Forget vampires, undead brides and French maids -- this year, show how much you love your profession at your office, school, or Halloween party. The Review offers up our favourite archetypal reporters, and the essential props you'll need to outshine everyone else's Value Village finds.

The Editor
Channel the hard-nosed, wizened editor with this stylishly unkempt look. We encourage you to put your feet on your desk and scream at your writers - just don't knock over the week-old cups of coffee.

The Copy Editor
If you feel a little more frazzled, how about paying homage to these unsung heroes? The lifetime supply of red pens will be the giveaway clue - we'd suggest carrying all 15 editions of The Chicago Manual of Style, but then your arms might fall off.

The Gonzo
For those with an anti-authoritarian streak in them, stock up on your typewriter ribbons and low-grade cigarettes, and do your best Hunter S. Thompson imitation - 10 points for each giant bat slain.

The Sartorialist
A true wordsmith dresses himself as elegantly as his prose. Pay tribute to the sophisticated journos who've come before you with a bespoke suit and a pair of highly-polished Italian brogues -- just don't expect to churn out "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold" any time soon.

We hope this costume guide has been helpful. If you still haven't found your archetypal journalistic alter-ego, here are some other suggestions: the "not quite libel" yellow journalist, the weather bunny, or the rookie G.A. with superheroic powers.

Photo credits: Barnes and Noble, gwc.org.uk, gaytalese.com, crobike.de, remarkable.co.uk, The Onion, and private-stock.com

Posted by Canice Leung at 09:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Scrabulous is rapidly becoming the time-waster du jour among the bleary-eyed fourth-year magazine majors here at Ryerson.

For those who are as yet uninitiated into the wild world of Facebook, Scrabulous is an online version of - you guessed it - Scrabble, complete with tiles, triple wordplays and caustic taunts between competitors. It's fun, just like real Scrabble, and it's a convenient way to engage in a little fun without having to leave the computer.

On the other hand, Scrabulous tends to be slow, the games don't always load, and there's a certain disconnect that happens when you can't actually see a real board with real tiles and a real opponent. For me, anyway, the inability to shuffle my tiles around one or two at a time is a real handicap.

It's just not the same as the real thing. Scrabulous, wondrous as it seems, is not quite good enough.

So why this extended meditation on the merits and drawbacks of Scrabulous? Because I'm in the process of writing a feature that deals, in part, with the future of newspapers: the long-predicted death of newsprint, usurped by the heirs to the throne of online media. As I sat, waiting for my Scrabulous game to load (it never did), it occurred to me that, like Scrabulous, online news just doesn't measure up to honest-to-god newsprint.

What can I say? I'm a softie for ink-stained fingers and the satisfying snap of turned pages. I don't like to scroll in the middle of reading a story. There's something inherently fatiguing about having to filter out flashing advertisements, popups and external links. What can I say? I'm a low-tech kind of gal.

Newsprint may be going the way of the dinosaur, but as long as it's around, I'll read it.

Now if only I could convince people to set up a real Scrabble board in the magazine lab.

Posted by Sara Chappel at 09:00 AM | Permalink

One of the best ways to explore Toronto is to walk through Kensington Market on a warm August afternoon. As a born-and-raised Thornhillian (John and Leslie, for those of you familiar to Markham), the Market was always the cool place to visit downtown. As teenagers we were drawn to the brightly painted houses, to the smells of the fruit and fish markets, to the lure of vintage tulle skirts and boy scout tees.

Now, Kensington remains one of the prettiest pockets of the city, but there's more to its allure than funky clothing stores and cafes. It's one of those places where all your senses are ignited to the multiculturalism the city has to offer. Once heavily populated by Jewish immigrants (it holds one of the city's oldest synagogues), it now houses so many different ethnic groups that you can feel (and taste, touch, smell, hear) cultures melding together, layering on top of one another to create this melodic hodgepodge living space. Kensington's got room for everyone, and everyone shares its space, like they've lived together all their lives. If you've never been, I suggest you go.

This past August, I made my way to the Market, excited for some street-cruising and people-watching. What I found was even better. It was as if the media gods were giving me a sign: yes Hayley, we know what you're thinking. Kensington Market is the perfect example of multicultural community at its finest. That's why we're here.

On the corner of one of the busier streets sits a squat, grey building, unabashed by its quiet invisibility amongst the loud colours and interesting people. Like a fly on the wall, a shy observer of everything around it. And so it should. The building gives nothing away, until you look closely for a name, placed near the roof that informs you of the radio station within its doors. Suddenly, it makes sense that it should exist here, in its subtle manner, not at all unlike a window into the community (pardon the terribly cliche image, but it is).

CHIN radio "is the first multicultural/multilingual station to be established in Ontario," its website boasts. "It is the pioneer in multicultural radio broadcasting and has led the way for similar broadcast operations to be established in other communities." Ottawa, for example, signed onto CHIN in October 2003, and is the first of its kind in the Ottawa/Gatineau region and the third in Canada.

CHIN is sending out a clear message from one of the biggest centres of Toronto's cultural landscape: it's possible to live together in a way that neither compromises each individual community nor closes anyone else off from the knowledge and information each person needs to live a happy, healthy, well-rounded life. "The contribution of CHIN to the cause of multiculturalism, understanding and tolerance between people of many national, racial and religious origins has been recognized and acknowledged throughout Canada," its website reads.

"CHIN reaches listeners in more than 30 cultural communities in over 30 languages to more than 30 cultural communities in the greater metropolitan Toronto and southern Ontario areas on CHIN AM1540/FM100.7, and over 18 languages and cultures in the Ottawa/Gatineau region on 97.9FM CJLL."

It feels good to know that the Kensington Market vibe is being carried out on wavelengths to the outer edges of our city, and beyond. I would go as far to say that this is media at its best. If there's anything we need, its more real culture, not pop, in the news, and more ways for people to hear and understand the city (and world) around them.

Once it gets too cold to wander the streets of our beloved Market, or sit outside and listen to the shop owners play bongos curbside, I'm going to turn on the radio.

Check out their website (Thanks to Jen Webb for this!)

Posted by Hayley Citron at 02:20 PM | Permalink

"So, ehm, the fur coat, out of what kind of fur was it made?" I ask. But I am too troubled to focus on the response. As always, I am expecting the look whenever I launch into a tirade of how-were-her-shoelaces-tied types of questions. No look follows, this time. My subject - a seasoned reporter - knows that I am piecing together a scene. There will be no need to explain it today.

