This will be the final entry for the Ryerson Review of Journalism blog (that is, until September, when new RRJers take our place). We'd like to thank everyone for reading, but more importantly, we'd like to invite everyone (again) to the celebration of our 25th anniversary and the launch party for the Spring and Summer 2008 issues:

If you like to consider donating to our magazine, Friends of the Review is still accepting donations. Please email Bill Reynolds at reynolds@ryerson.ca or call him at 416-979-5000x6294 for more information.

Posted by Jessica Lockhart at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The death of Dith Pran, photojournalist for The New York Times, left me questioning how Canadian news agencies properly care for their fixers, drivers and translators in conflict zones.

Our papers and television networks employ countless men and women whose knowledge and skills can score the rarest interviews and photos. My guess and hope is that the agencies have equipped them with flak jackets and helmets to ensure their physical safety. Canadian foreign bureaus open and close and correspondents leave, sometimes forever. But the fixers stay. Have our news organizations given any thought to their personal safety, given the political turmoil and violence in these regions?

Consider those who helped break stories such as the Ethiopian famine, the carnage caused by the RUF in Sierra Leone, the Serbian invasion of Bosnia and havoc wreaked by South American gangs. Do our news agencies know where these employees are and if they are safe, or even alive?

Posted by Nina Boccia at 06:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you enjoy Masthead magazine's annual tally issues, you may like Mr. Magazine.com's 30 most notable launches of 2007. Samir "Mr. Magazine" Husni, who's also the University of Mississippi's journalism department chair, and his web staff looked at 715 titles that popped up last year in the States. Some interesting new additions that made the list include:

Bond - A modern wedding magazine that looks so hip and high-fashion, you may not even realize it's supposed to be a wedding magazine.

Conde Nast Portfolio - Mr. Magazine.com writes: "Think The New Yorker meets Vanity Fair meets Vogue meets The Wall Street Journal, all trying to captivate you, the reader." Got that?

Medical Tourism - A magazine for Americans who want to shop around for health care in other parts of the world. (Well, if the U.S. health care system doesn't work for ya...)

Mob Candy (warning: links to a somewhat racy cover) - Mafia-lovers would enjoy this mag that features stories on politics and power to mobsters and mistresses.

For more on these mags, visit the Mr. Magazine blog where you can also find several Q&As.

Posted by Mimi Szeto at 04:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A number of newspapers regularly feature online-exclusive Q&As. These often feature writers of recent and possibly controversial stories, which offer a chance for the public to discuss an issue. Sometimes they discuss the paper's choice of coverage with a section editor. This week, The New York Times tried something a little different. They published a Q&A with a copy editor.

It's refreshing to see that some readers do notice little things such as apostrophes and possessives. Some are even curious about the style newspapers use and the reason they use it. Who knew?

Posted by Erin Tandy at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

News from the RRJ's Summer Masthead: we're in production with two days left! But of course, things were going a bit too smoothly, so our server decided to break down yesterday... and we lost our working layouts. We're okay, though--after a late night, we recreated the layouts. Now, we are waiting for those last sources to answer our fact-checking calls, waiting for proofs, etc. It stresses us all out, but we're getting there. And it will be great.

Also--get excited for our launch party--advance copies of both Summer and Spring magazines will be there. See you at 5:30 p.m. at Waterfalls Taps & Grill in Kensington on April 16th!

Posted by Rachel Barsky at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm pretty sure that last time I blogged, I wrote about a good feature. I can't help it, when I think of journalism, I think of the best things that I've read lately. In the March 3, 2008 edition of The New Yorker, Calvin Trillin wrote a feature called The Color of Blood. It's about a murder in Long Island, New York and the subsequent trial.

I don't think that Trillin actually did any interviews for the piece; it seems to be mostly reconstructed from previously published articles and court documents. Still it is amazing. In our Review quest for 40 interviews, it's easy to forget that there is more than one way to research a story. I'm not sure it would have read any better if Trillin had spoken with everyone involved in the trial.

What do you think? Read the story and judge for yourself.

Posted by Carla Wintersgill at 01:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So yet another bogus memoir has book lovers (and unemployed mag. grads) wondering whether publishers should start employing fact checkers.

