I was battling trying to come up with a magazine mandate that will attract investors lately. In my journeys, I came across Rick Guy magazine. Maybe this is the magazine I should have pitched.

Rich Guy is the, well, magazine for rich guys. Or people who want to feel like they're rich. Or concerned with letting people know they're rich.

"Our magazine subscribers are well-educated affluent males who are decision makers in their company and tend to be single. They are at the prime of their life and are financially secure."

I started reading reader profiles and media kits for magazines (successful and not) about a year ago--I always found it funny that everyone's readers are well-educated, affluent decision makers, like there's a colony of magazine subscribers somewhere, wafts of cash blowing through their cave-like neighborhoods.

"We have attracted readers who are sophisticated, highly educated, affluent, and difficult to reach through mainstream media."
-The Walrus.

Rich Guy's website (Copyright 2006 -- steal away) says it has a world-wide circulation of 260 000, obtained by leaving the magazine in "Corporate Jets and business/first class lounges in major airports" and sales on "Thousands of Newsstands throughout North America." CARD puts its Canadian circulation at 115 000, of which 9000 are paid for.

Someone make Poor Guy magazine. Give away branded Swiss Army knives to slash the tires on Rich Guys' Hummers.

Posted by Joe Rayment at 02:05 PM | Permalink

The RRJ Spring issue is done. It's printed. It's over. It feels good.

There remains, however, some anticipation and concern: what will our interview subjects think of the stories that they've been interviewed for?
One would think, because the interviewees are mostly media-savvy journalists, that they would choose their words carefully, that they would not divulge secrets they didn't want shared with the reading public, and that they would realize that the tape recorder sitting in front of them was not just for show.
Perhaps the journalist is so used to the presence of a tape-recorder, that he has become immune. Perhaps we at the review should be grateful for this, as it allows our interviewees to speak freely.
It does, however, cause some confusion in the fact-checking process.
Among my peers here at the Review, I know of at least 5 specific cases where the interviewee denied a quote that was attributed to them:

"Um, I don't think I would say that," said one.
"I think you've confused me with another one of your subjects," said another.
"Ryerson has been out to get us for a long time," said one particularly irate woman, "this is the hack-job I was expecting."

If the quote wasn't recorded, it had to be studied carefully. Sometimes it was removed from the piece. The subject had to, at times, be appeased.

Thankfully, in most cases there was a tape-recorder to corroborate the reporter's memory.
So please, readers of the review, don't get angry when you see that controversial quote in print. It might be buried in the last column of the piece. It might be prominently placed in the lead. It might even be popping out at you from a pull-quote. But remember, it's been fact-checked, it's on tape, and the magazine has gone to print. It's too late now.

The RRJ Spring issue is done. It's printed. It's over. It feels good.

Posted by Julia LeConte at 01:50 PM | Permalink

Recently I had a little disagreement with someone about the date of the spring equinox. I was 99 per cent sure it fell on March 20. But in retrospect I have to admit, I wasn't checking sure. This funny piece of journo-jargon weaved its way, starting last year (after Cynthia Brouse's class), into everyday conversations I have with friends - well okay, only the ones in this program - everyone else more or less cowers when I grab them by their shirt collar, pull them toward me, glare intently, eyes wild, and ask in a hoarse whisper if they're "checking sure."

But last year the real implications of fact checking didn't register - we weren't, after all, fact checking 3,500-word features that were being published online or in a national magazine. For the RRJ the pressure was on. And with good reason.

There are many ways in which factual errors are introduced to a story - misunderstanding a source, placing a quote out of context, simple human errors like typos, hearing the wrong date, and even the editing process. For an online story I fact checked recently, I had to call a man on his mobile, on vacation, in Belgium, when he failed to respond to my emails. He was very thankful though when together we discovered that the story was edited in such a way as to attribute to him quotes he'd never said.

Check out yesterday's National Review online for a recent New York Times Magazine scandal. If nothing else, this should convince you that fact checking is essential.

Posted by Lisa Paul at 10:26 AM | Permalink

There must be something in the water. Another magazine has ceased publication. The latest victim is also the oldest: Life magazine. The iconic weekly has, more or less, been around since 1936, emphasizing photojournalism with spreads like a photo essay of the Kennedy's, the moon landing and Vietnam.

According to CBC.ca, this is not the first time that the magazine has faced a cancellation. In 1972, publication ceased due to a lull in readership. And then again, in 2000. Three years ago it came back as a newspaper supplement.

But Life will go on. Apparently, there will still be an online edition that showcases the magazine's seventy-year collection of photographs. And its parent company, Time Inc., will continue to publish People, Sports Illustrated, Time and Fortune magazines.

But at Time Inc. there have also been substantial job cuts and the selling off of smaller titles, so you never know who will be next on the chopping block.

I can't say that I was too surprised to read of Life's demise. It has been around for decades, but has met some challenging competitors lately. No one seems interested anymore in looking at beautiful or historical photographs. The rise of the paparazzi culture and the weekly magazines publishing candid snap-shots of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan seem to grab more readership.

The last time I actually picked up a copy of Life was in the archives of Toronto's Reference Library where I was searching through back issues to find some of the articles that my profile subject, Graydon Carter, had written when he worked there in the '70s, during its second incarnation.

I guess the fact that my most recent experience with Life took place in the archives section of a library is telling of its demise this week.

