The RRJ editorial blog is taking a brief hiatus for the holidays. Our daily postings will be back on Jan. 2, with a new online story appearing on January 14. We thank you for reading and look forward to producing more original, quality journalism in the New Year.

So, what should you do until then? Well, the holidays are perfect time to catch up on neglected reading. Grab your laptop and park yourself in front of the fireplace with these great online reads:

D.B. Scott's year-end round up: D.B.'s on holidays too, but his final post of the year recounts all the biggest happenings in the mag world from 2007, as reported on his blog.

The New York Times Magazine archives: An issue of the Sunday Times is hard enough to get through on its own, who has time for the magazine? Luckily, if you've been missing out, all the issues are available online. They're full of amazing examples of long-form journalism, perfect for fireside reading. Tip: At the bottom of the page, you can scroll through back issues by cover, close to how you would flip through a stack of the real thing.

The Best of the Best: The J-Source editor's picks for the site's best articles of the year. J-Source is part of the Canadian Journalism Project and regularly posts both original material and links to great journalism on the web.

Happy reading and happy holidays from the RRJ!

Posted by Erin Tandy at 09:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Hour represents all that's wrong with the CBC TV these days. I know, I know, the time for Strombo-bashing has, perhaps, passed: the critics have had their say and he's still around, so why waste the air? So I'm a little late to jump on the bandwagon - it's not like anything's changed.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fifty-something nostalgia junkie who's convinced that everything after This Hour Has Seven Days isn't worth my attention. In fact, I imagine I'm not completely outside the demographic they're trying to attract. (I'm only 32, after all.)

But just because I'm young(ish) doesn't mean I have ADD. For some reason, CBC is convinced that, if they don't bend over backwards to appeal to the twenty-something crowd, they won't have any viewers at all.

Am I the only one who finds this constant sycophancy to the elusive cooler-than-thou Net Gen incredibly annoying? CBC TV seems to be, to gently paraphrase my former broadcasting teacher Peter McNelly (who wasn't talking about the CBC, I should point out), several identities in search of a focus.

Are they a testing ground for self-conscious, achingly non-edgy, badly acted sitcoms? CBC is deservedly proud of its political satire, but any efforts at actual plot-driven shows seem to follow the same, predictable, unfunny pattern.

Or are they the new television home for young 'uns who have neither the time nor the attention span to watch traditional newscasts? Well, no, if the ratings that I've seen for The Hour are any indication.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if CBC's highest ratings are from 5 to 5:30 on weekdays, which is when they show "Simpsons" reruns. Depressing. Why can't they do better?

I'm puzzled as to why CBC's television department can't take its cue from CBC radio - which, although I have my own issues with the ever-ubiquitous Jian Ghomeshi, seems to be treading the line between coolness and quality a little more elegantly. Their emphasis on world and indie music and genuinely interesting radio features is a whole lot more appealing to this particular young gal than anything for offer on the television side of things.

Why doesn't CBC realize that just because 20-somethings aren't watching now, doesn't mean they'll never watch. I neither watched nor listened to CBC five years ago, but I do now. CBC needs to figure out what it does well and stay consistent, rather than constantly re-inventing itself for some elusive new target demographic.

Phew.

Posted by Sara Chappel at 09:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My colleagues might laugh, but I've made a journalist's wishlist:

1) A big raise (or, a paycheck at all, for hard-working Interns everywhere)

2) More time in a day to get everything done. This includes, editing, drafting, and intense, personal interviews

3) The power to know the perfect time and place to call a source, when they are fully available

4) A voice recorder that transcribes itself

5) A memory-holding device (like Dumbledore's in Harry Potter) to see a scene exactly: what took place and how it took place. Status details and all minute descriptions included

6) The ability to know the news before D.B. Scott

7) The ability to maneuver successfully around spin -- political and otherwise

8) Open access to all online journals and articles! And archives!