I was terrified before my first interview with a "real journalist." What if he finds my questions, somehow, unworthy? He didn't. Instead, he showered me with great scenes, themes and quotes (not that I am complaining). During the past few weeks, I saw reactions from my subjects (the journalists) that varied from extreme cautiousness to most enthusiastic readiness to cooperate. For the first time, a subject refused to answer my question without looking guilty about it - as a journalist, he knew he could.

Interviewing an interviewer is similar to playing chess. Both sides have studied the moves. Both are expecting confrontational questions right before the goodbyes. Both hope to distract the opponent from pursuing a dangerous lead. It's only a matter of time before one says checkmate.

Now I should be leaving for my next interview: another round of chess awaits.

Posted by Alina Seagal at 02:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This week Maria Shriver, American broadcast journalist and wife of "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that she would not be returning to her job and career at NBC. She initially took time off when her husband began his campaign. Her decision had to do with the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death. She explains why in this quote from an American Press article.

"It was then that I knew that the TV news business had changed and so had I," she said.

Shriver has a point. You can't ignore the amount of the media that has become saturated with coverage of celebrities and even more so, their downfalls.

The priority that these stories receive is almost frightening. Here's a clip of MSNBC's two hours of news coverage of Paris Hilton being "interrupted" by a story about the Pentagon. I've seen clips like these more than once, and enough celebrities on the front pages of papers to last a lifetime as well. Even today, Britney Spears was the fifth-most searched story on CNN.

However, I have to wonder what she thinks about all of the publicity and surely, votes, her husband got thanks to his celebrity image and the extra attention that earned him.

Posted by Emerald Austerberry at 05:43 PM | Permalink

In June of this year, the seminal zine Punk Planet was forced to fold. A letter posted to its website declared Punk Planet's need to close (the reason being - what else? - money), and the eulogizing of the straightforward, socially-aware, independent punk culture publication began immediately. I guess it's my turn.

Unlike some others who are sad to have seen Punk Planet fold, I wasn't familiar with the publication for very long. Mine was a Toronto Life/Toronto Star house, and I grew up with the local Loblaws serving as the closest newsstand. Needless to say, Punk Planet wasn't kicking around on its shelves. At the same time, the number of publications featuring winged babies on paper apt to melt once met with the outside elements* was surprisingly low. Buried on the lower rack, though, between the bridal bibles and videogame magazines, were copies of Guitar World, some barely readable American hard rock mags and a few crunchy copies of Rolling Stone, unceremoniously crammed down to fit on the shelf. I already had a church basement meeting-worthy relationship with music, and I was initially inducted to the world of journalism by hotly contested lists of the top 300 songs about pie and Kirk Hammett's meticulous deconstructions of 30-second increments of every Metallica song, um, ever*. Born was the realization that there were indeed titles that offered my 12-year-old brain something to consume other than the fashion magazines and fluorescent, cut-and-paste teen entertainment rags being discovered by my peers.

A few years and more than a few trips beyond the grocery store created another church basement-worthy habit. Fangirling over Glassjaw in 2003 led me to an article by Jessica Hopper, a Punk Planet contributor. Hopper took it upon herself to call out emo, a subgenre of punk rock that had a comparatively small number of women participating, and tore into lyrics using violent imagery (the Glassjaw connection) and a first-person narrator who, Hopper claimed, put himself in a position where he was without blame for all the trauma he recounted. She rallied for more participation from women in playing music, for the self-actualization of women in the American punk scene. Although not necessarily Hopper's best work, it spoke to the music and the culture around it in a sharp, smart way. Hopper's piece conveyed a message without succumbing to self-righteousness and remaining accessible to those without an awareness of the references and language often relied on when discussing both gender politics and music.

With Jessica Hopper's little push, I became a reader. It was the first time I'd been able to relate to a publication that cared about more than Henry Rollins' tour rider, and on many levels, it was a welcome change to explore and understand the culture associated with music that appealed to me. When Punk Planet launched 13 years ago, punk culture was undergoing its greatest merge with mainstream popular music since its inception. Punk Planet was launched to preserve and continue what was originally important and embraced about punk culture. The magazine's content was often heavily influenced by both leftist and anarchist politics and traditional punk ideology. Punk Planet, which looked much like a perfect bound , commercial music mag, believed in independence, be that in letting their writers speak their minds, in refusing advertising from major record labels, or in their establishing of a literary publishing company where authors had the ability print and distribute their books without being connected to a major firm. They also emphasized the values of authenticity and encouraged questioning and outright objection. Just as in Hopper's article, printed nearly 10 years after the magazine's beginning, Punk Planet pointed out the problems and wasn't reluctant to consider solutions. For something widely considered a music magazine, Punk Planet had a unique approach.

In addition to serving as a reflection of a particular culture, Punk Planet also seemed to have strong journalistic intent and respect for its contributors. They were one of the first zines to pay writers ($50 for an interview, $100 for a feature), and provided information on their website about the kind of contributors they were always looking for. Regardless of how thick a portfolio or flashy a pitch you had, if your idea and approach were good, your piece had a chance of appearing in print. The zine went as far as offering a guide for contributors, condensing Reporting 101 into two-and-a-half pages on how to conduct a decent interview (and it's free...just sayin'). Writers were prompted to ask new, revealing questions in interviews, which often spanned up to 4 pages in the magazine. As for feature articles, Punk Planet made certain demands on its writers. A feature of 1,500 words didn't cut it, and they encouraged writers to seek out multiple points of view, something which isn't necessarily prioritized in existing music publications.

Punk Planet ultimately allowed readers to participate in punk culture through a media they could rely on to be thoughtful, consistent and broad in the range of subjects it covered, while sticking to its ideals in an environment that seemed to grow increasingly adverse. To some, Punk Planet will be remembered for covering serious issues in a manner absent from other zines and major-market media, while to others, it will be remembered as the only place that gave the time of day to their favorite band. Online publishing seems to be the inevitable solution to its demise, and at this point, all I can do is hope someone will find a way to live up to or surpass the standard of coverage developed by Punk Planet, but get lucky enough to do it as long.

Prepare yourselves, kids. Once Punk Planet's 80th edition is pulled off the shelves, the newsstand is going to look a little more the Loblaws of old. Maybe Tiger Beat would consider a do-it-yourself mohawk section, just to ease the transition a little.

