As far back as I can remember, I've always wanted to be a journalist. Although journalists see themselves as too respectable to be goodfellas, we're often just as tough and sometimes even dress the part.

I must have initially latched onto journalism at a young age. Each Christmas and birthday, I would receive a Tintin comic, a series about the adventures of a boy journalist by Herge. I loved reading about the assignments in foreign countries, and how he would wind up capturing the villains and landing the breaking feature. I did, however, later notice all the overt racism towards Africans, Japanese and Natives.

Like many of my colleagues at the RRJ, in high school I was terrible at math. I found writing essays were a break from the tedium of fractions and trig. I soon began reading Hell's Angels, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and then The Great Shark Hunt. I was hooked on Hunter S. Thompson's raw and gritty investigative style.

Recently, I'm finding myself drawn to the long-form writers with finesse and an eye for scenes. While I still favour investigative journalism, I'm also developing a taste for softer stories about people and communities. One of the more well-known journalists in this area is Gay Talese, author of "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold."

While others look to sports stars or musicians as their heroes, I prefer a journalist with a swagger and a silver tongue. Too bad we don't get paid like the others.

Posted by Nathan Crocker at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Faithful RRJ readers may remember Julia Belluz's profile of Ian Brown in which the writer spoke candidly about his severely disabled son, Walker, and the memoir he planned on writing about him. For Brown fans, the wait is over. Starting this Saturday, the Globe and Mail will publish Brown's story about his life with Walker.

How do I know this? Well, the Globe has been hyping Brown's piece like crazy. The skybox in yesterday's Globe featured a promo for the article. On their website today, there was a commercial for the story, shot in moody black and white. The Globe is pushing Brown's article like a Hollywood studio pimps out their latest blockbuster.

Which is cool. I'm stoked for Brown's article. I'm going to run out on Saturday morning and buy the Globe instead of logging onto the website sometime over the weekend and only scanning the free articles. I like that I'm excited about reading the paper. I can't remember the last time that I was.

Posted by Carla Wintersgill at 03:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We in journalism like to disparage those in public relations, media relations, and all the other incarnations of the "communication" industry as little better than the minions of Satan himself. This is understandable: PR folk can be the agents of spin, the purveyors of half-truths, the relentless putters-on of good faces and positive angles. We are suspicious, naturally, because we're trained to get at the truth in all its pimply ugliness, and prettying up the facts strikes us as, well, just plain evil.

In reality, though, our relationship to PR and media relations types is a little more nebulous. We need these people; in an age of shrunken newsrooms with still-immutable deadlines, media relations pros can smooth our way to the information and contacts we need to get a story done. Often, it's a matter of using this information, or having none at all. For better or for worse, PR folk are the gatekeepers to a lot of what we need to do our jobs.

This doesn't mean, of course, that we take what they say at face value. We are also trained to be skeptical of ALL sources, right? But how many of us have been handed a blatantly biased press release, told to craft a story out of it, and, like the professionals we are, gone on to question, corroborate, or disprove its contents? Good stories can come from the weirdest places, press releases included.

It's up to us to treat all sources - even those with the words "media relations" in their titles - as useful tools to get the job done. It's also up to us, though, to be diligent about using those tools responsibly, which, for a journalist, means a healthy dose of skepticism.

Posted by Sara Chappel at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Word on the street is, gossip is more believable and more relied upon than fact.

We already knew that it can be very powerful, disruptive, manipulative and, of course, insanely fun to share, but a study done in October by the Toronto Star showed that gossip is believed even with great evidence to the contrary. Researchers used students to test the theory, and found that they also used gossip when making decisions. In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, one researcher writes,

We show that gossip has a strong influence ... even when participants have access to the original information as well as gossip about the same information.

Is this why we make everything in the media hyped-up, dramatic and intense? Is that a driver behind chitchat or the tension and the uncovering of a big, gushy secret? If so, it makes sense, but it doesn't make the situation better. It could, in fact, be making it harder to differentiate fact from gossip. Either way, it's unfortunate that we as journalists put so much effort into uncovering the truth, when viewers might not care to read, or believe, beyond the level of tabloids and gosisp columns.

Posted by Hayley Citron at 04:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On a similar note, let's talk about a Holy, Untouchable, Absolute subject: the Truth.

My pen should produce nothing but the truth, I agree. I don't intend to debate the importance of being honest. Yet, after four years of talking about the T-word, I remain intrigued by its nature. Suppose someone believes X is the ultimate truth when, in fact, X is false. Still, to this someone X might remain a fact, even if you offer all sorts of counterarguments.

