absorbed and self righteous. And even though she may be a good journalist sometimes, why should I want to be like her? I'm sorry if I've offended Bab-ites but I needed to get that off my chest. I feel much better.

Now back to this Osama thing...

Posted by Diana Cina at 12:08 AM | Permalink

Journalism as a pedagogical tool is something everyone should have access to. Before I came to journalism school I would have been terrified to call an editor at the Globe and Mail to ask for an interview. I could not have imagined calling a local politician and requesting time for a chat. And the truth is I rarely read newspapers--preferring to read magazines at my leisure.

The skills I've learned, and now take for granted, are valuable for anyone who wants access to the truth about anything. Awareness of the variety of news sources available--and knowing which ones offer the best stories--has made me more informed. I did some work for a former employer over the Christmas break, and was taken aback by the fact that nobody knew what was happening in Darfur or anywhere else. Many people are too busy being overworked and underpaid to have any time left to read the paper, magazines or books.

People don't have time to run around and do interviews after they've put in a full day of work, made dinner, talked to their kids, and then read several news sources on a weekly basis--just to get at the truth. But practicing journalism can mean making a call to your local MP and asking why more isn't being done about childcare and global warming. Or calling members on the board of education to find out why there isn't more training for teachers on racism and homophobia.

You have to be constantly brave in j-school. Every time I pick up the phone to call someone and ask for a few minutes of their time, so I can ask them about X and Y, is daunting, no matter how many times I've done it. Fear of rejection remains. But knowing that I just have to keep digging, keep asking until someone talks to me, until I acquire more pieces of the puzzle, has changed me in a permanent sense. So whether I decide to work as a journalist or not in the future, I think I will be a better citizen, willing to ask more questions of everything.

Posted by Meena Nallainathan at 09:57 AM | Permalink

Highbrow. Lowbrow. These two words are more often implied than said aloud. But where do they fit when it comes to issues and events in Canadian journalism? I've been creating something that maps out the general consensus on a scale similar to New York Magazine's Approval Matrix. While I won't mention where I'm placing them, here are some recent events I'm including. You can decide whether they're lowbrow or highbrow, brilliant or despicable.

- The Juliet O'Neill ruling: the courts finally take a stand for journalists

- Bell Globemedia Inc. takes over CHUM Ltd.: So Canadian journalism can be less diversified.

- Hello and Bobbi are released in Canada: moving on

- Victoria Times Colonist freelance columnist Vivian Smith, is reinstated after her contract was terminated because of advertisers' concerns: CanWest cares about the advertising/editorial mix (if it affects business).

- The Walrus details the failure of journalists in the Arar case

- CBC's Peter Mansbridge and The Globe and Mail's John Doyle duke it out over war coverage

- Jan Wong and Quebec duke it out over the Montreal shootings

- Stephen Harper tries to control the media

- Sun Media begins to self-destruct

- CanWest MediaWorks' Dose stops printing May 17, 2006: Good night, sweet prince.

Posted by Chris Richardson at 10:46 AM | Permalink

Altruism. Isn't that the idealistic core of journalism? The Canadian Association of Journalists proclaims in their statement of principles that, "It is our privilege and duty to seek and report the truth... defend free speech and the right to equal treatment under law... speak for the voiceless.." etc. Even universities, such as the University of British Columbia make statements about the "vital role" journalism plays in the public sphere.

Excuse me while I change into my spandex suit.

In seriousness, and perhaps some naivety, I am a journalist because I want to serve the public and perhaps make the world a better place. I was once asked by a guest lecturer whom shall remain nameless why I was studying journalism and a similar sentence was my reply. This lecturer then tore a royal strip off me. Did I think I was better than other people? What gave me the right to think I could make the world a better place? Why was I so egotistical? Journalism is a job that people who like to write and report do. She basically suggested I join some non for profit organization if I wanted to save the world.

I suppose the debate rages on. Journalism: an excuse to drink and write about cool things or a profession that serves a community through communication. However, embarking on a career based in altruism can be an overwhelming experience, especially when the pay is less than fantastic.

Posted by Rachel Hahn at 08:58 AM | Permalink

When the Jayson Blair fiasco came to a head at the New York Times in 2003, the paper went through a whole lot of rigamarole to prove to readers that it is accountable. Daniel Okrent was hired as the paper's first public editor or ombudsman, and began a regular column, taking reader complaints and acting as an independent reader's advocate. The paper had historically been opposed to the concept, but after the Siegal Committee, an in-house group put together to study the Times in the wake of the scandal, recommended taking the step, Okrent was hired. He's since written a tell-all type book about his work at the Times called Public Editor #1.