Posted by Jennifer Paterson at 01:18 PM | Permalink

The media has lately been obsessed with "The Trial of the Century" of Conrad Black. Canoe New's media section is filled with nothing but Black, Maclean's recently devoted an issue to his trial, CTV Newsnet launched The Verdict with Paula Todd live from the Conrad Black trial in Chicago. If this coverage wasn't enough, Toronto Life has devoted an entire website to "The Trial of Conrad Black." From listing the cast of characters in Playbill, to a summary of events in Black List, the website has everything you'd want to know about Lord Black.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article looking into why so many Canadians care about the trial. Black's Chicago lawyer, Edward Genson, said "possibly not very much happens in Canada." The story also offers an alternative answer: He acted un-Canadian. It says that we have hard feelings for Conrad because he flaunts his wealth, a very un-Canadian characteristic. "The word 'elite' is a dirty word in Canada," says Andrew Cohen author of upcoming book "The Unfinished Canadian: The people we Are" told The Wall Street Journal. "We're a very watchful people that way."

Whether he is acting like a Canadian or not, Canadian media is bombarding his fellow countrymen with the coverage. To join in the Conrad hype, you can get your Free Conrad or Conrad Will Win t-shirt here (Can you believe he has joined the ranks of Winona Ryder and Martha Stewart?)

Posted by Dayna Dayus at 01:02 AM | Permalink

The Canadian Journalist blog has posted the Newspaper Audience Databank results for 2006.

Overall, Canadians have maintained the same level of readership as in 2005: 53 per cent of Canadians 18+ read a newspaper daily and 77 per cent read at least one issue per week.

More readers are reading online/free commuter dailies... the usual. Overall, there is nothing too interesting - except with our good friends in Cape Breton.

79 per cent of people in Cape Breton read a newspaper daily. That's pretty awesome - the people at the Cape Breton Post must be tickled (though this stat also includes national dailies and the Halifax Chronicle Herald is also widely available there).

So kudos to those in Cape Breton, showing us that newspapers are an engaging medium.

Posted by John Mather at 02:51 PM | Permalink

So much of the media we consume on a daily basis is 'negative.' I realized this when I began to really consume news years ago, and it was reaffirmed when I entered journalism school. In my first-year reporting class, we were told that, "if it bleeds, it leads." Negativity first. There is no denying that stories about fires, violence, war and natural disasters lure in readers and are very important stories to tell, but there is one media outlet that is bucking the trend. HappyNews.com.
As the name suggests, the online publication provides nothing but 'happy' news. But it's not just a novelty, and they defend their content choice:
"Our basic belief is not that people should be insulated from bad news. Far from it. We encourage people to be fully engaged, fully informed citizens. That means we need to know the good and the bad. We just believe much of the traditional media has strayed from this course, and reports a disproportionate amount of negative news. We are trying to balance the scales back out."
And the best part is, they actually have some good stories. So, if mainstream media has got you down, www.happynews.com is all you need to pick you up and help to restore your faith in humanity.

www.happynews.com

Posted by David Pratt at 09:50 PM | Permalink

In his story "Sideshow Barb" in the current issue of Toronto Life, Douglas Bell sums up Barbara Amiel's current status in the media: "In tabloid speak, Amiel is curious cross between Paris Hilton, Ariana Huffington and Imelda Marcos." Bell also blogs about the Black trial for the Toronto Life website. On March 20, after the vermin/slut incident, headlines from the Black trial included "Conrad Black's wife lets fly" and "Reporters 'vermin,' says Black's wife". The Globe and Mail ran a list on March 21, titled "Newspapers' knickers in a knot over Amiel's vocabulary." The word "slut" makes it into only three out of nine headlines. As Toronto Star's Jennifer Wells points out, the absurdity of the incident is reflected in the fact that the s-word will not likely make it into the New York Times or the suppertime newscast. (The New York Times ended up reporting only that Amiel "... castigated reporters for following her.") My favorite headline is still the Globe's "Ermine, vermin in the sluts in Chicago[paid access only]," which caught my interest immediately. "What?!" I exclaimed to myself in a voyeuristic horror while standing in line at Tim Horton's. Such is the power of the word "slut," although "vermin" is far more pernicious, it seems to me. Poor Sideshow Barb.

Posted by Gena Smith at 12:01 PM | Permalink

On June 15, 2007 the National Magazine Awards will celebrate its 30th anniversary. Although the spring and summer mastheads will have to wait until next year to walk home with awards like Best Student Writer, Best Cover, Best Profile, Best Art Direction for an Entire Issue, etc., it's not to late to look back on some of the awards we've won in the past.

Category: Best Student Writer
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: Leigh Doyle
Year: 2005
Award type: Gold
Title: So Long

Category: Health & Medicine, & Best Student Writer
Category: Politics & Public Interest/Politique et affaires publiques
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: Keren Ritchie
Year: 2005
Award type: HM
Title: Rough, Tough & Ready to Rumble

Category: Health & Medicine/Santé et médecine
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: Talia Maze
Year: 2005
Award type: HM
Title: Addicted to Hype

Category: Portrait Photography/Portraits
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: Dafna Izenberg
Year: 2005
Award type: HM
Title: The Conscience of Nunavut

Category: Portrait Photographry
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: William Ciccocioppo
Year: 2002
Award type: Silver
Title: The Dissident

Category: Science & Technology
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: Jennie Addario
Year: 2002
Award type: HM
Title: Horror Show