Just last month, I read an article (in a very respectable publication) about Peter Worthington's wife. Turns out, the woman never was his wife. On another occasion, a few journalists told me about so-and-so's father -- a party leader. Turns out, this father had no political affiliations.

I hear false facts and stare at people who state them. They all have such a confident glare in their eyes: they think they are being truthful.

I almost feel guilty for knowing better.

Posted by Alina Seagal at 09:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fact checkers are the unsung heroes of the magazine world. They make sure every fact in a story is undisputably true -- ensuring both the writer and publication maintain their credibility, and, most importantly, don't get sued. As a writer, you often don't realize how much work fact checkers do, and how hard the work is until you try it yourself.

Fact checking certainly isn't a glamorous job: checkers have to speak with sources who may not have been so co-operative in the first place, and ask them even more questions, as well as finding the source to the source the author used.

Well, now there's a video that documents fact checking in all its glory.

Never again will fact checkers and their efforts be overlooked. Fact. Checked.

Thanks to The Shoestring -- a fantastic blog about small magazines (like us!) that's run by Magazines Canada -- where we first found this great video.

Posted by Erin Tandy at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Some disturbing news from a couple weeks ago: Canwest is moving the Vancouver Sun's page layout production from in-house (unionized) copy editors to (non-union) Canwest Editorial Services in Hamilton, Ont. (a.k.a. Canwest's Death Star). Other Canwest papers, including the Vancouver Province and the Calgary Herald, are up next to have this integral function of daily news cut from their newsroom. Such a move seems innocuous enough, but shouldn't local papers reflect local ideas and perspectives on news? Ownership is one thing, but directing the news from Canwest headquarters some 4,000 km away changes how readers are provided the news and how much play a story is given -- and sacrifices the individuality of being a city daily.

Though the media empire stresses that only national and international news, auto and travel are being moved to Hamilton, it's still an awfully unsettling decision, one that probably precedes staff cuts at all these papers. If the Edmonton Journal, a paper that's also undergoing this move, is any indication, this will be the case. They've been offering voluntary severance packages to staff.

The Tyee covered this issue in their MediaCheck section, and so did Bill Doskoch.

Posted by Canice Leung at 07:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I will state my bias up front: I am a classically-trained musician, married to a composer. Both of us make a meagre living off of performing. Before I started moonlighting as a journalist, I was involved in several musical groups in Toronto and, later, in Hamilton, as a conductor and a singer.

I am also in the process of writing an article about the vamping-up of local coverage in mid-size daily papers. In my case, I'm writing about the Hamilton Spectator, but I suspect the following comments are true for many other papers throughout the country.

If papers are looking for ways to increase their relevancy in a market glutted with information choices, why not increase local music coverage? It's a specialized market of people, admittedly, but one with a wide range. Who doesn't know at least someone, child or adult, who sings in a choir or plays an instrument in a community group? How much more "hyper-local" (the latest buzzword in newspaper philosophy) can you get than a choir composed of children from the community?

The Spectator used to have a full-time classical music reviewer, Hugh Fraser, who did nothing but review concerts put on by local groups, amateur and professional. Now... well, let's just say that, in Hamilton, we don't often see anything in print about a community musical group. Opera Ontario? Maybe. Hamilton Philharmonic? If you're lucky. John Laing Singers? Fuhgeddaboudit. Dundas Valley Orchestra? In your dreams.

Vamping up local coverage means all aspects of local life, not just politics and crime.

Posted by Sara Chappel at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A fellow RRJ member was reading a book in class the other day, and the word "celebrification" popped up on the page, in the chapter title or in the body of the work (my memory fails me now). So, what is this made-up word? The Boss says it's "how people are shitting on the English language." Apparently, despite her being right, the word does exist and is used legitimately. God knows why, or how.

Google gets about 22,300 hits for the word. Loosely speaking, when something gains celebrity status, it has undergone the process of celebrification. Like a makeover, I guess. And the celebrification effect is the effect of being drawn to a person, or thing that makes it in the pop culture, mainstream world (through drugs, sex, or rock and roll most likely), therefore making it/him/her an even bigger celebrity. The effect can also point toward a celebrity's attitude; the celebrification effect causes a person to get an even bigger head, blow lots of cash, act like a pimp, scream "ballin'" at any opportunity and own a few gas-guzzling cars. Think Britney Spears. Prince made the women he slept with wear makeup to bed, probably because he figured he deserved the prettiest, glamorous women out there (who don't really exist without pounds of mascara and lipstick).