When Okrent left, veteran newspaperman Byron Calame took over, and while nowhere near as hard-hitting as his predecessor, he is still chipping away on behalf of readers. With his contract coming up in a few months, the Times is re-evaluating the need for the position. A few fairly innocuous remarks from Times executive editor Bill Keller were reported in the New York Observer, hinting at the possibility that after Calame's gone the position may be scrapped.

An e-mail from Keller was quoted that said "the creation of a public editor has helped the paper immensely in a period when the credibility of the media generally has been under assault." But he added that the need for a public editor has been diminished by other Times items like "Talk to the Newsroom," an online forum where various editors take questions. Definitely not the same thing as an full-time watchdog on alert.

While the Observer and subsequent story in the Huffington Post may be jumping the gun a little on Keller's statements, it makes you wonder about the validity of the position in the first place. Sure, they needed a public relations/credibility boost after Blair, but to scrap the whole thing so soon after the dust settles?

Posted by Regan Ray at 05:45 PM | Permalink

This holiday, while shopping for other people at Chapters, I did what any good gift giver would do and bought something for myself: David Remnick's new collection of profiles, Reporting. The crispness of the title suggests Remnick's style of writing and the self-assuredness of anything associated with The New Yorker. But more than that, it points to the star of this book, which isn't the world leaders and great writers Remnick profiles, but his out-of-this-world-tour-de-force reporting.

The review of the book in The New York Review of Books lauds Remnick for his timeless character sketches. And then it ends on the following note:

"One thought that emerges from the finely done portraits of writers in Reporting is that exertion--notoriously--does not always guarantee literary brilliance and brilliance--
unfairly--can flower without exertion. Marvelous literature can arrive in disconcerting ways. Idleness, a taste for drinking and laughing in pubs with hangers-on and pretty women, even the loss of keyboard time wasted by appearing on TV chat shows or becoming the president of a small republic, do not disqualify a writer. They merely mean fewer books get written."

This quotation comes after a section of the review focused on the profiles of great writers: Philip Roth, Don DeLillo, etc. But unfortunately, I don't think the same idea holds true for reporters, like Remnick, who could only have built the omniscience and authority he has in these stories by the most dedicated kind of reporting. Still, it's an interesting and somehow comforting notion to chew on for anyone in the realm of writing. Maybe you don't necessarily have to feel guilty about choosing the pub over another paragraph: it may just mean you'll write less but not worse...

Posted by Julia Belluz at 11:24 AM | Permalink

Yeah I know, last month I promised I'd talk to you about my trip to Israel--well, hold on while I pick the shrapnel out of my ass...

No, it wasn't like that. I learned a lot about myself, my capabilities and being Jewish etc. but this ain't my blog, this is a journalism blog and there is a more pressing matter to attend to that actually has more than a faint connection to journalism. (imagine that!) I'm working on this story for this very magazine that has to do with disability media (DEF: A media outlet pertaining specifically to the topic of disability and the goings on in the disability community.) and while I'm in Israel I get an email telling me that Abilities Magazine (Canada's only national disability publication) after 20 years of quietly chugging along, is desperately clinging to life and is begging anyone who will listen for at least $100 so it can go on producing issues:

>>> "EnableLinker" 12/21/06 4:31 PM >>>
A message sent on behalf of the

* Friends of the Canadian Abilities Foundation *

Please circulate widely!

Dear Colleagues,

The Canadian Abilities Foundation is a national treasure that, since 1986, has been a key communication resource to all Canadians and, in particular, those with disabilities. Abilities Magazine, the outstanding publication produced by the Canadian Abilities Foundation, is the glue that holds the 'disability' sector together.

** The Canadian Abilities Foundation and Abilities Magazine are in danger of disappearing. **

This urgent matter has just come to our attention. Due to unprecedented financial circumstances, the Canadian Abilities Foundation and its projects, including Abilities Magazine, are endangered. A number of us have formed a coalition of urgency, Friends of the Canadian Abilities Foundation. We intend to seize our future by acting together to stabilize the Canadian Abilities Foundation. We are setting aside our individual needs, and in the spirit of collaboration, requesting that you join us in supporting the Canadian Abilities Foundation in this troubling time.

In the spirit of giving, we are asking organizations to join us in making an immediate contribution ($100 or more) to secure the future of the Canadian Abilities Foundation; we are asking individuals to give what they can. Please make your contribution immediately, or as soon as possible following the holidays – TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!

Donations will be recognized with a charitable tax receipt.

As a group of deeply concerned colleagues, we are taking matters into our own hands. We are determined to get through these rough times. Our coalition is working on a long-term sustainability plan. The Canadian Abilities Foundation and its work will not end; it is too valuable. BUT WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT.

JOIN US – now! You can send your cheque to the Canadian Abilities Foundation directly, or type Canadian Abilities Foundation into CanadaHelps.org to make your contribution electronically.