-----------------

While on the subject of departures, I'm going to steal this public forum for a second to acknowledge the departure of Fred "aw shit" Mascherino from Taking Back Sunday this month. He's the only one in the world who can pull off Michael Jackson covers and Velcro, and I owe this guy a lot. Even though he's doing his awesome Color Fred thing, it's sad to see him go.

* No offence meant to Batboy or Kirk.

Posted by Ashley Petkovski at 07:58 AM | Permalink

TSN reporter Gord Miller was the subject of William Houston's column in the Globe and Mail in the Globe and Mail last week about an email Miller allegedly wrote to the National Hockey Leagues' chief legal officer and deputy commissioner Bill Daly. The email contained exclusive information about the possible ouster of Ted Saskin, the former chief of the NHL Players' Association. Saskin had been alleged of breaking into players e-mail accounts. The email Miller sent Daly had information regarding possible charges lead by former player Steve Larmer, lawyer Ian Pulver and Detroit Red Wings veteran Chris Chelios. Pulver and Chelios had been overheard talking about Saskin. After receiving the email, Daly then forwarded it to Saskin himself. Saskin could see in the email who his enemies were within the association. It has led some to think that Miller was doing an investigation for the league and Saskin. Miller says he did nothing wrong that that he wasn't taking Saskin's side, or any side for that matter. He said he was hoping Daly would return the favour by giving him information back.

I know what you must be thinking: what does hockey politics have to do with the media? Here's the answer: Miller is a reporter and may have crossed the professional ethical line.

I remember my instructor from first year sent us out during our second week of classes to do streeters. My assignment was to ask people if they trusted journalists. Although some said they did, I was shocked when others said they didn't trust journalists and that we're all just a bunch of "crooks" and "liars." I have to be honest, it scared me to think that people didn't trust us, but their reasons are clearly legitimate, some journalists do deceive to get their story. But we're not all like that. Most journalists follow ethical codes and guidelines and write truthful articles and practice balanced reporting, without using deception.

As a fourth-year journalism student at Ryerson, it's mandatory for me to study Media Ethics and the Law. It was only a week or two ago when we covered sources and deception in class. We've learned that deception is not excused to gather information. If the situation is a tough ethical call, here's a few questions we can ask ourselves as journalists before we end up in Miller's shoes. Why do readers/viewers need this information? Would they support your technique of gathering information? Have you exhausted all other means of getting the information? etc. If you want to learn some more tips about ethical reporting check out J-Source

Miller clearly used information for his own advantage-getting the story. If allegations are true he sure got a splashy headline, the Globe and Mail's headline reads, "'I didn't rat anybody out,' TSN's Miller says."

Posted by Jennifer Webb at 11:29 AM | Permalink

Dear CBC Radio One,

Let me introduce myself. My name is Rebecca Rose, I am 23-years-old, originally from Nova Scotia and currently live in the Church and Wellesley village at the heart of downtown Toronto. I am a fourth-year Journalism at Ryerson University and a politics junkie.

I also have a full-blown obsession with CBC Radio One.

Six years after I first tuned into CBC One, the obsession has gotten a little out of control.

It's the first thing I do when I wake up; I turn off my alarm and turn on the radio. When I get home, before I turn on the lights, before I take off my shoes and hang up my jacket, before I check my email, I turn it on and crank it up. When I have friends over for dinner and/or drinks they often ask "Do we have to listen to the radio?" Up until that point I often don't realize that the radio is, in fact, on. It is also the last thing I hear before I go to sleep. Recently, my favorite pre-bed radio program has been June Callwood's series on sex and sexuality. There is nothing like a little Callwood at the end of a long day in the magazine lab. This obsession can be traced back to three facts 1) I don't own a TV 2) I love, love, love politics and 3) I am utterly terrified of silence.

This is not however, a guilt free obsession. CKLN, 88.1 on the FM dial, is located on the second floor of the Students' Centre, right around the corner from the Working Students' Centre, my current place of employment. CKLN is run by and for Ryerson students and community members and caters to their very diverse audience. I know all of the full-time staff, and some of the programmers, by name and I truly do believe in what they do. On occasion, I do tune in to CKLN. They have great special programming on International Women's Day (March 8), May 1st (the unofficial 'labour day') and during PRIDE in the summer. I just can't get hooked. I don't get it, CKLN is definitely a lot cooler than the CBC. Maybe it's the absence of the news updates every half-hour. I love those. It could also be the fact that for my first four years in Toronto, no matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't get a signal for CKLN.

So, in closing, I guess all that I want to say is thanks. Aside from that awful lock out three years ago (which is, not so coincidently, the only time that I have ever refused to listen to the CBC), you've always been there. Andy, Anna Maria, Barbara, Carol, Stuart and even (I although I hate to admit it) Jian, I love it all. With the exception of Jonathan Goldstein; that, I just don't get it.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Rose

P.S. To learn more about or listen to CBC Radio One visit http://www.cbc.ca/radio
To check out CKLN click on this link: http://www.ckln.fm

Posted by Rebecca Rose at 02:01 PM | Permalink

Last Monday, a group of us Review-ers were invited to voice our opinions on citizen journalism for a CBC radio panel, The Future of the Future of News, that was aired later in the week. Over the next few days I thought about the issues my colleagues raised, and have found myself both praising and damning bloggers, YouTubers, and everyone else in between.

To make one thing clear, just because you have a camera phone or membership to a blog, you are not a journalist. True journalism requires addressing each side in every story, backed up with heavy research, analysis, and sometimes even 40 interviews. While reporters can insert style into their work, it is our duty to leave our bias out.

The CBC interviewer asked us to start our answers with the same phrase, an example of one being: the future of citizen journalism is... I'm going to use this chance to add to the responses we gave her.

The future of citizen journalism is to become fodder for the pros.
This year I've discovered that Facebook, blogs, and to a lesser extent YouTube are great sources for potential interviewees. You can start groups up on these sites and send out a call for people interested in the topic you are covering. One colleague received several replies from locals who were interested in being interviewed for her article. They also serve as a finger on the pulse of a community, being effective tools to get a feel for people view a topic. The internet acts as a deep story reservoir- where kernels of potential prize-winners are just waiting to be plucked by some hungry writer.

The future of citizen journalism is groundbreaking.
One redeeming quality is the ability to document an event or person with handheld cameras, tape recorders and notepads within seconds. This allows the public to receive unedited information and footage that reporters who rush to the scene could not get in time.