You can celebrificate anything: academia, people, sports teams, events. But is this really a useful, appropriate word? Does it do anything to expand and improve the English language? My money's riding on no, but maybe I'm just really behind on the times. If you heard a news broadcaster use celebrification in a segment, would you find it odd, or just consider it a zeitgeist of this day and age? Does all the hype and buzz the media strive to create to suck you in warrant such a word? It's true that today we have more reality TV shows than ever, that broadcasts and headlines constantly try to drive our attention to the drama of the story. Celebrification may just be the perfect word to summarize our pop culture world as we know it. Or worse, the general public, who crave celebrity anything and make a point to idolize various objects and people (perezhilton.com, iPods, Justin Timberlake, Entertainment Tonight, Desperate Housewives, to name a few). To me, that's pretty sad.

In any case, if you read this, you are adding to the process of my celebrification. This blog is making me a celebrity right now, before your very eyes. Does that make you want to set up a digital camera in the RRJ magazine lab and watch my every move? I really hope not. But read away, and I'll let you know the next time I'm spotted if I feel like a big star. Or maybe I'll be too busy signing autographs.

Posted by Hayley Citron at 02:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Remember that time personal writing used to be so fun? It's probably why a lot of us went into writing. We liked to write. Like most writers, I used to love coming up with stories and writing all this garbage of seemingly insignificant events in my journal (later, I had a blog -- a fun blog.) I liked to write fictional pieces of nonsense with smutty scenes and happy endings; and sometimes, I shamefully admit, I liked to write fan-fiction.

All this was back in the day before journalism school. Somewhere between then and now, writing magically became a profession that started off as this Tuesday night leisure activity between commercials of some cheesy sitcom. Over the course of four years, we've been trained to edit, style, properly punctuate and understand grammar. Our professional habits have turned hobby into work -- work that will hopefully generate income after graduation.

But this training spills off published pages and into our personal lives. Receiving emails from writers can be both the best and worst thing ever. Writers know how to write -- they're familiar with the art of manipulating letters and are capable of formulating strong sentences that persuade their reader to understand exactly what they want them to. Although generally clear and articulate, sometimes a writer's personal email can come across as pretentious or overly-polished. Personal letters aren't supposed to be grammatically correct or perfect and ready for publication.

This is especially challenging for love letters of any sort -- whether they be in the form of emails or the old fashioned letter. How do you write a sincere emotional personal piece without sounding like a passage from a book? How do you convey a genuine feeling without making it sound like a script? Do you submit to sloppy syntax in efforts to woo an object of affection outside the literary world? To be fair, I'm sure most of us don't judge people for writing emails that include garbage like, "u so kewt." Or, maybe you do. If you're like me, you do. But really? What do you do?

I'm pretty done with this post. Here are some pictures of a hot fictional journalist that made me want to do the journalism thing:

Teri Hatcher from 1996? As Lois Lane? Yeah. Bet it makes you want to copy-edit your letters too. Don't lie. She makes you want to CP style your world.

Posted by Chloe Tse at 06:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This morning as I walked across campus, I was handed a copy of a new magazine. The premiere issue of Young & Ambitious features Canadian actor Martha MacIsaac and cover lines like "MAKE HER WANT YOU!" and an "ARE YOU WHIPPED?" quiz.

Other contents include information about the hazards of being a student, embarrassing stories, bar profiles, the NBA in Canada, workout regimens, movie, electronics, videogame and CD reviews and a profile of a female student who described as sexy, but still "with a little bit of substance."

We've been working hard this semester on prototype magazines and creating content that is relevant to our magazine and its ambitions. From this and from being involved in a magazine on the Ryerson campus, I have an idea of how difficult it is to put together and publish a magazine. The editor and founder's note tells me he truly believes in his magazine, but for a magazine with ambitious in its title, its sad to see that beyond one article about a successful beauty product company, the biggest ambition that seems to be advertised is getting a girl in bed with you.

Check it out at http://yamagazine.ca/ and post what you think.

Posted by Emerald Austerberry at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In my attempts to avoid all things journalism this weekend -- in the wake of first draft madness -- I ended up seeing a photographer take a stray crowdsurfer's leg to the face. In short, it looked less than pleasant, and yes, you lucky readers, it inspired a bit of a rant. During this weekend alone, I've seen more concert photographers being hassled by venue security for less-than-legitimate reasons and take more stray bodies and shoes than I can begin to count.

Even though it can be easy to feel a little jealous of any photographer's ability to get up close, to get at an element of a story you may not be able to (because as much as I hate to admit it, the universe doesn't revolve around queues and dudes with guitars) can be a thankless job. Many of the glossy, fancy magazines we're all so fond of would be in a hard place without the contributions of photographers.