Take a look at the latest brouhaha over a memoir of growing up with drugs and guns in LA.

Maybe if memoir writers had fact checkers breathing down their necks, they wouldn't be tempted to bend the truth.

Posted by Sara Chappel at 02:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Running the risk of turning my blog posts into dispatches from Toronto's North York, I am writing about another incident from this area yet again. Some time ago, Toronto Star published a fluffy story about a disabled woman who owns a chinchilla in a pet-free building.

"Shimoda lives in a no-pets building but management has acknowledged that because of the disability, Charlotte is more than a pet - she has a therapeutic value as a companion animal," wrote the journalist. But our journalist didn't actually speak with the management. Gail Shimoda was yet to prove that Charlotte actually served this therapeutic function. So that wasn't quite the story the management sang. Even without the building's exact address, naming the pet's owner and the major intersection was enough. Some petty-jealous-types (who apparently read the Star's Condo Pets feature) complained to the management, demanding the banishment of Charlotte-The-Chinchilla.

Luckily, the pet's owner finally secured a doctor's note proving Charlotte's status as a companion. The chinchilla now officially holds this therapeutic value. But I still wonder, why would someone openly admit (in print) to having a pet in a pet-free building. After all, Charlotte could have been much less lucky. I know people who blame the journalist for the incident. But I don't think that the journalist is at fault. Shimoda chose to tell this story. Why shouldn't it get published then?

Posted by Alina Seagal at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

First, there was the initial shock. Then the resignation, closely followed by all the dirty little details. For the past two weeks, the downfall of former New York governor Eliot Spitzer has sparked plenty of discussion here at the Review, just as it likely has in newsrooms across Canada and the U.S.

In my opinion, the cover of New York magazine's March 24th edition tops the debacle off perfectly.



From nymag.com


Magazine covers rarely make such a clear and powerful statement. A single, quick glance provokes an immediate reaction. When I showed the cover to several colleagues, the reactions ranged from shocked silence to laughter. A few even asked "Who made that?"--assuming it was a mock-up--at which point I gleefully explained that it was the actual cover of the magazine.

Kudos to New York magazine and their art department for a job well done. Also, check out the equally fantastic cover story "The Governor and the Darkness" (which includes a fascinating reconstruction of the moments leading up to Spitzer's apology).

Posted by Erin Tandy at 09:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the last post, I promised a William Safire-esque mini column about the differences between AWOL and MIA. (And before the Canadian Press police get their knickers in a twist, I am aware that AWOL is an American usage. For those who care, the Canadian initialism is AWL.) The terms have become interchangeable among non-military folk and, well, it's annoying.

According to the Department of Defense (note the American spelling, thank you) online dictionary, AWOL means "absent without leave," with the implication that a soldier has taken it upon him- or herself to take off without authorization. With that in mind, it's perfectly appropriate to say "We had a meeting at 9:30, but Mary's gone AWOL."

What isn't appropriate is to substitute MIA for AWOL. The DOD dictionary defines MIA as "missing in action," the implication being that a soldier has gone missing while on duty and is presumed either imprisoned or killed. There is no choice when someone is MIA. So not only is it not accurate to say "We had a meeting at 9:30, but Mary's MIA," it's actually a little offensive.

Being precise solves problems like these. We wouldn't add 3 and 2, come up with 7 and say "close enough." Why would we do the same with language?

Posted by Sara Chappel at 09:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just to let our faithful readers know: both print issues of the RRJ have now been heaved into the great, chaotic morass known as "production." So if we're AWOL for a couple of days, please bear with us. We'll be back again soon. (And coming soon: a Safire-esque examination of why AWOL is more appropriate in this context than MIA!)

Posted by Sara Chappel at 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Every afternoon I get the New York Times headline updates. Recently, one name has been appearing over and over again and that name is none other than Eliot Spitzer. We've seen our share of political sex scandals in the past. But the New York governor (correction, the former New York governor) should have known his secret romps with the high-priced call girl would be revealed and the media would eat it up.