The future of citizen journalism is on rocky ground.
While they may be timely, fuzzy cell phone videos and sloppy grammar discredit much of the information that gets posted on various websites. In J-Skool, we've been told that if we spell any name incorrectly, we automatically fail the assignment. Failure to use correct spelling and grammar results in a loss of public faith and personal reputation, something our teachers are insistent on retaining. They're right. Tightly polished articles and clear images invoke a sense of trust in readers.

The future of citizen journalism is expansive.
Perhaps the greatest quality of citizen journalism is how it provides everyone a voice and forum, especially some communities that are left out of mainstream news. My new favourite blog site, Global Voices, is dedicated to shining light on places and people other media often ignore. I just finished reading a thread about two cyber-activists in Syria who were arrested for posting comments that were disfavoured by the government, which sparked a bigger debate about their national internet censorship. If not for blogs, news like this may have taken years to reach us, if at all.

The future of citizen journalism is many things, but in my opinion, there will always be a place for trained and experienced writers. The public respects the relative objectivity and research that the professional media provides. If they didn't, everyone would be tuned into Fox News. After much thought, the debate still rages on in my head, fuelled by electric pulses and imagination. If the importance of citizen journalism is to get people thinking, it's already succeeded.

As a first-time blogger, I have yet to be jaded by the over-opinionated, off-topic rants that seem to spew out of the mouths of some posters and into their keyboards. In this case, I invite everyone to submit their thoughts about citizen journalism via the comment button with one rule only, sentences must begin with: the future of citizen journalism. Go ahead writers, speak your mind.

Posted by Nathan Crocker at 10:07 PM | Permalink

According to a report released recently by Reporters Without Borders, an international advocacy group, Canada rates 18th in media freedom out of 169 countries. The findings were based on questionnaires sent to media organisations, journalists and press observers. Toronto Star writer Kelly Toughill commented that the results are another reason for Canada to feel smug, since the country is a "shining example of press freedom" (as opposed to the US, which rated a dismal 48th).

The Reporters Without Borders index takes into account blatant and subtle forms of censorship. For example, it looks at the number of reporters that are imprisoned, beaten or killed for speaking out against powerful politicians, criminal groups, military groups or important businessmen. It also monitors subtler forms of censorship, such as laws that prohibit a free press or full reporting access.

In these areas, Canada admittedly passes with flying colours. But what about more discreet factors, such as media concentration, that hinder press freedom? October 18th was Media Democracy Day, and Canada's independent media groups organised a whole week of events from Toronto to Vancouver to bring attention to the problem corporate media poses for media democracy in Canada. To my mind, a lack of media democracy stems from a lack of media freedom.

Citing media giants CanWest, Globemedia and Rogers as examples, the Canadian Media Democracy Day website states that the increased concentration of media ownership means that commercial interests take precedence over public interest. These commercial interests can lead to news stories being suppressed, local content being cut down, editorial diversity being compromised and cross-promotional advertising being incorporated into content, says the website. In addition, highly-concentrated media corporations "censor or filter out non-mainstream views, support neoliberal, pro-business government policies and further racist, sexist, ethnic and other stereotypes."

The freedom of Canadian journalists may not be affected in the physical sense by the threat of imprisonment, kidnapping and death, and it may not be limited by laws or a state-run press, but isn't it being affected by commercial interests at a much more subtle level? If choices about editorial content are being made based on what companies want and not on what readers want, then isn't that taking away the freedom of journalists and editors, and therefore, the press as a whole?

In other countries, outside influences such as politicians, criminals, the military and the government may threaten editorial autonomy, but in Canada it seems that the very media organisations journalists work for may be their biggest obstacle to achieving complete press freedom.

Posted by Sanam Islam at 10:00 AM | Permalink

The beauty of the blog comes from all the random rants and fun visuals you get from an individual. The less formal approach and personal insight also makes for an attractive idea - drawing readers and inevitably building little blogging communities around a type of blog. Well, having been in several blogging scenes for many years - this is probably the most intimidating blog I've participated in. It probably has something to do with the fact it's professional[ish] and academic[ish] - two things that make my hands a little clammy (and I hate clammy hands.)

The thing is, people like to skim blogs. People's attention spans online are even less than in real life - and according to South Park, everyone has A.D.D. now. (Have you seen that one? No? Okay, then. Ha. [insert awkward chuckle here.] Ha.) But everyone likes pictures! So, here's a relatively image heavy post [slash] quiz about random news websites. Everyone and their dog seems to be into the whole redesign thing. This is always a hot topic in J-School.

Let's see if you can recognize some of these clippings of Canadian media...

So, as you may or may not have figured out already, if you click on the image after guessing - it'll take you to the captured site. I've covered the different media streams: newspaper, magazine and broadcast. So have fun with that. Happy Sunday, and I hope all those awful autumn illnesses have been coughed and sneezed into crumpled tissues in some waste basket.

Posted by Chloe Tse at 10:41 AM | Permalink

About a week ago, I was staging a photo shoot for the Review. The story was about religious schools, so I was taking some shots outside a Catholic school.

The location was perfect, but the shots of the reporter and camera man didn't quite capture the story. Backing up into the street to take one of my last shots, I saw a priest walking up the sidewalk.

The priest could help me tell the story. He could do it by simply talking to my reporter.

I identified myself as a journalist from Ryerson. Could he be in the picture? The story I was doing the visual for was about journalists reporting about faith based schools. Please?

He hesitated and looked at me suspiciously. I was about to give him my version of a journalism badge (a press pass issued to me by Ryerson) when he said, "Okay, I'll take the risk."

The risk of trusting a journalist.

Many ordinary people who don't have any experience with journalists have a lot of trouble trusting us. Why shouldn't they? Some people working under the moniker of 'journalist' skew information, burn sources, make up stories and the list goes on.

I have difficulty calling those people journalists. To me, a journalist is a person who looks for the truth, which means fair and balanced reporting. They are ethical. They are trustworthy.

Talking to a true journalist is a risk worth taking. I just wish the posers would adopt a new name. If they did, journalistic credibility wouldn't be so far-fetched.

Posted by Ana Maria De La Fuente at 09:17 AM | Permalink

I woke up this morning to my alarm clock spitting out Andy Barrie's words. The management presented CBC with a challenge: employees must reflect the Canadian multicultural population, said Metro Morning's host. More immigrants must be hired. And yet, people who spoke this morning aren't exactly immigrants anymore, in my eyes.