Something like the New Yorker's light-on-the-visuals approach isn't appropriate for every magazine. The visual side of what we do is often vital to presenting a product of quality, even though some are willing to argue about the legitimacy of photography as a skill and about the importance of their contributions to a publication. People who can handle a camera are integral to this beast we call media, regardless of where they fall in the spectrum ranging from lauded photojournalists to celebrity-smut-hounds. While many of us soon-to-be grads are getting ready beg/bribe/legitimately convince the big magazines to consider our work, there are exponentially more photogs trying to do the same. Some of them, like some of us, are trying to build a reputation, a portfolio and eventually, a bank account, as hard as that might be to imagine now.

Rant over. Moral of the story: be nice to your camera-toting friends and try to keep your limbs to yourselves.

Posted by Ashley Petkovski at 04:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

During my three years and three months in journalism school, much of our focus has been on improving our writing. We've written countless articles, conducted numerous interviews and have fact-checked and copy-edited like crazy. But in our third year of j-school, the scope broadened. We started looking at how a magazine is created and packaged and I began to see the other side to magazines -- the business side.

This year we're given the opportunity to actually create, design and pitch a magazine by the end of our final year of j-school. I just got back from meeting with my prototype group for our advanced magazine editing class. We were working on our rate card, looking at our competitors, circulation, and the advertisers we want.

Most, if not all of us enjoy writing; I doubt we would be in our fourth year is we didn't. But now we can see our opportunities in the magazine industry expanding as we find out what it really takes to put an entire magazine together. And some of us are starting to get excted.

Whenever I go to the newsstand to pick up a particular magazine I end up spending more money than I anticipated. I can't help but pick up magazines because I notice how a certain idea or layout would work for our prototype, or even the Review. I scan the newsstand and select magazines with great coverlines and think about why I find them appealing. I pay attention to the trigger words and how everything is displayed on the cover. I spend a lot of time looking at the front of book and the unique visual approaches. I think of who the reader is and why the advertisers attract them. It's a whole different way of looking at magazines when you're learning about all the work and creativity that goes into them, besides the writing.

Sure, writing is great. But if I want readers of the Review to read my story and enjoy it visually, I have to sell it by using the best heads, decks, pullquotes and visuals -- that's the business side. I'm waiting for next semester when the Review goes into production so I can experience this side further. And eventually, see the results of our work when I'm holding the 2008 issues of the Review in my hands.

Posted by Jennifer Webb at 02:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"What's your favourite magazine?" The answer tells you a lot about a person. Me, I just love feminist magazines. Bitch, Bust, Shameless, Ms. and Herizons all make up my regular reading diet.

I was first introduced to Bitch in my second year of university. I had recently been hired as a coordinator for the Ryerson Women's Centre and my supervisor asked me if I would like to order a subscription of Bitch for the centre. I had never read Bitch and my supervisor showed me a few back copies. Bitch was (and still is) printed in black and white and shuns the standard glossy pages. I had never seen anything like it and in the end, I decided against a subscription to Bitch. Silly me. First published in 1996, Bitch is billed as "a feminist response to pop culture." The majority of the articles in Bitch are much longer than any of the articles found in today's so-called women's magazines or fashion books. Over the years I have come to love Bitch, I even own the book Bitch Fest a compilation of the best of Bitch from the past 10 years (which I highly recommend).

Bust is another feminist magazine that I buy regularly from my local bookstore (This Ain't the Rosedale Library, located in the Church and Wellesley village). Unlike Bitch, Bust is printed in colour and on glossy pages. Bust's pages are also chalk full of DIY crafts and recipes and even include make up and hair advice. Bust is great for medium sized profiles on prominent (usually American) women. Bust is far less biting than Bitch, but is a fun introduction to feminist media, especially for a younger audience. Check out Bust online (and even flip through their virtual magazine).

For a Canadian take on feminism, I like Shameless magazine, which was founded by two Ryerson magazine stream grads and is now edited by another. Shameless ("for girls who get it") was originally intended for young women and teens but also appeals to women in university and beyond.

And of course there are the two standards: Ms. (founded by feminist heroine Gloria Steinem) and Herizons (published right here in Canada). These magazines, although less flashy, provide a feminist take on the news of the day. I especially like Ms. for its coverage of women in politics and the abortion battle going on south of the border.

Posted by Rebecca Rose at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In media ethics class, lawyers Brian Rogers and Bert Bruser have been teaching us about laws and legal issues that journalists should be aware of. One major issue is libel.