9) Great connections to everyone important

10) A guarantee of at least a 10-year magazine lifespan

11) The full-fledged return of long-form journalism

12) The ability to create a successful magazine with minimal advertisement or association influence

13) More offices with doors

14) An immediate anchor job

15) More local, independent media outlets

16) More funding for local, independent media outlets

17) More money

18) A computer that fact checks for you

19) A computer that copy edits for you

20) A REAL Christmas break!

Please feel free to add to this list as you see fit.

Posted by Hayley Citron at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm from Victoria, and something I love doing when I come home is sitting down to read our local paper, The Times Colonist. I enjoy its distinct editorial style.

Huge, non-news related photos tend to dominate the front page. Small children in some kind of weather seems to be a favourite. I'm sure I've seen "Windy Day" a few times. Also, news about the careers of any island-bred celebrities is guaranteed A1. Yesterday's skybox featured a sultry picture of Pamela Anderson with the caption: "Splitsville? Island girl Pam Anderson files for divorce, the reconciles with hubby." One memorable cover story featured a kitten that had been rescued from inside the walls of a new housing development.

True, the TC is not always the most hard-hitting of news sources. But they have also run many provocative features that look at some of the real social problems beneath Victoria's postcard-perfect veneer. I love the Colonist because it seems to capture all my city's quirks in one place. It reminds me of a community newspaper with a much larger circulation. And while I love to mock the horrible headlines (A sample from today: "From B.C. bud to 'budder' and 'cheese': Drug trade keeps growing". The National Post ran a similar story by the same writer, the headline: "Canadian Drug Trade Flourishing, says RCMP") I will defend it to anyone that calls it a rag.

This is why when I write what I'm going to next, it only comes from a place of love.

Dear Times Colonist,

You need to clean up your act. I have come across so many typos in the past few days, it's ridiculous. Maybe you aren't the most serious of newspapers, but please don't treat yourself like a joke. Take pride in your work. Give yourself a second read before going to print. I don't think I can stand reading about anymore "Eight-two-year-old (sic) men". And when people say you're crap, I might not be able to disagree anymore.

All the best,
Carla

Posted by Carla Wintersgill at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

They say that behind every great writer is a great editor. For us here on the masthead of the Ryerson Review of Journalism, behind each great writer is an entire team.

I wrote a feature about blogs and the CBC a few weeks back, and thanks to my mother's frequent Google searches of my name, I came to realize that in return, I had been blogged about. The bloggers, who I had interviewed for the story, talked about the quality of my interviewing, writing, and how I had chosen to write my story. One blogger falsely assumed that I was a male (I blame Emiril the chef). Others, who I did not interview, commented as well.

This was a new experience for me, to really see how people read my stories and how the people in them feel. And while most of the comments reflected me in a positive light, it made me feel guilty, because what they wrote about went beyond what I had produced and into how I had produced it - which wasn't entirely done on my own. At least five other students in the class as well as one professor helped the story through rounds of editing, fact checking and copy editing, as well as the idea for the story itself and its refinement.

As we begin our holiday break (laugh with me now, fellow magazine students!) I want to give a thank you to our entire class as we offer our weekends, evenings and holidays to improve each other's work and put out the best journalism possible.

Posted by Emerald Austerberry at 12:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

That's right, it's the first day of a little thing we pre-entry-to-the-real-world kids like to call winter break. For those of you not on the Review, you'll recognize it as a time of sleep, not answering or sending email every three minutes, angry weather and quite possibly some angry family. As much as my description might fail to convey this, it's usually a good time, and to kick off this good time, I went to see Brand New and Thrice at Arrow Hall last week. It's time for good old cheese and nostalgia. Funny how a good, bitter show can do that to you.

Taking the important advice of a very tall man in a small kilt, a year ago, I "called the record company, not the venue" and made the valiant trek to my favorite airplane hangar-slash-venue, Arrow Hall, to do an interview with Underoath. They were in town along with Armor For Sleep, supporting the more-famous-than-not Taking Back Sunday, and were part of a story I was working on about young, self-identified Christians who'd rather find religion in the concert hall than the church.