Barrie interviewed a host, a producer and other employees about becoming Canadian citizens. The guests reminisced about entering Canada 30-plus years ago; someone even mentioned ancestors who arrived shortly after the Napoleonic Wars.

Of course, one must treasure one's heritage. I don't attempt to deny this. But these people have had decades to integrate themselves into our society. Why don't we hear from more recent settlers working for CBC?

Jokingly, someone once told me that an accent (and I don't mean a British, Scottish or Irish one) turns you into an "audible minority." It's tougher for a recent immigrant to become a journalist, I was warned. Unable to hide my foreign pronunciation of English words, I hope this statement is false. I long to hear strong accented-voices address me from my headphones. There must be such people at CBC. Why aren't they talking?

Posted by Alina Seagal at 02:12 PM | Permalink

On Monday, the Toronto Star reported that plans for a government-controlled media centre were underway. On Tuesday, the Conservative government made it clear that those plans were no longer being considered.

For a project that has been said to have been kept under wraps for a least a year, such a quick turn around seems a little too quick. With an estimated cost of $2 million, the facility would have served the same purpose as the National Press Theatre, which as the Star points out, is located only a block away. The National Press Theatre also is a place that Harper has managed to avoid, but his absence from the theatre has not gone noticed, as you can read here at CTV's Politics Blog. A significant difference between the National Press Theatre and Harper's media centre would be the government control over who gets in, who gets to ask questions, and possibly what makes it on tape and on air. So in other words, everything would be censored in some way by the government, for the government.

The plan to build the media centre in an unoccupied shoe store, appropriately earned it the code name Shoe Store Project. The question everybody should be asking is why all of a sudden has the project been dropped, after all the planning and efforts to keep the project a secret up until now?

A government-controlled media centre simply seems like an oxymoron. The press aims to inform the public, but censoring who gets into the briefings and who is allowed to ask questions hinders the media's role in informing the public about government developments. Government hands controlling the centre and all its functions is, without a doubt, an obvious attempt to filter what the press has access to and which members of the press have access. It seems as though there may be a little bit of paranoia about some people saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Undermining the need for objective media coverage is not the best way to gain the respect of the members of the press and the public. In Monday's Star article, Tonda MacCharles reports that the project was considered extremely sensitive due to previous tension between the national media and the Conservative government. Was the quick response to Monday's report about the centre to prevent further tension? It is hard to say what the reasons were for the coincidental timing of the release of the federal files about the centre to the Toronto Star and the reassurance from PCO that the plans were not to be followed through with. It is even harder to determine why the plans were ditched! No concrete reason for the abandonment of the project was given (not that I'm complaining that the project was scrapped).

Tuesday's Star article, reports that there was no indication in the federal documents that the publication received about the project being abandoned. Was it the national press response to such a blatant disregard for objective media that put the plans on the backburner? Or was it the "ridicule" for Harper's opponents that triggered the quick decision to make it known that the plans for Harper's media centre would not leave the planning stages.

Who's to say that the project will not be resurrected in a more confidential way? Perhaps this whole situation was just one big mistake -- not that the project itself was a considered a mistake by the government but sending the federal documents to the Toronto Star and failing to indicate that the plans were no longer considered to be feasible. Such an obvious mistake makes me wonder if the Harper government is trying to prove a point -- they already have control over what the press covers in terms of government projects. One day, it's the plans for the media centre and less than 24 hours later, oops!!, the government is apparently not pursuing the plans for the media centre.

It is more likely that the reactions of the press, the public and other political figures sent a wake-up call to the Conservative government. An objective media is essential to the public and any attempt to alter that will not be met with open arms. The entire situation and the fact that the Harper government would even consider investing $2 million into a project that tramples the idea of the freedom of the press sends a rather disturbing message. MacCharles' quote from Liberal MP Mark Holland best describes what most people must being thinking about Prime Minister Stephen Harper right now: "He is a control freak."

Posted by Ashley L. Pergolas at 11:00 AM | Permalink

My roommate came across this column yesterday by Mark Bonokoski (sp?). After listening to her read it aloud, I found myself cussing in defense of this establishment I have spent my last four years and $34,000 to attend.

I understand Bonokoski's disappointment in the student who sent him that idiotic email but I want to let him know a few things about Ryerson J-Skool he may have forgotten since his time here.

First year students don't know everything. Last year I took a first year sociology course because I didn't have time for it in previous years. I spent most of my time in that class rolling my eyes at the students for their ignorant comments about race, culture, and stereotypes. I do not claim to be the most knowledgeable or politically correct person but I did see the difference in opinion between those who were in their first stages of post-secondary education and those who have spent a couple years in the city, learning at a university level. I knew they had a lot to learn and the same goes for the (most likely first or second year) journalism student who emailed Bonokoski. This student may have been lazy and obviously has no idea yet about the art of scoring an interview but it doesn't mean he won't figure it out before he graduates. And if students can't, it is more a reflection on them than something they were not taught in school.

To write a full page rant on why journalism students are lazy is insulting to not only us as students, but our professors as well. The reason students are in school is to learn the best way to work and this means constructive criticism is better than stereotyping.

Yes, society loves entertainment news and quick fixes but we're not allowed to write about it. In the fourth-year magazine stream, we are not allowed to write stories on Paris Hilton because we are here to learn about real literary journalism. For instance, this semester the magazine stream students have to complete 40+ interviews for a feature that critiques or analyzes journalism, to appear in the Ryerson Review of Journalism. On top of writing that 2500 to 5000 word story, that has to make it through fact checking, we have to complete a pilot magazine that is missing in society (none of which deal with electronics, high-speed internet, or celebrities). While we work on those two huge projects we have between 12 and 16 hours of class (not including out of scheduled class time meetings) to attend, including an ethics course, fundraising, blogs to write, articles to fact check, readings to finish by great writers, a portfolio of our work to create, and don't get me started on the three part-time jobs I have on top of that.

Laziness is impossible this year. I can't speak for the broadcast, online and newspaper streams but I know I do not have one second to waste on being a bad journalist.