Category: Arts & Entertainment
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: David Fielding
Year: 2001
Award type: HM
Title: Three men and a dirty little baby

Category: Politics
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: Kali Pearson
Year: 2000
Award type: Silver
Title: The Wizard of Ooze

Category: Profiles
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: J.Timothy Hunt
Year: 1999
Award type: HM
Title: An Incredible Hodgepodge of Weirdness

Category: Illustration
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Creator: Jason Schneider
Year: 1997
Award type: HM
Title: The dying art of talking crop

Category: Magazine of the Year
Magazine: RYERSON REVIEW OF JOURNALISM
Year: 1993
Award type: HM

Posted by Ann Ruppenstein at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

While researching a story for a great publication known as the Ryerson Review of Journalism, (tune in Monday to read it) I decided to call the Russian Embassy in Ottawa. The story's focus is basically the growing death rates of journalists around the world. Russia is one of the worst offenders, and based on my research, I was not expecting the warmest welcome from the embassy. I was right. After the first woman who answered the phone, and the next woman she handed me off to, spoke very little English, the process started slowly. My idea was to be as non-confrontational as possible at first, and once I got through to someone who wanted to talk to me, start asking the tougher questions. I never got that far.
There was a palpable change in tone when I announced that I was a journalist. Here is my conversation with the receptionist:

"I am a journalist working on a story for the Ryerson Review of Journalism in Toronto"
(pause)
"a journalist? Who do you work for?"
"Actually, I am a journalism student. . ."
"Only a student? OK. . . please hold"
(electronic "Fur Elise" plays for about three minutes in cell-phone ring quality)
"Hello?"
"Hi, is there somone there I can speak with about Russian media or communications?"
"What is your name?"
"David"
"Last name?"
"Pratt"
"And what university are you with?"
"Ryerson"
"Please hold"
("Fur Elise" tune again on the line for about 2 minutes)
"Hello? There is no one here who can talk to you."
"Are they away, or should I call back later?"
"There is no one here to talk to you."
"Should I call back in a few days?"
"You could try calling back later. . . .goodbye. . ." (she is saying this while hanging up. . . not really the most genuine gesture.

This was my brief view into the world of how the Russians view journalists. Not saying that another embassy would have been easier to penetrate, or more welcoming, but I have never heard such a change in tone at the mention of the word 'journalist'. I don't think I'm that scary.

Posted by David Pratt at 08:08 PM | Permalink

Two weekends ago, Wikipedia declared Sinbad dead. Phone calls, emails and text messages started pouring in to the comedian asking if he was indeed dead. No, he told them. Wikipedia resurrected the man and then, two Saturdays ago, killed him again. Today, Sinbad is once again alive and his Wikipedia article has been locked--the secret to immortality.

And then there's Conservapedia, which I think is wonderful. As its name implies, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki that corrects the obvious lies of the liberal nerds who constantly conspire to keep the conservative nerds down. Articles they've chosen to highlight today on their main page:

"The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States"; see also Joseph McCarthy.

"Read why everything you learned about the Scopes trial was probably wrong."

And--"And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever." (the Lord to Moses on the first Passover, Exodus 12:14)

I've spent hours searching through the various revealed liberal lies. On global warming: "Some have suggested that it is a United Nations conspiracy to spread Communistic and Fascistic ideas, and forcing conformity to their plans for global domination through the elimination of individual initiative, national sovereignty, and free markets.[Citation Needed]"

Posted by Joe Rayment at 04:23 PM | Permalink

It was a gorgeous day last Tuesday - the sun was out, over ten degrees; it was proof that Spring really was finally here. Which means the term is almost over and summer is just around the corner (I'd prefer to ignore that Friday night snowstorm).

Come May, I'll be out of here - heading west to an internship. Another city, another paper, and already, what I know will be on the top of my Things I'll Miss List: the Toronto Star. I've been reading the Star since I learned how to read and every Sunday, especially, I'm reminded of why I have to start my day off with the Star or I don't feel right.

The Sunday Star may be the city's best kept secret - and the best example of a newspaper giving magazines a run for it's money. The news is still there but I'm always most impressed by the feature-length pieces that are not only well-written, but compelling. Photography, too, is at its best. There's also more colour - and is it just me or does the newsprint itself feel a little nicer between your fingers?

So consider this a virtual pat on the back, Toronto Star. I'll miss you. Especially Buzz. (Don't deny it. I know that's the first section you turn to, too.)

Posted by Jennifer Fong at 12:38 AM | Permalink

Today I woke up to the news that Premiere magazine was folding. Since my last entry was only a couple of days after Toro ended, I'm starting to think I'm cursed. Today's Toronto Star has an article about the situation. It's not surprising, magazines end all the time, especially in the oversaturated entertainment department.

But two things surprised me: One was a comment about its circulation. It had apparently dropped from 600,000 to 500,000 in the past few years. Chatelaine, one of the biggest titles in Canada, hovers between there (yes, I know Canadian magazines have a smaller market, etc.) The other was the notice that they will continue to publish online.

Is this the future of magazines? Though Toro only put their last issue online, there are a number of magazines that have moved from the newstand to the internet. In some ways it's smart: it's cheaper and you can reach a bigger audience. But are we all inevitably "doomed by changing dynamics" as the article on Premiere suggests? I hope not. Because it's hard to read from a laptop when you're waiting for the bus.