Underoath are no strangers to in-fighting and in-print loftiness, and I needed to talk to them about putting their beliefs in their music and what they thought about how their listeners interpreted not only their lyrics, but some of the controversial stuff some of their members have said outside of their music.

I was nervous as all hell about what to expect. Aside from the fact that starstruck is my middle name, I was rewinding my tape recorder and scrapping together last-minute questions to the tune of years of journalism school horror stories. Since starting at Ryerson, I'd been hearing horror stories about what can go on during 15 scrappy minutes of press time, and the litany of behind-the-scenes people - publicists, managers, even bratty artists - looking to make your life less than pleasant. Journalists-in-training are sometimes taught that they are the white light pitted against the evils of the PR empire, which is a great way to make being in the same building as Adam Lazzara and Fred Mascherino all that much more intimidating, whether you buy the idea or not.

I'd heard about other artists shutting down interviews the second the term "Christian band" was used, and considering my questions and Underoath's contentious history, I found myself standing outside the building, anticipating the worst. I was waiting for someone to pull the plug on my interview before it even started, for the band to snap, or for some seedy character in a sharp suit to hand me a contract, a pen and an ultimatum. Ridiculous, sure, but writers have ridiculous minds, sometimes.

So, I'm armed with my stupid tape recorder and notebook, waiting to be delivered to the claws of band and industry, ready to fight. Or cry. Whichever came first. Half-an-hour before venue doors opened, I get picked up by someone working with the band. His name is Daryl. Daryl, as it turns out, is an okay guy.

The building isn't filled with people who demand a press card, a list of questions, or a pact for my first born. There's no Kool Aid in the water they offer me. The guys in the band are casual and more articulate than most of the hotshot academics I've ever spoken to. They don't much care where my piece is going to run, who's going to read it, or what I'm going to ask, and neither do their "people." They know that last night, they went to bed on a moving bus, and this morning, woke up in front of a Wendy's. What the handful of reporters they're dealing with today are doing isn't making anyone lose sleep. Prying journalists like me are part of the job, the same way they're part of mine.

As I didn't bolt from journalism school the second that interview ended, there have been many other stories and many, many other interviews since my lovely 15 minutes with Underoath. It might take forever to get a source, find an angle, hell, find a story, but it usually works out somehow. When the biggest thing to worry about is some guy trying to do his job in the PR department, most journalists, especially those of us who go for this arts and entertainment thing, have a nice gig going.

So, as I'm trying to tell myself not to stress out about unreturned phonecalls, nearing deadlines, sketchily defined breaks and neverending drafts, Arrow Hall was a solid reminder that while there's always a chance for a horror story, you're more likely to find a Daryl than a Shauna Roberts.

Posted by Ashley Petkovski at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two foreign correspondents are half-sliding across the icy surface of Oktiabrskaya Square. I am trailing close behind them. If I had a tail, I'd be wagging it madly at this time. I am in Moscow, working on a story (obviously it's the biggest assignment I've ever done).

As we pass a ghostly statue of Lenin, I ask the journalists where they've been when major events took place in Russia. They tell me about following the crowd to the local White House during the protests in the early 90s.

Suddenly, my companion pauses, turns to me and muses, "You do have a very romantic perception of journalism, don't you?"

Feebly I try to contradict the statement. But I know it's true.

The reporter, pragmatic and cynical, tells me this job just pays his bills. He might be exaggerating -- skepticism remains in fashion these days. Still, I keep feeling like an excited puppy, around these two seasoned hounds. Is it so wrong to be naive?

Posted by Alina Seagal at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I first heard about the death of Mississauga teenager, Aqsa Parvez, this past Monday on CBC Radio One, I braced myself for the usual backlash. The CBC reported that 16-year-old Parvez had allegedly been strangled by her father Muhammad Parvez. You see, Parvez was also Muslim and had apparently clashed with her 'devout' father over the fact that she didn't want to wear the traditional Muslim headscarf, the hijab.