Rule number one in reporting class: spell names right, or you fail. Been there, seen that. Our professors, possibly Bonokoski's former colleagues, mark our papers as if they were going to be "published in a real newspaper." No one I knew got As in first year reporting class. In fact my first mark was a D+. I watched students cry to my reporting teacher, after spelling a name wrong, yet they did not pass the assignment. I learned very quickly that mistakes are not tolerated in journalism. It is unfair to journalism students who work hard and take pride in what they do for Bonokoski to imply that all students are like a first-year, first-semester student. No rookie can know all the tricks of a seasoned journalist, but they can learn from their mistakes in school.

So before you blacklist this new J-skooler, just have patience and remember he has three more years to learn something. You never know, he may become the next Mitrovica or Smith.

Finally, in the words of our chair Paul Knox: "Ryerson students are known for their ability to hit the ground running." Three years after my D+ on a newspaper assignment, I am blogging on rrj.ca and it isn't because of sheer luck or laziness.

Posted by Miranda Voth at 02:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Traditionally, disability issues have been given very little attention in the media and if they have, they've been covered in a very stereotypical way. Stories about people with disabilities have appeared in the news more often because the person simply has a disability and not because they have done something noteworthy like their able-bodied counterparts. Instead, newspapers write the sob story, the story of the hero or the individual overcoming adversity.

The National Centre on Disability & Journalism (NCDJ) says, "Only through open, diverse and inclusive dialogue will disability reporting become more accurate." Which is very true, however with this dialogue comes the concern with the politically correct notion of putting the person before their disability. This is of course the desired goal in all situations, but I think context is everything. In order for the dialogue that NCDJ suggests to really work, there not only has to be room for people with disabilities to be depicted in the media in a more inclusive light, there also needs to be a media outlet where disability can be freely discussed, focusing on disability issues completely.

Despite a lot of criticism, including last summer's feature in the RRJ, true representation of people with disabilities by Abilities remains to be seen. As 'Canada's Lifestyle Magazine for People with Disabilities' and one of Canada's few print editions focusing specifically on disability, it seems to me that they should be that outlet for free discussion. But instead, as always, Abilities takes the safe route.

The fall 2007 issue of Abilities features Ontario's new Lieutenant Governor, David Onley, on the cover. The picture shows Onley proudly seated in his scooter, suggesting that the article follows the magazine’s mandate, focusing on disability issues. Disability isn't completely absent from the conversation with Onley -- don't get me wrong, they do a good job describing his disability and his advocacy on behalf of the disability community, but for a disability magazine shouldn't there be more than three questions about disability? Unfortunately because of this, the story comes across as focusing on Onley because he just happens to have a disability, instead of on the bigger issues at hand.

Funnily enough Onley says, "I think over the years, while I've done multiple stories related to disability issues, I've seen the limitations of being a member of the media. There's only so much you can do."

Abilities' Q&A with Onley follows the person before the disability structure to a tee. Not bad journalism by any standard. However, the general interest structure of the article makes it seem like it would be more suited to the Toronto Star, rather than Canada's lifestyle magazine for people with disabilities. Does Onley's comment perhaps reflect Abilities timid approach? Is there only so much that can be done with disability journalism?

In contrast, on October 3 an article written by Toronto lawyer and disability activist, David Lepofsky, appeared in the Toronto Star, highlighting the issues surrounding accessibility in Ontario and the Liberals' commitment to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It begins by saying that "Lieutenant-Governor David Onley challenged all Ontarians to act now to make Ontario fully accessible to more than 1.5 million persons with disabilities." Perhaps Abilities should have covered similar ground, like how Onley plans to advocate on behalf of Ontarians with disabilities rather than simply asking how he feels about the prospect of doing so.

Is Canada’s main outlet for disability journalism becoming so safe that we have to turn to mainstream media outlets to get the real story? Is the disability community so concerned with putting the person first that dialogue about disability is becoming secondary? Where is the shift? Clearly there is more that can be done if the Star is covering disability issues more thoroughly than Canada's leading disability magazine.

Posted by Saburah Murdoch at 12:22 PM | Permalink

There are things that give people hope, and then there's others that make you want to get 13 feet of rope, a ladder, and a lonely place. Forbes, the magazine with the rich people on it, said journalism was one of the worst jobs there is.

Here's the quote I like:

Another endangered species: journalists. Despite the proliferation of media outlets, newspapers, here the bulk of U.S. reporters work, will cut costs and jobs as the Internet replaces print. While current events will laways need to be covered (we hope), the number of reporting positions is expected to grow by just 5% in the coming decade, the Labor Department says. Most jobs will be in small (read: low-paying) markets.

Ack. That gives a lot of hope to guys fresh out of journalism school in the 21st century. (Although to be fair, we did start journalism in 2004, so we knew what we were getting into.)

But, when I get depressed that I've picked a "worst job," I can drown my sorrows with the wine pick of the day from my Simply Headlines email. This just emails me important headlines in things I am interested in. I need to know what to drink already and have a vague understanding of the horrors befalling the world to make my drinking more bittersweet.

The World Wide Web proliferates so much information you can gag and the guys who are supposed to make that information are going out of business. That's a nice bit of irony.

Posted by William Stodalka at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This weekend, I found myself in a small town on the edges of Lake Huron, sitting at a table surrounding by a family I had just met. To my left sat a provincial employee, responsible for ensuring that the roads signs in Ontario stay accurate and up to date. Across the table sat an expert in Geographical Anaylsis, employed by a consulting company to ensure that the maps of Ontario stay accurate and up to date.

"Did you know that the sign by the river is spelt incorrectly?" the map maker asked the sign maker with a smile, spurring a lively conversation about the indigenous names in Ontario.

After ten minutes passed, I stopped listening and gazed off, confused. I felt like a fish out of water, an Albertan caught in talk about Ontario's geography. But before long, the conversation unexpectedly turned to territory that I have charted before.

"You know the best way to get that sign changed," the sign maker (who we had determined wasn't responsible for the error) told the map maker, "is to call the local paper."

"I should," she agreed, "they'll probably send 25 journalists and two photographers to the scene right away. It will be front page news."

"Yeah, and the headline will be 'First Nations complain about misspelling of river's name," chimed in another dinner guest, laughing. "And the article itself will probably contain more spelling errors than the sign."

The mockery of the misspelled sign had quickly turned into a mockery of journalism.

But forgetting objectivity and all the rules of the Elements of Journalism, the dinner guests had hit on something important. Small town papers, as erroneous and biased as they may be, manage to achieve something that city papers may never have a chance to do--they continually publish content they know will be useful, appealing and informative to their readers. They also manage to do what many larger publications can only aspire to do; they create public opinion, open debate and ultimately have the power to create change.