Posted by Amanda Pereira at 09:29 AM | Permalink

The trial of Conrad Black launched last week and Canadian's finally have their O.J. Simpson. Toronto Life has launched ConradBlackTrial.com, a site dedicated to sifting through the coverage, giving the blow-by-blows and de-spinning Black's rhetoric.

Another Black-related site of interest is SupportLordBlack.com. The site was a hoax. Last week, Frank magazine revealed itself as the site's creator and gleefully detailed all the chumps it took in.

Chump #1: Conrad Black. Lord Black had been in email contact with SupportLordBlack.com's fictional creator, Alastair Smith (actually Frank's Michael Bate). Lord Black invited the creator and contributers to his home for drinks. The site proposed a "Caravan to Chicago" to join the trial to show support. "I am again flattered by such a thing," Black wrote in an email. "I will give you all CONRAD WILL WIN shirts when you are here."

Chump #2: The media. All of it. Editor and Publisher interviewed Alastair Smith via email and concluded that the site was legit. In February, the London Evening Standard reported: "In his hour of need the Canadian-born peer can at least count on the support of a coalition of admirers who are clubbing together on the Internet." The National Post called the site one of "the Internet's underappreciated sites." New York magazine ran the story "Wealthy Objectivists to Hit Road for Conrad Black."

The list goes on.

The whole thing speaks to journalism's obsession with finding "the other side" at all costs. A small, in this case fictional, group has been given ridiculous prominence. But I guess that's not very insightful - everyone spouts off similar theories since An Inconvenient Truth hit last summer.

I can't help but feel bad for Black. The whole world's stacked against him -- it must have been comforting to find someone unpaid in his corner. I'd get sucked in too. And I think that's part of what sucked the media in -- can a world-wide figure really have no friends, anywhere?

Which brings me back to Toronto Life's coverage. Pathetic is part of Black's PR plan: "Ironically, Nixon's latest biographer, Conrad Black, has been using the same tactics to rehabilitate his own image," says Patrick Gossage, Toronto Life's de-spin expert, "presenting himself as a frank, caring human being who loves his wife (Pat Nixon was by her husband's side for the famous speech), and even stoops to referring to their new pet Hungarian puli (Checkers was a cocker spaniel) as 'an adorable but dignified little proof to its older companions that life goes on.'"

Posted by Joe Rayment at 12:37 PM | Permalink

Now that the horror of a jobless, post-graduation existence is quickly approaching for most of us here at the RRJ, what better time to reflect on the wisdom of those great writers who have gone before us. Enjoy!

*****

Journalist: a person without any ideas but with an ability to express them; a writer whose skill is improved by a deadline: the more time he has, the worse he writes.
Karl Kraus (1874-1936) Austrian satirist

Every journalist owes tribute to the evil one.
Jean de La Fontaine (1621-1695) French poet

If a person is not talented enough to be a novelist, not smart enough to be a lawyer, and his hands are too shaky to perform operations, he becomes a journalist.
Norman Mailer (1923-?) American writer

Personal columnists are jackals and no jackal has been known to live on grass once he had learned about meat -- no matter who killed the meat for him.
Ernest Hemingway (1898-1961) American Writer

Bad manners make a journalist.
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Irish poet and dramatist

Editor: a person employed by a newspaper, whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

Here's to the greatest profession on earth!

Posted by Vanessa Rodriguez at 12:01 AM | Permalink

My boyfriend is on the cover of Eye Weekly. Sadly, I don't think our relationship will ever move to another level, seeing as how he moonlights as an insane psychiatrist and a ruthless assassin. Also, he probably won't sign a prenup. It's all typed up for you here though, if you need it:

Let it be known to all and sundry, this contract is entered into on the ___ day of the ___ month, 2007, between that most world-weary of specimens, The Journalist, and the civilian love of its life, sometimes referred to as "unsuspecting chump" in certain circles.

It is the parties' mutual desire to sign this agreement although The Love Interest will continue to be confused by The Journalist's mood swings when sources fail to return phone calls, for the purpose of this declaration is to announce that they are joining in matrimony because of their carefully copyedited passion for each other (and not because The Love Interest believes The Journalist's present financial situation will one day be transformed by a Pulitzer). Therefore, it is agreed as follows:

i) The prospective partners will excuse each other their outbursts, because it is natural to have opinions about everything, even if nobody asked you and your bias is hanging out.

ii) The prospective partners will try to be home when they say they will be, but when your editor/producer/publication/station owns you, it's hard to do 9 to 5.

iii) The prospective partners will forgive each other for tuning out during conversation, because eavesdropping on other people in the restaurant is a work requirement.

iv) In the event of a separation that results in the division of a closet's contents, The Journalist has the right to claim the fedora.

v) Set forth any additional provisions on this line, such as prescribing that the only pets allowed in the house are fact-checking monkeys.

I have read the above agreement and taken as much time from my oddly proportioned schedule to consider the implications. This contract will take effect upon the formalization of the marriage and the first story assignment. I fully understand its terms, which is easy because I am well versed in media ethics, and I voluntarily submit to its execution.

'Til libel do we part,
The Undersigned

-30-

P.S. You can also see Cillian in this month's issue of Premiere. Sadly, the magazine is going digital. Woe.

Posted by Andrea Lau at 10:22 PM | Permalink

Yesterday Viacom hit YouTube (owned by Google) with a $1 billion US lawsuit for copyright infringements. YouTube has been taking footage, such as The Daily Show, from Viacom television stations since its inception.