As Bert explained to our class, a libel is something that is written or broadcast, while a slander is spoken. Defamation of character is a libel, for example. For something to be defamatory, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. All that matters is whether or not in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, it lowers someone's reputation and how they are known by the community.

Libel law and defence can be complicated. As we discussed in class, calling someone gay may be libellous to a person in one community, but not in another, as being gay in small-town Ontario, for example, may harm a person's reputation but in a large city, they might be treated completely differently.

You don't even have to name a person to libel them - -as long as they're identifiable, they can be defamed. Libel is often individual. For instance, if you feel you are the victim of libel, you have to show that the article singled you out, rather than a group to which you belong. So it's not libel to say that all lawyers are thieves, for example.

If defamatory words "get loose," the journalist has to deal with the outcome and prove the defence. You have to prove that those words are actually true. One defence for libel is truth, another is fair comment. You have the right to express an opinion on matters of public interest. The third defence to a libel action is that what was said was said on an occasion of privilege. The media has a privilege to publish what happens at proceedings open to the public, such as a Parliamentary hearing, for example. A journalist has a privilege to report libellous statements -- you don't have to prove they're true, you just have to print a fair and accurate depiction of what happened.

If you tell potentially libellous information to the people who would be interested in knowing it, the law protects you. If it's of importance to the police, then you're protected, for instance. If you tell the public and it's of public interest, the law should protect you.

Are you confused yet? That's why newsrooms need lawyers.

Here's a link to a Toronto Star article by Kathy English featuring Bert Bruser, published on Nov. 10.

Posted by Rachel Barsky at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It seems that you don't need to know anything about journalism to become a CEO, editor or publisher of a media organisation these days.

Recently, lawyer Hubert Lacroix was appointed as the new CEO and president of the CBC. His involvement with the media has been limited to being a senior adviser for Telemedia Ventures Inc., executive chairman for Telemedia Corp. and later a board member at Transcontinental Media. He has never been directly involved in television reporting, production, marketing or scheduling, and this has drawn criticism from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting according to D.B. Scott's Canadian Magazines blog.

Lacroix is not the only who has headed a media organisation on little or no experience. Book publisher and former graphic designer Sara Angel had no previous experience with magazines before she became editor-in-chief of Chatelaine last year. What she and Lacroix have in common is a love for their respective media organisation: Lacroix professes to be a CBC junkie and Angel says she has read Chatelaine for years. But does passion make up for experience? Would they able to do as good a job as a television or magazine veteran?

Although Angel left Chatelaine for unknown reasons, other relatively inexperienced individuals have had huge success. Take Walrus editor and founder Ken Alexander, for example. Before becoming editor, he was a high school teacher, producer of a CBC show and an author, but he has managed to create a highly respected and well-read magazine. Same goes for Cottage Life publisher and founder Al Zikovitz, whose previous magazine experience was mostly in the ad and sales departments. Zikovitz says he got lucky and learned as he went along.

I guess my question is, if journalism experience isn't necessary to get to the top, and almost anyone can run a magazine, newspaper or television news network, do we even really need to get a journalism degree?

Posted by Sanam Islam at 06:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here at the Ryerson j-school, if you're a fourth-year magazine student, you are graced with the teachings of a certain writing instructor. I've always known I liked writing profiles, but it wasn't until this year I learned what they were really all about. "Profiles are a theory on a person," he says.

I did more learning in the last two months than I did in my entire university career. Being thrown into the journalism world for the Review, we've had these amazing opportunities to speak to some of the bigger names in Canadian journalism. Being masters at their craft, they know exactly what you're getting at and where you're going with your interview questions. This works for and against you. Their responses are automatic, they answer the leading questions before you ask them - but they also know what kind of answer you're looking for. This can make it difficult for a writer who's trying to write a profile and is looking for the whole truth - or the full sense of a person.

Deeper than just a snapshot of a person, a profile still relies on a good angle - a good theory, on a person. This is much more complicated than you'd think. It's hard to find people to say anything negative about someone. Then, even as a writer, it's hard for me to put certain things in my story. This was an issue I struggled with last year when I wrote one of my stories. I don't like hurting people's feelings. But I've learned that complete honesty and accuracy tells the story best and gives the most respect to an individual. Took four years for me to really get that and trust my reporting.

So, I found this quote last year after our field trip to Magazines Canada on the back of one literary magazines:

"If you write the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, God can't help you. Don't freak out about this and get writer's block, just write whatever down, before publishing it, think about the people you are writing about, and ask yourself if you ever want to talk to them again, or if you care if they ever talk to you."