I was very impressed by CBC Radio One's initial coverage of the Parvez story. The CBC went to great lengths not to portray Parvez's murder as a "Muslim issue." It was mentioned on several occasions that conflicts, such as the one between Parvez and her father, were common especially within immigrant families. It would have been easy to sensationalize the story (as if it is not sensational enough) and turn it into another debate about the hijab and whether wearing it is actually a choice.

Even today, the day of Parvez's funeral, the CBC is still treating the story with the utmost sensitivity. In news updates, the story does not centre on the fact that Parvez was Muslim or that she refused to wear the hijab, it focuses on the fact that she was a 16-year-old girl who was allegedly killed by her father.

Overall, I have also been very impressed with the coverage of this story on thestar.com (with the exception, of course, of the usual rant written by Rosie DiManno.) Today, thestar.com ran a story, written by Ryerson School of Journalism alumni Robin Doolittle, profiling two local Muslim girls: one who chose to wear the hijjab and one who chose not to. The story put a human face (actually two) to the tired hijab debate.

Earlier this week, the Star's website also featured a video interview with Muslim Girl magazine editor Ausma Khan talking about her readers and the hijjab. This type of media is sorely needed it we are to avoid the usual Islam bashing that occurs after this kind of incident.

Posted by Rebecca Rose at 03:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As I drag myself out of bed, I browse the daily news on my computer's homepage -- the Toronto Star. The biggest headline, "Racism Behind Angler Attacks," greets me good morning. When browsing through stories, I usually look at a window displaying the "most read" items of the day. While I tend to wish news were all hard journalism, new policies, and investigative features, this list reminds me of the importance of soft writing.
These were the most hit stories around 9 a.m. this morning:

The most popular story of the day was from CP, and follows a father who auctioned off a copy of the Wii game, Guitar Hero III on eBay that was meant as a gift for his son before catching him smoking pot at home. Honestly, this story was a funny read, despite its bare bones quality. The story is featured on the "first page" of the online edition, which from a journalistic stance doesn't make much sense. However, based on it being the most hit story of the day, the online editors made the right choice.

The second most popular link was for the daily horoscopes. Apparently, if I were like most of the other Torontonians who got their news from the internet, I would rather know that Jupiter has been working over the past year on redirecting me toward an easier path in life, than I would about which hospital I'm most likely to die at.

I was surprised to see that a story revealing that Humber hospital receives the highest death rate in the GTA, by my former teacher Rob Cribb, was nowhere on the top list, despite its presence on the front page.

The third most popular story this morning was a steroid scandal that has been engulfing the Roger Clemens and the Jays, another link from the day's headlines.

Newspapers are a business, and if soft news and horoscopes attract more readers than hard journalism, then they are an integral part of the publication. As it gets closer to noon, the top list changes, knocking out the horoscopes and steroids story, and replacing them with articles on the slaying of a Mississauga teen and how Hilary Clinton's aide recently quit. Perhaps people are more inclined to soft journalism in the morning. Murder and corruption don't go well with coffee and bagels.

Posted by Nathan Crocker at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Toronto is more diverse than New York, L.A. or Miami. Half of Toronto's population is foreign-born, and almost half (47.2 per cent) of the GTA's population is, too, according to a 2006 Statistics Canada census report, the results of which were published in the Toronto Star recently.

The three biggest immigrant groups are made up of Indians, Chinese and Italians. However, the diversity of this city is barely reflected in the media in terms of the number of reporters from visible minority groups and the amount of coverage on ethnic communities. Although some efforts are being made to hire diverse journalists at certain networks such as CityTv, in most cases, you'd still have to go to OMNI and other ethnic news networks to find more than a couple.

The lack of diversity in print media is even more pronounced -- how many Chinese columnists come to mind besides Jan Wong? When was the last time a South Asian was editor of a prominent magazine like Maclean's? Even when I look around the Ryerson School of Journalism compared to other programs at the university, the lack of diversity is glaringly obvious.