While my immediate reaction was "Ouch!", when I think more about this I wonder what difference this lawsuit is going to make. From my estimation, this situation seems to parallel what happened with the copyright infringements of Kazaa, a music sharing website that distributed unlicensed MP3 files for years. Only in the summer of 2006 did Kazaa settle some of the pending lawsuits against it from major music companies and publishers. Now Kazaa is presumably sharing licensed content. But all of this proves that the web is an unregulated market. When companies tried to stop Kazaa's illegal practices it took years to get results, precisely six years. (Kazaa has been around since 2000.) I wonder how many lawsuits will need to be slapped against YouTube before it changes to licensed content.

YouTube is also controversial for another reason journalists and media types should care about. The new trend in citizen journalism will mean footage submitted to media outlets from the public will likely be available on YouTube. Does this make the content any less legitimate as a form of journalism? If the public can access the same news footage they find on their local radio or television news websites also on YouTube, what incentive do they have to visit the station's website? It seems to me to be one more reason people won't be reading/watching the news. But maybe I'm just a pessimist. I hope so.

Posted by Shereen Dindar at 06:33 AM | Permalink

One thing that always makes my bullshit detector go off is when journalists start to refer to the profession as "a calling." These people usually act like they knew all their lives they were "meant" to write, and bless the masses with their beautiful prose.

I want to know what happened to born-again journalists, or people who simply fell into it, or people who lucked out in incredible and infuriating ways? True, most of the esteemed journalists you may be thinking of now (David Remnick, Harold Ross, Christie Blatchford, Edward Greenspon, Stephanie Nolen, Daniel Pearl, etc.) honestly worked hard or got well-deserved breaks and therefore can't be exploited. But some can. In celebration of schadenfreude, here are four of them:

Bob Woodward: Yes, the Bob Woodward has humble beginnings. After completing a stint as a naval officer, Woodward applied to law schools but took a two-week trial job at the Washington Post. He was let go because of his utter lack of journalistic training. Woodward spent a year in the early '70s honing his skills at a small paper in Maryland. When the Post accepted him back, his starting salary was $13,000 a year.

A.A. Gill: Severely dyslexic, reserved in nature and a terrible student, Gill's high school career advisor told him to seek out factory work. He didn't. Gill was pursuing an underwhelming career as an artist in London when asked to interview a painter he knew for an art magazine. He slowly became recognized as an art critic and worked his way into becoming a restaurant and television critic, newspaper columnist, Vanity Fair contributor, and really, really good travel writer.

Peter Jennings: If we bypass Jennings's first broadcasting job at the age of nine, it can be said that he, too, struggled for a long while. Jennings failed grade 10, explaining to Reader's Digest, "I loved girls. I loved comic books. And for reasons I don't understand, I was pretty lazy." He never graduated high school but somehow made it to Carleton University, where he "lasted about 10 minutes" before dropping out.

Truman Capote: As a 17-year-old finished with formal education, Capote took a two-year job at The New Yorker in 1942. He later said it was "not a very grand job, for all it really involved was sorting cartoons and clipping newspapers." Admittedly that's still impressive, but it's nice to see someone other than Seth MacFarlane taking on The New Yorker.

Posted by Angela Kozak at 06:52 AM | Permalink

Last night (while cursing George W. Bush for making me lose an hour of sleep during school-time) I clicked on over to the Canadian Magazines blog. To the delight of many (not me, though), D.B. Scott posted about a huge merchandise sale being held by Canadian Geographic. While the products seem to be more lifestyle-related than directly linked to the publication in any way, it set me off on a Google-aided search for other media merchandise. While those looking for a National Post windbreaker or a stuffed souvenir from The Walrus seem to be out of luck (unless you can score some sweet promotional items, that is), here are some of my favourite findings:

1. The Globe and Mail: While they offer the usual pens, mugs and bags, the Globe also sells prints of photos featured on its pages over the years. They've got a Globe and Mail crystal ball , too (for slow news days?).

2. Cottage Life: If you're in the market for a flexible, white cedar doormat or a branded first-aid kit, this is the place. And their bug mugs are pretty darn adorable...

3. CBC: This is, quite seriously, the best online shopping experience for journalism nerds in Canada. I mean, where else can you get t-shirts featuring Lorne Greene, David Suzuki, and all the different CBC logos dating back to the 1940s? Or a Friendly Giant brooch? Or Hockey Night in Canada cufflinks? Or the Red Green Show's Possumopoly board game? That's right...NOWHERE!

4. Food & Drink: Their store sells booze. 'Nuff said.

Posted by Graham Silnicki at 06:54 AM | Permalink

Well hello again,
As we meet on this fast-forwarded Sunday morning (it's 10:20am but it should be 9:20am) I ponder the real history of journalism - the history of this rare species that makes us who we are today. If I want to dress up as a journalist for Halloween, I'm destined to wear a suit and a fedora that says PRESS on it. But I want to change that. Journalists don't wear those anymore. We've started to wear jeans and more casual clothing. We've even started to look more human rather than animal. This accounts for people being less scared of the media.