But Spitzer isn't the only one under the microscope. What about the wives of these wandering politicians? Christie Blatchford's put in her two cents in Wednesday's Globe and Mail column pointing out that his wife Silda, left her career as a corporate lawyer behind to support her husband and raise their three children, was by her husband's side while he stood before the press to make an apology after being accused of allegedly being a regular customer at the Emperor's Club. An annoyed Blatchford also mentions that men, regardless of their appearance and their lack of class still remain on top. In her article Blatchford points out that for women, power is sexual and deteriorates with every tick of the clock.

Although it might be politically correct to stand by your spouse, the constant media attention can't be pleasant, as if things weren't hard enough. Maybe we'll be fortunate enough to see more Hillary Clintons in the future. Silda, go get your job back.

Posted by Jennifer Webb at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I can't wait to retire. Because when I do, Forever Young, Canada's 50-plus magazine, will be my guide to staying fresh. I haven't picked up a magazine outside my age range since leafing through old copies of Owland Chickadee, but FY reads more like a combination of Canadian Living and Marie Claire.

It's Chatelaine-esque service pieces and news clips make even me blush: the February issue featured a blurb on how baby boomers are more likely to get busy on the first date than Gen Xers and a story on staying fit by pole dancing, complete with photos of a mother and her pole. But it's not all fun: one memorable article lists tell-tale signs the doctor at your door is a fraud. Warning: he may not be a genuine MD if "when you turn down his offer for a free breast examination, he tries to sell you an Amway oven cleaner." Plus, you can't say no to a cover story on David Suzuki, with the headline "Luscious Lashes" beside his face.
Time to beef up my RRSP.

Man, life will be sweet.

Posted by Nathan Crocker at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Recently, I received an email from my dad, who lives in Dubai, warning me not to venture out in snowstorms and to stay indoors as much as I could. He had read a Toronto Star article, "Biting Snow, Wind and Bragging Rights," and was worried. I avoided telling him I had been out getting coffee with a friend in the midst of Saturday's storm.

It's funny how the media can create such scary perceptions about the weather, especially for those who don't live here. Having lived in the Middle East most of my life, I'm seen as a brave soul by friends back home for enduring Canadian winters. It's really not that bad.

I am still surprised by how much media coverage is devoted to the weather here, and how networks like CityTV have people calling in to give their opinion about the weather (yes, the snow's annoying, we know). I always think: aren't Canadians used to it by now? Does the media really need to keep telling people to wear warm clothes, shovel their driveways and drive slowly? In Dubai, the summers are always extremely hot, but the news rarely focuses on it since it's become a part of everyday life.

Fine, this winter has been more snowy than usual. But compared to Ottawa, Montreal and other parts of Canada, Toronto doesn't even have it that bad (Ottawa: 410 centimetres; Montreal: 347 centimetres; Toronto: 189 centimetres). And luckily for Canada, life continues after a snowstorm because it has the resources to deal with it. In certain parts of Pakistan, where it snows regularly, roads are blocked, and schools and workplaces are closed for days - if not weeks - after a major snowfall. I've personally experienced being caught in Pakistan's monsoon rains with water levels rising above my knees and seeping into the car while driving. So my message to the Canadian media: stop whining about the weather and focus on more important news.

Posted by Sanam Islam at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Despite local radio stations reminding their listeners every few songs, and despite everyone and their aunt mentioning the clock change, people still take daylight savings time as an invitation to be an hour late on Sundays. "Sorry, forgot about daylight savings time," is a common excuse and a source of blame for everything that goes wrong the following week (as if it hasn't been happening your entire life).

Having started in 1907, the idea proposed by William Willett, daylight savings time was integrated into our lives for the purpose of benefiting our lives in the day. Although this activity has been controversial, it continues to be practiced. This year, it seems to be covered a lot in the media.

The Toronto Star wrote about how it could be bad for the environment today. This story talks about the environmental theories against daylight savings. Various radio stations report on an increase of car accidents because people lose that extra hour of sleep.

But this coverage and controversy isn't new. Even three years ago, CBC online reported on the controversy.

For something that happens every year - it sure gets a lot of coverage. Or maybe we just have slow news days around the second weekend of March. I'm down with the extra light though. Sun = happy.