So why is there a shortage of visible minorities in the media? Are mainstream media reluctant to hire minorities or are there simply not enough minority journalists to hire? And if that's the case -- why aren't they interested in working for the media?

I can't speak for other communities, but being South Asian myself, I think a lack of journalists from Asian communities partly stems from the perception that journalism is not a respectable profession. I know many Asian parents, including my own, would rather have their children become engineers, bankers, doctors or lawyers.

More needs to be done to encourage minorities to become a part of the mainstream media to better represent Toronto's population and improve the quality and quantity of stories coming out of their communities. That's not to say only minorities can report on minorities. Sending more reporters from any background to report on diverse communities would help.

A 2006 Solutions Research survey revealed that the Toronto Star is the top newspaper choice for Toronto's minority groups. Not surprisingly, the paper provides the most coverage on diverse communities and multicultural issues, which editor-in-chief Fred Kuntz says is a major reason for the paper's success. Research has shown that South Asians and Chinese communities in particular are highly educated and heavy media consumers, yet not much is being done to address them and their issues by most Canadian media.

Minority groups are the future of Toronto, and eventually, of Canada. Mainstream media need to realize this and change accordingly.

Posted by Sanam Islam at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

On Monday morning, I was expected to have read a book for class. I didn' t read it.

Well, I did read 15 pages of it, a very illuminating 15 pages I would say.

This is what often happens to journalists. We are expected to read widely. We try, but our eyes start to sting after a while. We get hungry. The dishes start to pile up in the sink. We are only human after all -- not machines, sluts or vermin.

Last Friday morning, as I was feeling slightly ashamed about the book I hadn't read, I heard a man on the radio talking about all the books he hasn't read. He doesn't enjoy reading. He doesn't have time to read, but he teaches French Liteature at the University of Paris.

Pierre Bayard, who has written a book How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read, was on the Current talking about how many people like journalists often cannot read all of what they want to and have to.

I haven't read Baynard's book. But, from listening to him on the radio, he seems to think that looking at what is on the outside of the book -- the cover art, the blurbs and the context -- is enough to give you the idea of what is on the inside of the book.

So how do we as journalists talk to people about books or some other pile of documents when we haven't read it. Are we fakers if we do? Are we bad journalists? I would imagine there are a lot bad journalists out there if you think that is true.

Most of us have to be ready when we have an opportunity to get a story . We should not feel nervous or embarrassed if we haven't read the book. Not reading a book can get us to ask about the infomation our audience wants to know because they probably haven't read the book either.

Posted by Ana Maria De La Fuente at 05:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I think there's a stereotype about journalists. In nearly every movie I watch there's a journalist, or the media is part of the story. And, in most movies they're usually rude, insensitive and cross boundaries -- and I also can't ignore that they're usually single and lack fashion sense.

I think we're misrepresented. Like every other profession, there are good journalists and bad journalists. But I think the idea that we're insensitive about the events and people we cover, and that we sit at our desks late into the night writing stories that lack sensitivity, is far from accurate.

For the most part, good journalists report fairly and accurately -- it's like Journalism 101. That includes reporting fairly and accurately on horrible events, which happen everyday in Canada and the rest of the world.

Maybe journalists are sometimes held in a negative light because we don't always explain what we do to our readers. I recently had an interview with a journalist who said he doesn't think journalists cover themselves very well. I think he's right, there's a constant struggle when we want to inform the public about events, but want to be sensitive as well. Our audience is made up of the families, friends, and victims of the things we cover. But when it comes down to it, it is not our job to cover ourselves and explain every reason for reporting the way we do. That should come across in our stories. We write for our public, to inform them about what's happening and how it affects them using and practicing journalistic guidelines and principles.

The truth is, in most discussions I've had with my colleagues and other journalists, ethics almost always is a topic of conversation. Most editors' decisions are not black and white: they struggle with how to report something and sometimes might not make the best decisions. But we have to remember our job is to be fair and accurate, to get both sides of the story. A lot of the time we write about things we don't necessarily agree with but we have to leave ourselves out of our stories, it can't be the most important thing to us. We can't sugarcoat things or censor everything, but we can report fairly and accurately and pay attention, discuss and learn from our mistakes.