The town crier has come a long way. All they need now is a copy of the CP stylebook.

Posted by Jessica Lockhart at 10:41 PM | Permalink

"Did you hear about the stabbings at M.T.?" said a friend of mine not too long ago. M.T. is short for Mother Teresa Catholic School, a local high school.

"No," I replied. "What happened?"

"There were these two stabbings that went on and the media made it seem like it was a gang war between blacks and Tamils," he said. "But it wasn't."

I had to check out the clip, which was aired on Toronto's CP24 and can be seen here.

Dwight Drummond is a reporter who came from the "troubled" neighbourhood of Jane-Finch and I have a lot of respect for him. Whenever he's sent off to report on crime in marginalized and racialized neighbourhoods, he does it with a twist, not always following the traditional methods of telling the story. Although Drummond does refer to the idea that the violence could have been related to race, he undermines it by actually talking to the students who go to the school.

I then checked out the Toronto Star's version of the incident, which can be read here .

In this account, the reporter quoted the police, residents and the school trustee. These sources might make sense when doing traditional crime reporting, but I have to point out that they won't get a reporter closer to the truth when you're dealing with a neighbourhood where people generally don't trust the police, teachers, the media, etc. - and will often lie to them. And then when stories like this come out in the news, they trust the media even less. Here's an excerpt:

Initial reports said four masked men left the scene on foot at the north end of the Brenyon Way townhouse complex, where it meets Sewells Rd., Reed said.

A group of teens at the scene refused to talk about the stabbing.

"This (violence) has been going on for years," said a man who lives on the south side of the complex. "That school is not a good school. They come over here and make it look like a townhouse problem."

I commend the reporter for at least trying to talk to the teens, but this paints an even bleaker image of area without getting to the answer. So how do you get accurate information in a circumstance like this? I think the best one could do is talk to as many of the students as possible, like Drummond had, and not assume most things are gang-related. Luckily the writer didn't use the word "gang", but it popped up in many of the quotes, which makes me wonder if the reporter went in and asked all the interviewees if gangs were involved.

My friend, who went to the school, said that what happened was that this young kid was being bullied by a group of Asian students. He got his older brother to come in to protect him, and while doing so, his older brother was stabbed. The second stabbing was not related to the first and was between a group of black youth. I want to bang my head against a wall when I hear about the stupid things that these kids do, but when most of what you hear from the media is how bad your neighbourhood is, instead of what really happened, then I don't think the mentality that the kids have are the only things that need changing. This isn't the first time I've heard crime stories from friends who offered better accounts of the situations than what I found in the media. And I must say, we got a long way to go.

Posted by Mimi Szeto at 01:06 PM | Permalink

While channel surfing this summer I was surprised when I stopped and noticed the BBC logo in the corner of the screen. I couldn't recall if we had received any notice about the addition from the cable supplier, but nonetheless was happy to have more news to watch with more international coverage.

Apparently, more news is not what BBC viewers will be getting. On Tuesday the Financial Times reported on its website that the network will be cutting 12 per cent of its workforce, roughly 2,800 jobs. Just three years ago, it cut and outsourced a total of 6,000 jobs for "cost-saving reasons."

It's the same old story this time around. BBC authorities are citing the reduced licence fee settlement from the government as the cause. The Times is also reporting that factual errors in programming are adding salt to the wound. There have been 10 separate instances where staff has lied about the identity of winners for phone-in competitions. And just last week a BBC1 controller resigned over the controversy around an edited clip of the Queen back in July.

Interestingly enough, in the middle of July the network made its entire broadcasting staff attend ethics classes after they found six programs had "deceived" viewers. As if staff actually needed to take an ethics class to recognize that what they did was wrong! Why not throw in a fact-checking seminar too? Well, seven days later the BBC implemented a system where a third-party will scrutinize phone-in competitions. I guess that's as good as it's going to get.

Oh yeah, those six programs were apparently children's shows. This prompts the question: what is getting by under the radar in the newsrooms?

Posted by Nina Boccia at 02:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Election Result Center."

"Hi this is riding number ___ and there are ___ out of __ polls."

"Alright, your results have been entered, thanks."

Last night I worked as an operator for the Canadian Press, receiving calls from ridings across Ontario as people voted for a candidate and in the referendum.

After a late night, the polls closed, the votes were tallied, and Dalton McGuinty won the first back-to-back Liberal majority government in 70 years. And, although Ontario's first referendum in 83 years would have changed the way that future governments are elected, many voters were confused, or did not know what it entailed, and chose to opt out picking the new system.

If voters had chosen to reform our electoral system then they would have kept a majority of mixed-proportional representation (MMP) from their local riding, but it would have also added a minority of representatives elected from party lists: proponents argue that this would make politics more responsive to women and minorities in legislature.

Back to last night. As I sat on my uncomfortable chair receiving calls, it seemed as though the referendum would not pass and that the Liberals would win from the begin of the night. Sitting beside my aunt and my cousin, we discussed the referendum and how people were not properly informed about what it entails and also about what should be done in order to get young people to vote.

But then I got another call and had to stop the conversation as I put on my phone voice to answer the next riding to call into our CBC location. "Election Result Center," I would say as I worked on the fourth floor basement -- I didn't even think a building could go that low in the ground -- feeling as though the live coverage from each of the party's headquarters was far more glamorous than our dungeon abode. However, our TVs were all on mute, so perhaps the speeches were not as interesting as what I had imagined.

Time went by fast and we were allowed to take breaks whenever needed. They had platters of sandwiches and delicious chocolate chip cookies, all of which I devoured, and pop and water, all of which I guzzled. Every time I took a break, I took a sandwich. One turkey, one egg, one ham, one eggplant and another that I can't remember. That may sound gross, but I'm a starving student and need to take advantage of free food whenever possible.

But then, as I stared at the computer screen, kind of bored and waiting for another call, I thought about my current situation. I'm a university student who sat in front of a snazzy flat-screen computer and got paid to sit in a chair and enter in election results. I was given free food by a lovely tasting catering service and was able to place a vote after class. Perhaps the idea of luxury is taken for granted and perhaps this is one of the reasons why a small amount of people in my age group in fact vote.

Regardless, the elections are done, Liberal, Dalton McGuinty has won, and the referendum is out. But perhaps at the next election people will be more educated about a need for change and the vote will not be such a confusing task.