Journalists roamed the earth before the dinosaurs, in fact, but a fact checking kit the size of Mercury took the journalist race out. This, as a result of the incessant asking of questions and God couldn't take it anymore. Millions of years later, while on an archaeological mission in the ancient ruins of Manhattan, they found bones that resembled the human body and a giant stone tablet that, once deciphered, read "I fear the end is near, as the giant fact checking kit ruins..no...pummels...desecrates...no pummels is good, the earth. If only I can file this story before I...." They have named this historic find, Rep Orter. You won't find this in any text book. But I bring you this ladies and gentlemen, the first ever image of the Journalist. Click here to see it for the first time. The journalist is said to have had four arms. One set is to write notes for interviews and other set is to hold down interview subjects so they wouldn't try and escape until the question period was over.

There is still some original journalist lineage existing. The last they have reported on was traced to a building called CBC!

Posted by Diana Cina at 10:20 AM | Permalink

Canadian photojournalist Rita Leistner is known for her willingness to take extreme risks and cover stories that broaden our understanding of conflict zones. She has worked unembedded in Iraq, she has also worked in Lebanon, Cambodia, Vietnam, the United States and Canada. Her photographs reveal stories of people who would normally not be seen: among them, gravediggers in Najaf; American women wrestlers; Cambodian-American deportees, who are ex-convicts and ex-gang members, helping poor drug addicts in Phnom Penh; helicopter loggers in British Columbia; and PKK women fighters of Kurdish separatists.

But the photographs that I looked at again and again were the ones of the women of al-Rashid. The al-Rashid Psychiatric Hospital is on the outskirts of Sadr City--a slum in Baghdad, writes Leistner. She explains that there are 300 women patients among the 900 at the hospital. There is fear of mental illness in all societies. But in Iraq, women are "cast away" and most will stay at the hospital for the rest of their lives. Given the right medication and support they could survive outside the hospital--which the staff at the hospital are aware of--but this isn't going to happen soon. There are photographs of nurses shaving a female patient's head in preparation for electric shock treatment, women pacing the halls and courtyards, smoking, exercising, weeping inconsolably.

The photographs are moving and heartbreaking. They also reveal a bit of the connection Leistner made with the women as they told her the stories of their lives. Her photojournalism captures the isolation and loneliness of days at al-Rashid. Not the kind of story you get from being embedded with the U.S. Army.

Coalition forces fought the Mahdi Army outside the hospital at one point. The hospital was initially attacked by American troops in April 2003.

Posted by Meena Nallainathan at 10:04 AM | Permalink

Lloyd Robertson and Nickelback will be partying it up in June.

On Tuesday, CTV announced that their front man will be accepting a star on Canada's Walk of Fame, alongside Goldie-locks himself, Chad Kroeger, and his band mates. This is the first time a journalist has received the award.

What I couldn't help noticing when I read the announcement was the striking similarity that the list of recipients shares with an old game my teacher would play in grade school: Which one doesn't belong?

If you watched Sesame Street, you might also be familiar with this game. You're shown three or more objects, let's say a Fire Truck, an Apple, a Cherry and a Pear. Then everyone points to the Pear because it's green and everything else is red. Now don't get me wrong - I have nothing against Robertson. He's a staple in Canadian news. I have more of a problem with the venue.

Receiving the award this year are actors Jill Hennessy and Catherine O'Hara, industry types Gordon Pinsent and Ivan Reitman, and athletes Johnny Bower and Rick Hansen. All of these Canadians are, for lack of a better term, celebrity entertainers. They make us laugh and cry. They captivate us with their performances on the track, the rink or the stage.

Then we have Lloyd Robertson. To me, it sounds like he's supposed to be another celebrity entertainer. And if so, what does that make journalists? The people at Canada's Walk of Fame say that the emphasis is on the person's "impact on Canada's cultural heritage." But when you line up Robertson beside Jim Carey, Mike Myers and Shania Twain, something looks off.

Maybe I've been in j-school too long. But I think, like church and state, entertainment and journalism should keep their distance from each other.

Posted by Chris Richardson at 10:33 AM | Permalink

Today is International Women's Day. As you can imagine, many events are taking place to commemorate the awesomeness of the uterus vessels in our country.

I often find international whatever days and national good cause months bad excuses for news pieces (can anyone swallow away the after-taste of fluff story after fluff story from breast cancer awareness month?). They promote journalistic laziness, reliance on press releases, and over-all regurgitation of the national whatever day stories from last year. So, imagine my surprise when I was intrigued by an initiative involving the National Film Board. The NFB is recognizing International Women's Day in what I believe to be a meaningful and enlightening way. Today, in Toronto, Edmonton, and Ottawa, three separate documentaries that deal with women's issues are premiering.

In Toronto, Killer's Paradise will be showing at 7pm in the Royal cinema on college Street.

In Edmonton, Finding Dawn plays at 7pm in the Stanley Milner Library Theatre.

In Ottawa, Waban-aki premiers also at 7pm at the Library and Achieves Canada building.

You can visit the NFB website for details on each documentary. There are special guests appearing at each showing including a few of the documentarians who produced the films.

You can view clips of the films as well. My personal peak at Killer's Paradise is what solidified my opinion that this seems to be a journalistic and note worthy approach to celebrating an internationally recognized day. You can view clips of each documentary at the NFB's International Women's Day site.

Posted by Rachel Hahn at 11:50 AM | Permalink

The winner of the 2007 Lionel Gelber Prize for excellence in international affairs writing was announced yesterday. New Yorker staff writer Lawrence Wright will be awarded the $15,000 prize on March 27 in Toronto for his book The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. The annual prize is presented by The Lionel Gelber Foundation along with the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto and Foreign Policy magazine. It was created to honour Canadian writer and diplomat Lionel Gelber.