And just for fun, here are some visual clippings of our last week here in our lab:

...this completes our tour.

Posted by Chloe Tse at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Norman Mailer had an ego the size of Texas. That's what most people remembered about him when news of his death hit the wires.

I thought of how bad, loud and irreverent he was. What a character!

Mailer was one of the baddest asses in American journalism. He was prone to punchups. He enjoyed butting heads with his peers. He married six times and stabbed his second wife with a penknife.

This got me thinking -- who is the bad girl or boy of Canadian journalism? Ian Brown, Neil Macdonald, Jan Wong?

None of my colleagues really had an answer. Until one of them said, we don't have any bad boys or girls. We have a health care system that doesn't allow crazy people to succeed in life.

Perhaps she is right. Maybe Mailer and Hunter S. Thompson would have ended up so mentally stable that they wouldn't have produced their art. With their massive egos, they would have gone into politics instead.

Or maybe Mailer and Thompson's behavior would have been deemed so impolite by Canadians that they would have been shunned. Slipped into oblivion. Maybe they would have moved to the States.

R.I.P. Norman Mailer Jan. 31, 1923 - November 10, 2007

Posted by Ana Maria De La Fuente at 03:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So...[drum roll]...the stories were due today. You probably already know this -- we've made so many references to our stories in this blog. Still, yay us for spitting out our first drafts on paper.

All day long I was waiting for a magical feeling of relief. Any time now, I kept telling myself. Relief never hit me. I love to write, but every time I finish the process (even if it's just the first draft) the grieving starts. Somehow, I manage to bring myself to a gloomy place of complete misery, emptiness and disappointment.

Regardless of the quality of my article (and the time I invest in it), I always wish I could just keep on polishing it further. Probably, I would still be editing my very first article, if I could. All hail the god deadlines!

Posted by Alina Seagal at 09:39 PM | Permalink

First drafts are due tomorrow for 4th year magazine journalism students. This draft will be the first of many for an assignment that will require us to tap into all of the skills that we have learned throughout our Ryerson careers. You can't help but notice the amount of stress that is building up. Whether it be the number of sources or an undefined theme -- everybody has something they are freaking out about. How we deal with the stress of multiple deadlines and committments can take a toll on our mental health. So as we write our first drafts and pull our hair out as they do it, I highly recommend taking some time to calm your nerves and prevent that meltdown we all know may sneak up on us at any moment. Without your mental health intact, you will not easily accomplish what you set out to do. So make sure that you take a minute and do what everyone forgets to do when they are losing their minds in a haze of quotes, transitions and anecdotes.... BREATHE!!!!!

I received this animation in a forwarded email recently and laughed at the thought that perhaps this will be this year's RRJ team in a few months. Have a good laugh and then get back to work!

Posted by Ashley L. Pergolas at 10:35 AM | Permalink

I am sorry this blog is not so interesting. But the first draft is due Monday and it's 1:07 on Saturday morning and I am trying my best to think of something other than how stressed I am about my draft, but it's really hard... so here goes.

Some things about I wonder about journalists:

1. Why is it that journalists are so quick to dish the dirt on other people, yet they try to run from stories about themselves?

I have been calling the same people to get interviews for the past two months and now that I have my first draft due Monday, they are finally calling me back. Obviously I am happy about this, but I just can't believe how afraid some people are of my story. I have been asked the question "Who else has talked to you?" continuously. If the job of a journalist is to discover the truth, then why are they so afraid to share their own stories?

2. We have an ongoing debate in my house about whether it is possible to have both a journalism career and a family/social life when we graduate.

Some of us feel nothing is more important than our careers, and others feel keeping friendships and starting a family is more important. Jobs merely pay the bills, they can't be fulfilling for a lifetime. I think you can have anything you set your heart on, and if it is friends, a family and a hardcore journalism career it is important to try for all of them. Just think of what you will be saying to yourself on your death bed. Will it be "I am so grateful for my family and friends" or "Man I wish I dug deeper in that interview"?

3. Are we sick for being excited about bad things because they will improve our story?

I have actually said the words, "Oh so people are being fired? Great! My story's on track." We have discussed some inappropriate things in our mag lab, but it seems normal to us!

4. Why do we procrastinate so much?

Polishing is the magic word, yet I can't even begin to write my feature. Watching my classmates play Guitar Hero 3 seems more interesting than starting my story. I am afraid I don't have enough interviews and information and it scares me to think that when I start to write I might not have anything to say!

5. Why do news organizations insist on having online content everyday? I mean I didn't have anything too important to say but I still had to blog. I hope someone finds this interesting.