Please take the time to make sure that all organizations and individuals in your network who care about disability have a chance to consider this request. Pass on the email and help ensure the ongoing contribution of the Canadian Abilities Foundation. To learn more about the Canadian Abilities Foundation and its work, please visit www.abilities.ca

Thank you for your consideration – and your generosity! May the New Year be healthy, happy and generous to one and all – including CAF and the many that depend on its services.

Nathan Ball – L'Arche Canada Foundation – Toronto
Max Beck – Easter Seals
Vickie Cammack – Executive Director, Plan Institute – Vancouver
Odette Dantzer – Developmental Disabilities Resource Centre of Calgary
Al Etmanski – President, Plan – Vancouver
Krista Flint – Canadian Down Syndrome Society – Calgary
Nathan Gilbert – Executive Director – Laidlaw Foundation
Phillip Haid – Chair, Laidlaw Foundation
Lynda Kahn – Inclusion Press – Toronto
Mike Manolson – Genesis Consulting Group
Jack Pearpoint – Marsha Forest Centre – Toronto
Beth Porter – L'Arche Canada – Toronto
John Rae – Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
Brian Smith – Nurturing Belonging Initiative
Traci Walters – Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres – Ottawa

cc: Ray Cohen – Canadian Abilities Foundation
**************************************************************

The Canadian Abilities Foundation in summary:

Here is a brief history of the Canadian Abilities Foundation (CAF) and why we need to support it today. CAF has never had the benefit of core funding. It has survived through project funding, subscriptions, advertising and product sales. After 20 years, anticipated supports have been withdrawn. CAF is inventing the next-generation collaborative organization, but it needs time. This is a model in social enterprise, and can serve as a living example to organizations and coalitions directing their energies towards self-sufficiency and pursuit of the public good.

If this resource is lost, here's what we stand to lose:

* Abilities Magazine: print run 45,000; estimated readership 135,000; the only non-profit, national, cross-disability publication serving the disability community. The magazine shares with the foundation its mission of providing information, inspiration and opportunity to people with disabilities, while supporting their full integration into all aspects of society.

* www.abiities.ca (formerly EnableLink): receives in excess of 40,000 unique visits per month. Abilities.ca is poised to become a fully accessible online centre for developing communities of interest; complete with blogs, list serves, chat rooms and twenty years' worth of resources and connections.

* Access Guide Canada: an online directory, provides a detailed look at accessibility across Canada. Over 1,200 volunteers have assisted in developing more than 17,000 listings of accessible places and facilities spread over 2000 communities in Canada – and the list continues to grow!

* The Directory of Disability Organization in Canada: listings for over 5,400 different organizations; frequently referenced by anyone interested in the national constellation of disability resources.

* The EnableLinker: the monthly ezine of the Canadian Abilities Foundation; EnableLinker has over 1,100 subscribers and is basically a modern-day "town crier," keeping readers informed of conferences, workshops, volunteering opportunities, research opportunities, articles for sale and lease, and so on.

* CAF is also the publisher of several books, extending from the safety of women and children with disabilities to literacy and employment.

* Perhaps most importantly, CAF participates and supports others in the quest to provide equal opportunities for full participation of people with disabilities – an opportunity to contribute to the greater good.

* One such coalition, that CAF supports as a founding member, is Canada's Belonging Initiative. This groundbreaking undertaking consists of a first-ever collaboration of national disability organizations committed to fostering a sense of belonging for the most isolated members of our society. Here is a prime example of dismantling a partnership that has the potential to make a profound difference. The Belonging Initiative will not be able to fulfill its potential without a capacity to communicate with the disability community – and beyond. The Canadian Abilities Foundation has been perfectly poised to fulfill this critical need.

Clearly, we need a new way of doing things. There is an opportunity in this crisis. We must find a way to ensure that the Canadian Abilities Foundation is there to serve the interests of incentives such as the Belonging Initiative – and that the Belonging Initiative itself endures to reach its full potential in providing the positive social impact for which it is destined.

Please forgive us if you are receiving this email more than once.

To send your tax deductible contribution directly:

Canadian Abilities Foundation
340 College Street. Suite 401
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A9

To donate on online please visit:

www.canadahelps.org

Type in Canadian Abilities Foundation

Canadian Abilities Foundation
401-340 College St.
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A9
Canada

Not that I didn't see this coming and not that I feel very sorry for them. After all they, do not seem to do the most basic things that most publications do to keep themselves afloat, like say, marketing. (there's a reason you never heard of Abilities before now.) or maybe charging the disability organizations that get their magazine for free. But regardless, if they go down it will change the outcome of my article, change my ability to make an income, (I write for them, of course!) and change the disability media landscape so it becomes even more sparse than it already is. It will also be further proof that there are too many able bodied people in the world who ultimately don't care enough about disability. CBC once had a column on the viewpoint section of their website called, Disability Matters but I've been hearing rumblings that it is about to be canceled. Obviously, disability doesn't really matter anymore to the CBC.