The other finalists included Margaret MacMillan's Nixon in China: The Week that Changed the World, David Malone's The International Struggle Over Iraq: Politics in the UN Security Council 1980-2005, Robert Kagan's Dangerous Nation and Thomas E. Ricks's Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.

And also added to the must read list lately are the three finalists for the Charles Taylor Prize for Literary Non-Fiction that was presented last week here in Toronto. I was lucky enough to be able to attend the awards ceremony for this prize and, not surprisingly, listening to the authors speak so passionately about the subject matter that inspired them to write makes the books even more appealing. Rudy Wiebe took home the $25,000 prize on February 26 for Of This Earth: A Mennonite Boyhood in the Boreal Forest and the other finalists were John English's Citizen of the World: The Life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Volume One: 1919-1968 and Ross King's The Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade that Gave the World Impressionism.

I think I've got enough to get through the winter.

Posted by Regan Ray at 11:50 AM | Permalink

Seven Montenegrin journalism students, visiting Toronto through a program at U of T, came to audit a Ryerson class yesterday. They are probably the biggest group of Montenegrin's to ever visit the city, as their country only became independent this past summer.

The class they sat in on was about journalists' boundaries. With our guest lecturer, Patricia Pearson, we debated about what kind of lines you should be weary of crossing and how to self-police, as there are little guidelines about such things in journalism. We talked about how to avoid inadvertently shaping stories and losing control of them, drawing on examples like Judith Miller from The New York Times.

Emilia, one of the students, piped up and said, "In Montenegro, we're defending our basic rights everyday," and discussion, such as ours in class, is unheard of at home. Politics dominate the front pages of newspapers, and there are little to no human interest or personal stories. So vastly different from the state of journalism here.

It was interesting to hear first hand how the media develops and advances with a place, and it will be interesting to see how far the Montenegrin journalism students see their media change in their life.

Posted by Julia Belluz at 12:24 PM | Permalink

If anyone else were blogging today they'd probably be whoring our Hunter S. Thompson inspired fundraiser that's happening tomorrow. They'd be going on about how it starts at 7 p.m. and is at the Raq-n-Waq on Queen St. W for the entire entry, trying to convince you that $12 is best spent drinking with college co-eds and winning beauty products and theatre tickets in a raffle. Lucky for you and Bob, (the other guy that actually reads this on a regular basis) I'm not going to pander to the lowest common denominator.

No I have something that eats away at me on a regular basis to discuss, something that the Canadian media landscape tries its best to hide in plain sight, even though it's continually grasping at straws. My question, why is it that Canadian broadcasters actually fool themselves into thinking they produce quality news and entertainment when they only ever come off as America's bastard child? Did anyone see Deal or No Deal Canada? For some reason, Canadian media is so insecure that everything they do has to be "uniquely Canadian" and in the case of Deal or No Deal Canada this came in the form of a maple-leaf shaped stage, contestants who fit every Canadian stereotype and every time the banker phoned down to the stage, Howie answered on the Rogers Wireless phone TM. In another instance of the American rip-off, why does anyone think Canadian Idol can launch a respectable music career? The sad truth is, your nothing unless you can break in the states--ask Jann Arden. Plus, Canadian production values and the fact that they can only be seen by a national audience (because no one in the states wants to see Canadians, "open the case" on Deal or No Deal) suck out any credibility any of these shows have, even with the actual host. (Who shoots the banker from behind anyway? Are you insane?)

But this can-con crap extends beyond entertainment and into journalism, who ever thought calling their morning show Good Morning Canada was a good idea needs a three stooges style poke in the eye. Our media is so insecure about their original ideas that they have to leech off established American staple programming. I guess I would be too when the last thing to land on the international radar that was any good and came from Canada was Kenny vs. Spenny and Trailer Park Boys. Why does anyone even try to put Canadian news magazines on the air? Especially since their coverage pales in comparison to heavyweights like 60 minutes, 20/20 and my personal crown jewel CBS Sunday Morning. When I'm not indulging my over night guests with breakfast at The Golden Griddle this has always been appointment television. I've learned more about interviewing and the unique possibilities that are opened by the news magazine format (if done well) by this program which hits home-runs every time. Yesterday, I learned about David Lachapelle and that southern satan Nancy Grace (now, I know why she's so blessedly evil).
Trust me, one episode of this show and W5 will be reduced to one--WHY? I still can't figure out why anyone thought it's news-for-teens cousin 21c had a prayer either. These American news shows do a better job at covering Canadians better than Canadians do. While ET Canada interviews Keifer Sutherland just because he's Canadian, their American counterpart at least waits until he actually has some project to promote.

The thing is, Canada knows it blows by comparison to the American juggernaut and it is only further stifled in its potential for American style creativity and innovation by the CRTC's version of the chastity belt--Canadian content requirements. It's basically admitting defeat, it says, "We can't compete with that, so we're not going to try. Instead here's a half-hour block of Rita McNeil, Bryan Adams and swollen members." Celine Dion has long since passed her consideration as Can-Con. Appearently, she isn't Canadian enough. I guess the CRTC is within their rights to decide that, since the Americans are having a similar debate. Frankly, I don't think the CRTC believes Barack Obama is black enough to be president either. These requirements have eroded their former domain of annoyance in my life, during the Super Bowl, and have now wiggled into every story meeting I've attended. The next time I hear, "Can we get a Canadian?", or "Can we increase the number of Canadians?", or "That's a great story, but he's not Canadian," I'm going to strangle somebody. This infuriates me even more, since half the V.I.P's we consider Canadian weren't even born in Canada, Kiefer was born in the UK and Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland, immigrated to Canada and then the U.S. the following year--yet he made CBC's Greatest Canadian top ten. With these stringent rules, it's no wonder there aren't more creative risks being taken on Canadian Television. Showcase is known for being the most risky network on Canadian Cable and yet, they can't start showing the good stuff until 10 p.m. because they promised un their CRTC application to show original Canadian programming and independent film during the day. That reminds me, why won't anyone admit that the National Film Board of Canada makes mostly dreck? I guess Alexander Graham Bell did the right thing when he moved to the U.S. at least when it comes to their media picture.