Okay, now I am done wondering. I am tired, hungry and going to bed, but I do promise a more engaging and thoughtful blog next round.

Good luck on your draft, friends!

Posted by Miranda Voth at 10:59 AM | Permalink

Frank Zappa once said "writing about music is like dancing about architecture" and I have to say that sometimes I agree. As many aspiring journalists do, when I first applied to j-skool I wanted to be a music journalist. Those aspirations have changed for several reasons, but a big part of it is that sometimes music journalism makes as much sense to me as "dancing about architecture." Music journalists seem share another language, a pretentious jargon that often leaves the average reader wondering what the hell they're talking about.

Eye Weekly ran a cover story about Winnipeg's The Weakerthans in their November 1st issue and I have to say, despite the fact that I'm a big Weakerthans fan, the article barely held my attention because I couldn't really wrap my head around the language. I mean, sure most Canadians should know who W.O. Mitchell is, but are we all supposed to understand why the Weakerthans' "unique sound has as much to do with W.O. Mitchell as with the Minutemen"? Or understand that "many of the tunes eschew any obvious verse-chorus hookiness and allow the melody of the story to direct the song" ? Most people simply listen to a CD and probably don't know the technical terms that come along with music. Why not just describe the song?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to promote the dumbing down of music journalism and there are bigger offenders than this particular article (Pitchfork and Chart, among others, tend to hold the crown). What really does help Eye is that the Weakerthans article is very quote heavy, allowing readers to hear Weakerthans frontman John K. Samson's voice rather than just the voice of the reviewer. I just don't want to be expected to have an encyclopedia nearby to get the culture references in a simple music review.

Posted by Saburah Murdoch at 04:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Anyway, I've learned about something called Brijit.


Basically, it takes stories from smart magazines like The New Yorker and The Economist and puts them into nice little one hundred word abstracts.

It pays people five bucks to write a review of something. So take note, all you guys who subscribe to The New Yorker. If you can summarize that article about Indonesian foreign policy, you can make yourself enough to buy a cup of Starbucks coffee.

If, as everyone points out, that Web 2.0 = Facebook and Myspace and all those other sites about the consumers producing content, then the Web 3.0 will be about editing.

You can click on and read a lot of the longer articles if you like what the abstract's about. You can tell this by the number of dots it has - three dots mean read it, no dots mean don't. Editor-in-chief Jeremy Brosowky called it Brijit because it was a sexy woman's name and because it had those three dots. Because Web 3.0 will be all about the cute names.

But you gotta wonder how long it's gonna go on for before some magazine gets pissed somewhere.

Thanks to D.B. Scott's blog and thanks to the This Magazine blog, who told D.B. Scott about it.

Posted by William Stodalka at 11:30 AM | Permalink

On behalf of the spring issue fundraising committee, I'd like to extend a thank you to everyone who came out to the Ryerson Review of Journalism's fall fundraiser last night. We had an amazing turnout: drinks were spilled, Scrabble jokes with sexual innuendos were told, raffle prizes were won and, of course, lies were probably shared.

A special thank you goes out to the Social for the hosting the event, all our sponsors for donating great raffle prizes, and the Deadlines and Dafna Izenberg for getting everyone out on the dance floor.

Posted by Jessica Lockhart at 11:57 AM | Permalink

The RRJ staff raising money by turning people into guitar heroes. Photo by Mimi Szeto.

The Ryerson Review of Journalism is holding its spring fundraiser tonight, and if you weren't hounded by us to buy a ticket for the event, feel free to come by The Social located on 1100 Queen St. West. There will be music, raffle items and some of j-school's heaviest finest drinkers.

The theme this year is Lies for the Liar: From the Old Boys to Blair and Glass. Think press hats, trench coats and fibbing for practical purposes. A safe move in comparison to one that didn't make the cut:

Mainlines, Blood Feats and Bad Taste: It's the gonzo boys with our amphetamine-addled friend Lester Bangs. Probably a psychedelic, garage-rock thing. Dress code: dirty t-shirts. Bad moustaches optional.

Posted by Mimi Szeto at 09:39 AM | Permalink

And don't think for a minute, the watchdogs won't be on his back.

My jaw dropped and eyes lighted up in one of those "Are you serious?" moments, when I read Don Imus is returning to American airwaves after being fired in April 2007 for calling the Rutgers University's women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos."