I think there's been a point in every journalist's career where they get so excited about a story that they forget they're talking about real people. But, for the most part, we pay attention and analyze what we do everyday like the rest.

Posted by Jennifer Webb at 01:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the midst of researching my feature article, one of my sources made an interesting point about journalists and their interaction with celebrities: Nobody is asking the right questions!

Some readers complain that most celebrity coverage has been stripped down to stories lacking intrigue, substance and anything out of the ordinary. Same old, same old seems to be the common theme among the many celebrity-centred stories. In-depth profiles about the rich and famous are slowly becoming a rare find. People want to know more than who their favourite celeb is dating -- they want to know what makes them tick and who they are outside of the spotlight.

A reporter I spoke with argues that most reporters aren't asking the right questions. He hears people asking questions such as, "Where do you shop" or "What do you eat for breakfast?" The answers to these questions leave audiences with articles that read like the ads on the side of a bus. There is no substance, just the bare minimum because that is all that they can get.

So where are the tough questions? Sometimes asking the risky questions is the difference between fluff and real celebrity coverage. Walking on eggshells around a celebrity means reporters are asking the safe and boring questions that everyone else is asking. The goal of a reporter should be to dig deeper than their competition -- exposing aspects of a person that are both intriguing and worth taking the time to read about.

So ask that question you think may set them off. Ask the question that seems to be on everyone's mind, but no one has the guts to ask. Be the first to ask that burning question everybody else is tiptoeing around. And if the response to those questions is "no comment" that can sometimes be just as telling as a thoughtful response. Catching someone off-guard sometimes leads to the most unpredictable responses and in the end... the most unpredictable stories.

Posted by Ashley L. Pergolas at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In recent attempts to procrastinate from writing my second draft, I decided to watch a movie with my roommate. We went with 13 Going on 30. (Jennifer Garner is a big time magazine editor for a women's magazine in NYC)

Anyway, I was very excited when they cut to scenes in the boardroom of the masthead meetings. I understood everything they were talking about, including FOBs, BOBs, heds, deks and redesigns. This was the only thing about the movie I HOPE they had right.

Now, I know this is a movie, but why is it that women editors are always portrayed as backstabbing, cheating, power-tripping bitches? In movies such as the Devil Wears Prada, Perfect Stranger and 13 going on 30, the women that play magazine editors and newspaper journalists all commit some kind of disloyal act to their peers.

In this film, Jennifer Garner sells story ideas from her magazine to its main competitor because she was promised the position of editor-in-chief, she doesn't talk to her family and she sleeps with other women's husbands. They lie, cheat, and steal from each other for a good story or to make sure the publication they control is the number one magazine.

I really hope the mandate for a good editor isn't to be someone everyone hates. I think it is possible to be tough, hard working, driven and hold the highest position at any publication, without being malicious. Not every woman who is in a position of power is a scary, heartless bitch. But then again, I wonder who is writing these movies? Maybe movie makers should spend a little more time with some real women editors.

All I can say is thank goodness this isn't Hollywood.

Posted by Miranda Voth at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Those who know me know I'm always on the lookout for interesting disability-related material. It's tricky, especially when it comes to journalism, to find content that either bridges the gap between medical journal, fluffy sob story or far left rabble rouser. But when I do stumble upon something that really catches my eye it's often British. The Brits just know how to do it right, turfing the PC language that we tend to use to death here on the other side of the pond, for a more progressive, biting wit that gets right to the point and leaves the sugar-coating for the kiddies.

And they've done it again...