---------------------
M, let's do lunch when your back!

Posted by Aaron Broverman at 09:26 PM | Permalink

I happened by the Globe and Mail building this weekend, and I noticed something.

They're tearing out the door.

The heavy, huge, stainless steel revolving door had been reduced to a concrete slab. Which was then being jackhammered into oblivion.

Now, my friends, you may say "Why do we care about a door?" But think about the feet that have walked through that door, the minds that have lingered in its moving compartments, the notebooks that have been carried inside...

This door has been through a lot.

Back to this weekend, though, I had to know what was going on. I asked a worker.

"Oh, uh, we're digging out...just replacing the revolving door."

Why, I asked.

"The feet underneath the concrete was rusting, and the door was jamming."

That, my friends, peaked my interest. How long has this door been here?

(To another worker) "Hey, how long has this been here?...Since Lincoln."

Since Lincoln?

"A hundred years. This is the orginal door. That's all I know."

How long has the Globe and Mail been here?

"Since I showed up today as far as I'm concerned, I don't know."

Since the Globe moved into that building in the early 1970's, that door has been touched by the Globe and Mail greats for over 30 years. Don't worry, my friends, it will be back. It's undergoing a historical restoration before it takes its place back in the building. See you soon, great door.

Posted by Paige Magarrey at 12:00 PM | Permalink

The first three months of 2007 have seen the death of two journalists spent their careers shaking things up.

This morning I read of the death at age 85, of Doris Anderson, the editor of Chatelaine for twenty years from 1957 to 1977. Those, I hear, were intense times and Anderson contributed to the intensity. She pushed for (and got) a magazine with recipes, beauty tips and head-on articles on women's rights, abortion, the wage gap and other socially charged issues. She wrote books, she agitated, she stood up when many wished she'd sit down and shut up.

At the end of January American journalist Molly Ivins died at 63. Ivins was a gritty, gregarious Texan who, like Anderson, wasn't afraid to rock the boat ("raise hell" as she put it) for justice. She achieved national recognition as a syndicated columnist whose articles ran in 400 publications, including on alternet.org Her target was faulty logic, which meant that often enough she turned her scathing wit to Republicans. She is credited with coining the nickname "Shrub" for her fellow Texan, his work serving as sweet satirical fodder for many of her later columns.

Both of these women kept pushing the envelope--as an activist during the June Cleaver years and a liberal during Texas--and, in some way, changed the way we live. Activism without communism? Activism with wit?

In memory of these two women, stand up and keep raising hell.

Posted by Amy Packwood at 02:02 PM | Permalink

This just in: AP lifts ban on Paris Hilton. Well, they did on February 27, anyway.

There's an amusing little story about the news service's week-long experiment of banning Paris Hilton from the news in today's Toronto Star, here.

As the piece in the Star says, AP editors were curious what sort of reaction would come out of ignoring all news items about everyone's favourite lazy-eyed celebutante. There was some initial fretting over the ethics of the matter; what would they ban next? But ultimately, a week without Paris news was a success. The story reports that AP received no complaints about not running stories about breaking Paris developments. Instead, the piece reports they received kudos instead.

However, as the Star article immediately points out, AP is back to covering Hilton gossip--just as another bigg-ish tid-bit has emerged, Hilton's recent slap-on-the-wrist for driving with a suspended license.

Their experiment may be officially over, but should AP necessarily feel compelled to report on this? It'd be nice to think something was gained from their efforts besides a cute article on their no-Paris test.

What do you think:

Posted by Leah Collins at 02:29 PM | Permalink

I've heard, at times, when subscribing to The New Yorker it's hard to keep up with the 47-issues-a-year barrage. They pile up somewhere (in our case the bathroom, for, er, lengthier reading) and sometimes, before you know it, you're halfway through your subscription and only halfway through your pile. Well, if you thought 47 issues was hard to deal with try 4,164 issues. Every single one ever printed from the magazine's February 21, 1925 debut until April 2006. That's 500,000 plus pages. But fear not dear reader, it's all available on The Complete New Yorker Portable Hard Drive (pocket-sized and USB-powered). With it you can peruse The New Yorker at will by using an index that allows you to search by author, department, year, week, cover or keyword. Imagine, as the sell-line goes, finding the first John Updike and then every Updike written after. Or reading the first feature in the beloved behemoth of a mag. The hard drive also has enough room on it to add updates--like future issues--later. The official New Yorker site is offering the hard drive for $299 US. But if that's a little steep for you, you can also buy it at the online site Levenger for $149.95 US. That--considering a two-year subscription to the mag is $77 US--is a sweet deal. Happy reading!

Posted by Lauren McKeon at 10:04 AM | Permalink