It did more than spark an uproar nationwide, especially (and rightfully so) among black Americans and black leaders. Even Imus' regular guests - such as rapper Snoop Dogg - didn't buy his sincere and somewhat reluctant apology. In a New Yorker piece from April 23, Snoop-a-loop explained the usage of "ho" by he and his fellow rapper peers to MTV News: "We are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls. We're talking about ho's that's in the hood that ain't doing shit, that's trying to get a nigga for his money. These are two separate things."

Apparently it's okay to use the word despite the fact that in the end, hos and non-hos are all women and equally disrespected by the term.

Industry watchdogs Media Matters for America caught his comments and thanks to the power of the Internet, posted the clip and the complete transcript online.

After an unsuccessful apology campaign and loss in advertisers, Imus was fired and received an undisclosed settlement. This incident was definitely the icing on the cake after years of homophobic, racist and sexist comments. But he's back again. The guy who hired him, Steve Borneman, praised Imus for his "unique brand of humour, knowledge of the issues and ability to attract big-name guests." And the fight for freedom of speech (and advertisers) goes on.

And what is to become of the fight against hate-speech? Find me a company willing to advertise alongside the fight first, and then we'll talk about it.

Imus' official return is on December 3 in New York on WABC-AM.

Posted by Nina Boccia at 08:11 AM | Permalink

I love my new recorder. After using a mini-cassette recorder for three long years, I finally bought a high-tech digital one in anticipation of all the interviewing I'd be doing this year. It was a wise investment and I can't believe I didn't buy one sooner.

Before I bought it, I did some research and discovered a fantastic program that does the transcribing for you. I was imagining how to spend all my free time when I noticed a tiny flaw in my plan: the software only works with one voice.

Now, in the middle of some intense interviewing and transcribing, I've realized that I don't want that program, even if it did do what I thought it would. Listening to my interviews again while I'm transcribing gives me a chance to reflect on what was said. I'm no longer worrying about what my next question is going to be, if my recorder is actually recording or how much time I have left before my subject's next meeting. I can listen to what the interviewee said and think about why they said it. Transcribing also gives me the chance to reflect on my interviewing skills. I get to hear the questions I asked and how I asked them, and I can hear how my subject reacts. As tedious as it can be, I think transcribing makes me a better journalist.

So all you long-form journalists, get transcribing! It's good for you!

Posted by Erin Tandy at 10:18 AM | Permalink

Yesterday during masthead, a very important part of journalism history was mentioned while we spoke about sources: Watergate and Deep Throat. I realized not everyone seemed to know much about these events. I'm no expert myself, but here's a basic rundown.

WHO: Former U.S President Richard Nixon and Co., Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and their secret source "Deep Throat"

WHEN: Mainly from 1972-1974

WHERE: Washington, D.C.

WHAT: With information from Deep Throat, Woodward and Bernstein uncovered the details of the Watergate scandal that led to Nixon's resignation. They uncovered the link between five burglars who broke into the Watergate hotel and Nixon's re-election committee. Woodward and Bernstein reported on the dirty tricks being played by Nixon's staff, from wire-tapping the press and citizens, to sabotage and espionage, burglary, cover-ups, bribery and so on.

W. Mark Felt, who was the FBI's second and third-ranking official during the Watergate period, finally revealed himself in 2005 as Deep Throat. That's a 33-year-old secret source!

WHY: Because no one likes crazy scandals at the White House, but they do make it interesting for reporters.

Posted by Rachel Barsky at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Last week I was approached by a Ryersonline reporter to do a Q&A about our upcoming fundraiser (If you haven't bought your tickets yet, what are you waiting for?) and what the spring issue of the RRJ will be like. I felt the fear and elation that Tim described in class. Finally! I was getting the respect and admiration I deserved as editor. But then I realized that I'm not very good at talking to people and I was probably going to come across as a jackass.

For a few days, my story was on Ryersonline's home page. And I looked like a jackass.

My personal favourite exchange:

Q: What kind of music are you going to have?

A: Dancing music, I'm not sure

My goals for the Review this year? "My goal as the spring editor would be not to have the Review fall down around me! (laughs)."

According to me, money raised goes towards the front of book. I hope this inspires confidence in my leadership.

Here's the thing: the reporter recorded our conversation, so I have no doubt I said all those idiotic things. But I like to think that I explained myself a lot better than I came across. Or maybe I didn't, but what made the cut wasn't up to me.

For the first time, I have an idea of what it's like to be on the other side of the microphone. It makes me really sympathize with the people we're hounding for interviews. They're opening up to a stranger and hoping what they say doesn't come across in a negative way. I thought that calling people to interview was hard. But I realize now that being interviewed is what takes guts.

Posted by Carla Wintersgill at 09:14 AM | Permalink