Posted by Chloe Tse at 01:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I understand the purpose of publicists. They promote the clients they represent. For them, quantity rules over quality. Ten 100-word articles are better than one in-depth story with a premise.

That in-depth story would be too complicated, too hard to organize. A 10-minutes interview is all you're going to get and yes, just one.

Sigh.

It's easy to succumb to a publicist. They put up so many roadblocks that your brain feels like it is being scrubbed vigorously with a wire brush. Not only that, but you have to be nice to them. One nasty remark and you could land an even shorter interview. How does a five-minutes-long interview sound?

It seems counterintuitive for publicists to want to expose their clients through the press, but they make it so difficult for journalists to spend any real time speaking with their subjects.

This has to change or arts journalism will continue to suffer. Perhaps someone, if this someone hasn't done so already, should write a book on how to deal with these paradoxical creatures because I could use some suggestions.

Posted by Ana Maria De La Fuente at 04:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'll tell you a story about a smallish-scale media scandal unfolding in my community. A reporter from a small Russian-language newspaper dined with friends at a Russian restaurant the other night. The next day her friends had food poisoning, she said. Naturally, the development upset her quite a bit. She ranted about the incident in her paper and someone told Toronto Public Health.

As a potential victim of food poisoning, I am glad she complained. If her claims are false, libel laws should protect the restaurant, right? Russians aren't big on lawsuits, but that's a whole different question. I am wondering about the power one journalist can hold. For others who dine and get sick, calling the board of health is the only solution. I am guessing that a story about one poisoning would not get published unless someone (a really angry someone) inside the newspaper is pushing for it to appear in the press. Facing an angry reporter must be scary...

But, I can also come up with idealistic arguments of how media power can write for the good of society. Just this morning, the Toronto Star put up a story about an abandoned baby girl, who received enough publicity to boost adoption requests in Toronto.

Good, bad, neutral or even ugly media power exists. I'll remember it the next time I think about writing a piece on something, anything, that annoys me.

Posted by Alina Seagal at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It appears that print publications are in the midst of a revolution. New media is forever changing how we think about the audience's response to content. Newspapers' web pages are adopting the many traits that new media has to offer so much that websites are becoming completely separate entities from their parent publications. The Globe and Mail website features a multimedia centre. The National Post has a link to network blogs and is utilizing the tools that internet broadcasting has to offer by introducing video blogging on their site. The Toronto Star tabs include video, blogs and podcasts. Is this the future of news print publications? A lot of people believe that print will become obsolete, however, there are others who see print and new media evolving together. Websites for newspapers and other print publications are completely different from their tangible print counterparts and new media is ensuring this distinction. But the question that many people are asking is whether or not one form will outshine the other -- any guesses as to which is taking the spotlight?

Posted by Ashley L. Pergolas at 12:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is said you can tell when someone is lying if they look up to the left when talking. But how does a journalist know if the information received in a manila envelope is true? In the case of publishing John Worthington's story, on being self-proclaimed illegitimate son of the late John F. Kennedy, it was the wrong choice. But apparently it was believable enough to make front-page news at The Globe and Mail. Worthington wanted The Globe to keep his identity anonymous while they pursued a DNA test. But he still wanted the stories written about him. There were no other sources except for Worthington and his lawyer (some guy named Douglas Caddy).

All these sketchy details didn't seem to turn The Globe off from writing this story. And once a Vancouver publication leaked Worthington's information, The Globe must have thought it was okay for them to print it too. Worthington's family released a statement calling the tale "unequivocally false." Oops.

I wonder what made The Globe decide he wasn't insane? Was it his physical resemblance to JFK? Or his date of birth? Whatever it was, it was enough for them to watermark the cover photo.

Vanity Fair on the other hand, knew all about the story and took almost a year investigating it. They then decided it was not to be published. (Mostly because no one else, not even his family, would confirm anything). This is embarrassing for Canadian media. Oops! We published a crazy man's claim to be JFK's son, and Vanity Fair got a seven-page article about how they actually did their research.