That's too bad because if you live long enough, every single one of you will be touched by disability (insert evil laugh here!)

Posted by Aaron Broverman at 01:54 PM | Permalink

As the holiday season starts to reach its finish line, I feel lucky that I was able to spend it with friends and family, with good food. However, I, like many others I'm sure, want to know why making snow angels right now would cause a stir; why attempting to make a snowman would be very unfulfilling; want to know in short, where's the darn snow?

This brings two things to mind.

1. I'm sure that the number of deaths and car-accident related injuries was way down this holiday season, as people racing to parties weren't sliding about on ice and snow. Hooray.

However,

2. Why is it that upon daily inspection, as well as random hour-long searches when I get particularly fed up, can I not find any recent newspaper articles with even a mention of the environmental concern this snowless holiday entails? On the CBC site, two articles from December and January were found. One was about ice-wine makers, and the problems the warm weather is giving them. The other was a general article about how not to dream of a white Christmas, as the song goes.

That's it.

We had a hailstorm this July. And now we haven't had more than a flurry all season. I don't expect newspapers to be giving this front-page priority, but it's something I'd like to know more about. The environmental concerns are, if nothing else, an interesting look at climate change and global warming! Is this really so normal that no one wants to hear the scientific side of it?

Posted by Paige Magarrey at 10:26 AM | Permalink

As we are experiencing, the spring of the future is not silent. It is permanent.

I've spent my break from classes trying to find a way to talk about the way people are talking about this news. I've mostly failed but when the panic sets in I google, a task for which I have a natural gift and puritanical work ethic. I've found a lot of scary stuff, some ranting, funny commercials and a number of those 2006 lists my co-bloggers have been cataloging.
Here are a few more top ten lists and amusing diversions to keep everyone on top of the hottest trends in climate change this year.

First, check out some good/bad/funny stories as reported by online 'beacon in the smog', Grist

Next, try to spot the joke in The Guardian's list of earthshakers

And finally, take Wired's Carbon Quiz to find out what your own personal climate change trend is.

Lastly, a quote from the late Soul Brother #1:

"Let's get together and get some land. Raise our food just like the man."James Brown, Minister of Super Heavy Funk, from "Funky President" (song Brown wrote about Gerald R. Ford)

We really are all connected.

Posted by Amy Packwood at 10:44 AM | Permalink

While entrenched in various far-flung GTA bedroom communities this holiday season, I managed to lose touch with the media. What news I did get was delivered by doting relatives, as they doled out heaps of Christmas-y food. The consequence: a bloated waistline and a somewhat skewed version of what constitutes current events in '07.

The top five media events of the year, according to one-too-many family get-togethers:

1) Britain's heatwave and its effect on family vacations. Tesco supermarkets beat out museums as number-one tourist destination.

2) Lloyd Robertson's Christmas "conversation" with Stephen Harper. Says Leah's grandmother, "I like that Mr. Harper. Such a nice man."

3) The discovery of the Daily Show by Leah's grandfather. Re-enacted one-liners quickly become his best defense against pro-Bush relatives.

4) The naming of Toronto's new archbishop, Thomas Collins. Competition for bragging rights over this distant relative mounts as 2007 begins.

5) Artist uncle profiled on local station. Family holds out for call from the big-time Global affiliate in the New Year.

Posted by Leah Collins at 12:05 PM | Permalink

OK, I have a confession: for those of you who don't know, I love GQ. And Esquire. And Wired. Actually, despite being a self-proclaimed feminist, I'd rather pick up any of these male-targeted magazines over any geared for women. The writing is funny--not cute--and for the most part, the features are engaging, not syrupy. They even look better. There are just too few women's magazines out there that are producing provoking work. It's such a bitch.

Which brings me to the one women's magazine I'd pick up over GQ: Bitch. (Hey, I'm hungover, I have full license to use bad segues) Bitch is relevant, it makes me think. It doesn't make me fall asleep. And now that the magazine has released a best-of book, bitchfest, to celebrate their tenth birthday I've got a decade's worth of reading that just may trump GQ. Not that everything in the anthology is gold--I really don't care what women's moustaches say about our position in society--but at least I'm not reading about the best jeans to camouflage my rear-end. (Believe me, nothing is going to hide that). What I can read about is getting dressed in Jerusalem, mapping virgin territory, and the erotics of pedagogy (teaching). I can learn about standing up to pee (difficulty factor: 9), breastfeeding in public and live a day in the life of a female guerilla.

The world needs more bitches.

Posted by Lauren McKeon at 12:17 PM | Permalink