Ouch is a website from the BBC that reflects the lives and experiences of disabled people. It has regular columns, features, quizzes, a monthly near-cult podcast, a blog or two and a community messageboard amongst other stuff. All contributors, well, 99% of them, are disabled - and Ouch's editorial team is rather wonky and deserve big fat special diversity badges too. The site's editor Damon Rose came up with the name Ouch! one morning in the shower. He says:

There's an Ouch moment when you become disabled or give birth to a disabled child. There's an Ouch moment when someone gets into the lift, catches the eye of a disabled person then quickly looks away. There are many Ouch moments when people just see disability as a problem and push it to one side because they're too scared or embarrassed to embrace it or tackle it. Without appearing too negative, we're all aware that disability can be the big elephant in the room that no one talks about - Ouch!

- From http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/about/

Posted by Saburah Murdoch at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's started to happen - the becoming a real journalist thing. How do you know? Well, here's a list of 10 things that pretty much confirm you're a journalist when...

1. You have "NEW DIGITAL TAPE RECORDER" at the top of your Christmas list.

2. You turn to a friend and ask, "Does this sound more Andrew Coyne or Chantal Hebert?" when writing a personal e-mail.

3. You pay as much attention to heds and deks as you do to the actual article.

4. You judge people for not knowing what an em dash is; or the difference between an em dash and a hyphen.

5. Geeky journalism jokes make you giggle. (example: "You have a face for print. AHAHAHAHA." or "We picked print because we can READ.")

6. You start a job, open up the desk drawer and find 13 empty mickies in there.

7. a) You rewrite ledes in your head when reading stories.
b) You know what a lede is.

8. You pay just as much attention to the byline as you do the story.

9. A good "hed" is very closely related to a "dek" - rather than a dirty joke.

10. You found this list kind of funny.

Posted by Chloe Tse at 01:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Okay, comics are a form of journalism. You should know that.

Recently, Cumulus Press came out with Extraction! They took four journalists, and said go look up gold, uranium, oil and bauxite, and see how they're extracted. Then, they asked the journalists to them to turn the information into scripts, which artists later illustrated. It's 20 bucks for 128 pages. You can get it here. You can say, "The extraction machine was five times as big as I am," but when you draw it, and you see the guy five times smaller than the huge drilling machine, it becomes something new entirely.

The Cumulus Press project was inspired by Joe Sacco, and on their site they say Sacco wanted to do it himself. He's another comics journalist. He's been to the world's warzones from Bosnia to Palestine and Iraq. In his most recent article, published in Harper's April 2007 issue, he talked about the U.S. Marine Corps training Iraqis to become soldiers. It's for subscribers only, unfortunately.

It's fairly good, and he sets it up very well, but there's still a few problems I found with it. After all, he doesn't show them graduating, does he? He just shows them suffering and trying to work out, and ends with a lone soldier, waiting for the next day of training. I'm not sure if they only allowed him to only be there for a week or whatever, but shouldn't it have shown the payoff to all that hard work they were doing? You know, the point of all of it?

So yeah, Harper's says comics are journalism, and you should agree with them.

Posted by William Stodalka at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Small town newspapers, the hub of all community gossip and information, are often criticized by local residents for not providing information relevant to their lives. My own hometown paper, in the northern Alberta community of Cold Lake, regularly focuses on "Extreme Weather!" (which is clearly shocking news in northern Albertan winters) and reminds pet owners, "Don't Litter, Spay or Neuter your Animal" (confusing punctuation inclusive -- I unfortunately could not find the link to this story). However, to citizens' dismay, the paper often fails to examine issues that are actually relevant -- what is happening on the nearby oil rigs, the LeGoff reserve's band council politics or the new casino's potential problems.

After all, the local hockey team's latest almost win is more inspiring and heartwarming. Warm fuzzies are what seems to matter here.

However, the lack of news worthy coverage isn't for lack of trying. This past summer, the Sun ran an editorial and several articles examining the politics and budget of Cold Lake's city council. The backlash was harsh. Within 24 hours, the mayor issued a public statement on the local radio station labeling the paper's editor as a "troublemaker." It's highly unlikely that this type of incident that would ever happen in a larger city.