Posted by Jasmyn Burke at 10:14 AM | Permalink

The recent rise of citizen journalists and bloggers has introduced a lot of hard questions for journalists. The most fundamental of these is what exactly makes a journalist, a journalist?

If anyone can pull out their cell phone and shoot video - provided they're in the right place at the right time - and anyone can write about what they see and publish it in a public venue, what do we, as professional journalists, have left?

The interview.

Most people probably wouldn't let a stranger into their homes and into their lives to bombard them with questions. Unless, of course, that stranger is a reporter from a media outlet. And once you're in, the interview itself is a delicate art that takes practice to truly master. Interviewers face time constraints, unwilling subjects, and the challenge getting passed what people want you to hear and onto what they really think.

A few weeks ago, I was snooping around the J-Source website when I stumbled on a fascinating article about the subject. It's called "The obsolete interview" and it's by Jeff Jarvis. Jarvis is the director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism. He's also a media consultant and an associate professor at City University.

In "The obsolete interview" he writes about how traditional interviews and their structure have become outdated and how the internet could change the way interviews work.

"Why shouldn't every quote, every snippet and soundbite, link to its context in the fuller interview? If the reporter has done a great job on the story, no one need click on those links. But if you want more or if you want to investigate the context in which this person said this thing, why not make that readily available, now that we have the ability, thanks to hyperlinks and permalinks?"

Jarvis argues the internet can be used to create transparency and to ensure accuracy. He also introduces the notion of a new kind of article: "Interviews and articles need never end. And never start. A story can begin with a reader's blog post: 'I wish I knew...' Or it can begin with a reporter's blog post: 'I'm looking at doing a story about ____.'"

This is just a small taste of the many issues Jarvis addresses in the post. It has certainly got me thinking about the way we do things and the future of the interviewing process. How much longer before the Ryerson Review of Journalism and all its stories exist entirely on this blog?

Posted by Erin Tandy at 10:40 AM | Permalink

The first time I heard about Facebook was spring of 2005, in my first year of journalism school. I was in Cambridge, visiting my friend at Harvard University--the very place Mark Zuckerberg originated the Facebook phenomenon. My friend just had to show me this site. She explained how one of our long-lost friends had contacted her through it and how they were writing on each other's walls now. I thought it was pretty cool that she'd connected with our childhood friend, but I had no idea what the big deal was: why did my friend have to check her account five times a day? I didn't understand what a Facebook "poke" was or what the whole writing on walls thing was about.

Soon after, Facebook invaded Canada and my addiction began. When those friendly Facebook messages pop up in my Ryerson inbox saying I have a "friend" waiting confirmation or that so and so wrote on my wall, I can't help myself from clicking on that link that takes to me the incredible social network. Facebook tells me whose birthday is coming up, lets me share photos with friends, and helps me connect with people who are literally across the world. I have one friend, for instance, who just began a year-long trip to Africa. She's been posting notes on Facebook from Ethiopia to keep everyone updated. But Facebook has a downside, particularly its ability to cause extreme procrastination. Another friend could not beat his Facebook addiction and had he had to close his account. And beware privacy settings! You don't want to have random people or companies looking at your photo albums, do you?

Besides the basic writing on walls tool there is the messaging application, which, frankly, I use so often it's like having another email account; there is the gift-giving application, the graffiti program, the ability to create events and send out invitations; the Facebook marketplace, the thousands of groups you can join, that Facebook-wide food fight, and so on.

I have an excuse for my Facebook addiction, I've told myself, because I use the site for school. Yes, that's right, Facebook is helping my journalism career. This social network is a quick and easy way to find sources for stories. For example, I was working on a feature involving Wiccans last year and I needed to find some Wiccans fast. So I input "Wiccan" into Facebook's search engine and dozens of people's names popped up, including Ryerson students. Stalkerish journalistic innovativity. I messaged some Wiccan groups and a couple Ryerson students who had identified themselves as being Wiccan (and who, Facebook told me, shared mutual friends with me) and that is how I booked the first few interviews for my Critical Issues story. Could I have found Wiccans through word of mouth, or called up Wiccan organizations and asked to speak to their members? Sure, but using Facebook was definitely faster.

It isn't just me--it seems like more and more journalism students are doing the same thing. One first year j-schooler I know has created a Facebook group asking people from all over Canada to let her interview them about differences in drug and alchohol use among youth in various provinces. So far she has 152 members--that's 152 potential interviewees.

News organizations are using Facebook too. The BBC's Newsnight program has created two Facebook groups to gather contacts for reporters and to build closer viewer relations. The CBC had the same idea: they created the "Great Canadian Wish List" to conduct online polls. There is a group for CBC Radio 3 fans, the official "I love the Hour" group, and so on. Between all of its Facebook groups, the CBC has the attention of tens of thousands of young people.

Love it or loathe it, it doesn't look like Facebook is going anywhere soon.

And now I have to go update my Facebook page.

Posted by Rachel Barsky at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I know I'm not the only one confused by the whole Burma/Myanmar name game. Last week in English class, my professor asked us why some news outlets referred to the country as Burma and others as Myanmar. No one seemed to have a truly authoritative answer, so I thought I would dig a little deeper.

Burma was a British colony until 1948. The hope of democracy was quashed soon after in 1962 when a military coup d'etat put General Ne Win in power for nearly 26 years. In 1988, civilian unrest led to widespread demonstrations in favour of democracy. Hundreds of protesters were killed by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), and although there was a democratic election in 1990, the SLORC refused to acknowledge the results that voted them out of power.

The SLORC officially changed the name of the country from the Union of Burma to the Union of Myanmar in 1989. Although the name was accepted by the United Nations, it was rejected by the United States and the United Kingdom. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada refers to the country as Burma.

The Globe and Mail uses the name Myanmar in its headlines, as does The National Post. The Toronto Star uses Burma as does the CBC. Which is not only confusing, but also makes me wonder, how do news outlets decide what to call a country?

By using the name Myanmar, the Globe and the Post are referring to the country by its official name, but it was a name chosen by a brutal regime. Still, using the name Burma seems like a political statement by sympathizers of the repressed democratic movement. Is there a right answer? Or does it just came down to picking a style and sticking to it?

P.S. I just found an article about this by Leslie Scrivener in the Star that does a much better job of explaining this than I do.

Posted by Carla Wintersgill at 01:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)