Posted by Miranda Voth at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Okay, so since I assume you're interested in Canadian media because you're reading this blog, this might be a good blog to check out. Written by Douglas Bell, it's about money, ego, and media, although a large part of it so far is about the media coverage of Conrad Black and all its lurid details. Don't drop the soap, Lord Black.

Hat tip: DB Scott, another good journalism blog.

In other parts of the weboblogosphere, Wikileaks is back online. Wikileaks is a website that allows anybody to post up whistle-blowing documents. A judge said they were protected under free speech. They were shut down when a Swiss bank, Julius Baer, complained about a document claiming they were helping their clients launder money. Here's a nice bit from AFP about it: "In a seeming contradiction, Julius Baer says that the documents posted at Wikileaks violate privacy laws because they are confidential bank records but at the same time says the paperwork is forged."

In Canada, they've got leaks on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Trent university land privitization. . So hurray for people on the Internet saying bad things about other people and organizations anonymously.

Posted by William Stodalka at 07:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Long story short: my boyfriend's apartment above Suspect Video burnt down in the Queen Street West fire. Here are some things I've learned about how the media covers tragedies:

-The morning of the fire, we were snug in bed, thinking the fire had been contained to the National Sound building. With no television and a flawed Internet connection, getting correct information took at least three phone calls. When you need news quick, cable television is useful, after all.

-CityTV was everywhere. They were the first on the scene. When a police officer asked Alex about suspicious activity, he said he had seen Kevin Frankish of Breakfast Television staring at the flames. They quickly ruled him out as an arson suspect.

-Facts change fast. In a news clip a woman mourns for her neighbours' collective loss. However, two hours later, that woman's apartment also burnt down. With every station broadcasting this video, the woman's sure to think back to that window of time when she thought that she still had a home, every time she sees the clip. It's too bad broadcast doesn't allow for fact-checking.

-Finally, today we went to take pictures for the Eyeopener at the scene of the fire. We waltzed past the barriers, only to be turned away by the police. (It turns out that Ryerson Press Passes are useless. Who knew?) We walked away frustrated, but then the police officer chased after us. "Why don't you try one of the roofs?" he suggested. There are people looking out for the little guys.

Posted by Jessica Lockhart at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Conrad Black (inmate #18330-42) is hitting a Florida slammer tomorrow to serve a six-and-a-half year sentence after being convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice last year. It's quite the sensational series finale to his "temporary involuntary career change," as Black had once called it. It also brings to an end the excessive media coverage of the ordeal surrounding the newspaper baron. I could only imagine that this would leave some journos scratching their heads thinking, "So, what do we write about now?"

Douglas Bell of Toronto Life transformed The Trial of Conrad Black, the blog he'd been working on, to Spectator, a site aimed to critically analyze the media and the media business. Since the RRJ covers the same beat, here's hoping we won't be stepping on each other's toes.

Anyway, in light of the Conrad Black case, let us remember the fine work he did before prison ... like when he waxed a maple leaf for the Rick Mercer Report. He and Martha Stewart should be best friends.

Posted by Mimi Szeto at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to the Washington Post, he earns $5 million a year interrupting and often disagreeing with his guests, usually pundits and elected officials, on his MSNBC talk show Hardball with Chris Matthews. He recently humiliated Senator Kirk Watson of Texas and, many thought, Barack Obama's bid for presidency.

But there's no way Matthews, who cried after an Obama speech and compared the candidate to Jesus, is using him as target practice. His real enemy is the "uppity woman." Hillary Rodham Clinton, who he's likened to "Nurse Ratched." Since November 2007 Matthews has pointed and aimed at Clinton numerous times. On Joe Scarborough's MSNBC morning show Matthews gave his explanation for her presidential bid: "Let's not forget...the reason she's a U.S. Senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a frontrunner, is that her husband messed around."

His HRC-hating prompted Media Matters for America to create The Matthews Monitor, where you can even sign up for the "latest breaking Matthews news."

It's foolish to think that journalists, especially those old pros who are constantly in the public eye, don't have any influence over the viewers. It's a citizen's responsibility to stay informed. And naturally, we look to the news for this information. With "coverage" like Matthews' how are Americans supposed to form an educated opinion about who the candidates are?

Posted by Nina Boccia at 01:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)