If the Cold Lake Sun is to serve as an example of Canadian small town press -- with their lack of relevant news and critical editorials -- they face much larger obstacles in getting their news out to readers. And anyway, the Cold Lake Sun doesn't have to worry about providing residents with the news -- everyone knows that local gossip is the most credible source of timely information, right?

Posted by Jessica Lockhart at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The spring and summer of 2004 was an eventful one in my neighbourhood (which I talk about a lot, if you haven't noticed). We made headlines every week because someone would get shot, stabbed or beaten. I took part in a research project-turned-youth group around the same time, which was fun and empowering, but people there weren't very fond of the media.

"They only report the bad things," I heard again and again. People thought the media sensationalized these events and it got so bad that the media had to convert to naming intersections instead of saying Malvern in news reports.

I've been noticing another wave of violence recently. Stabbings at the mall. Shootings only a couple of blocks away from home. I'm hooked on this stuff because it's so close and I worry that the victim would be someone I know. Sometimes it is. And you can't always point your finger at the media and tell them to write positive stuff to balance things out. Sometimes it's real. So this time, could we try another way to deal with it?

Posted by Mimi Szeto at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We've all done it. Sat at our desks in front of our computers, yawning, sipping coffee or Red Bull and religiously rubbing our eyes. We've all worked until the wee hours of the morning: writing (and rewriting), editing, designing, checking facts and crunching numbers.

And it isn't all done in silence. Take a look around the office, the newsroom or the lab. Colleagues are often found with headphones on, tapping their toes and bopping their heads. Others don't use headphones and play their selected symphonies from their computers at low volume.

Some, writers specifically, claim it's nearly impossible to write or edit with music playing. It's an annoyance and a huge distraction. Fine, no argument there. But for those of us (especially the designers) who can work with and enjoy the background noise, being faced with a deadline at 4 a.m. leaves little time to play DJ.

The Shoestring blog suggests all-nighters tune into The Designers Mixtape - a site featuring a great selection of favourite tunes from designers all over the world. While it's obviously directed to the graphic designer and his/her layout team, writers and editors can enjoy the playlists too.

If it's the lyrics that are distracting you, try something instrumental in the background. My default writing soundtrack: The London Philharmonic Orchestra Plays the Music of Pink Floyd.

Posted by Nina Boccia at 09:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One evening a few weeks ago, I found myself sitting in the Steam Whistle brewery at a table with a bunch of newspaper editors. Sadly, I wasn't there to drink, but instead to hang out with my profile subject while he participated in the Daily Bread Food Bank's Toronto Media Trivia Challenge -- a Trivial Pursuit-type challenge for charity. On a break between questions, one of the team members -- an editor for the Toronto Star -- turned to me and asked what I thought about the future of newspapers. "Well, it's not looking good," I answered.

The long, slow death of newspapers currently taking place isn't anything new. However, what some of these papers are doing about it is. In the August issue of Wired an article called "Breaking the News" discusses what some American papers are doing to save themselves. Contributing editor Jeff Howe writes about how Gannett, a company that owns a number of US dailies -- including the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Indianapolis Star -- is using the internet for more than just a digital version of the paper.

At the Enquirer cincyMOMS.com, a website with discussion forums and photo galleries, was created in hopes to target a demographic that wasn't picking up the paper. Its popularity exceeded all expectations, and within six months the site was getting 40,000 pageviews a day and had generated $386,000.

Gannett papers are also getting readers involved, with a twist on citizen journalism.

Investigations would no longer be conducted by a coven of professionals working in secret. Instead, they'd be crowdsourced -- farmed out to readers who'd join in the detective work. Gannett papers would also become repositories of local information, spilling over with data about everything from potholes to public officials' salaries. "We must mix our content with professional journalism and amateur contributions," read one of the PowerPoint slides prepared by Gannett execs. "The future is pro-am."

Will embracing the internet save the newspaper? Well, it certainly can't hurt.

Posted by Erin Tandy at 09:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)