By John McGrath

This isn't exactly journalism, but (to Colbert-ize the word) journalism-esque. Matthew Yglesias (formerly of the Atlantic and American Prospect magazines) wrote a blog post at his new digs taking a shot at the centrist group Third Way, for what Matt called their "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit." This prompted Jennifer Palmieri to basically dump a retraction on Yglesias' blog to, I suppose, preserve inter-Democratic-interest-group comity.

Two thoughts on this: First of all, Yglesias' opinion is just that, an opinion, and he shouldn't get dumped on by the boss because some friends of hers work for Third Way (or whatever the reason was.) More than that, Yglesias' opinion is about as solidly grounded in fact as you could ask for from a blogger. Third Way is, to use Yglesias' words, hyper-timid and incrementalist. Certainly when you compare them to the sweeping reforms proposed by a group like the New America Foundation.

Secondly: Matthew Yglesias' blog just became a lot less interesting to me, and it won't take you long to guess why. From here on out, he and the other bloggers at Thinkprogress are going to be read as if they're always holding something back. The suspicion that they've refrained from criticizing some group or person because the boss leaned on them may have always been a possibility, but because of Palmieri's "goof" it's now made manifest.

What's silliest about all of this is that the post that prompted it is so basically inoffensive unless you work for Third Way itself. Thinkprogress has waded in to far more controversial subjects far more forcefully without ever dumping on its writers. To do so now is just amateurish.

The old media, it seems, still has some things to teach the new media.

Posted by RRJ at 02:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

By John McGrath

Is it a new and radical idea that a newspaper company should stick to owning newspapers? I mean, Tribune Co. owns (for now) the Chicago Cubs, the New York Times owns (again, for now) a stake in the Red Sox. Is it absolute madness to suggest that before newspapers can save themselves they might want to start by sticking to their knitting?

Posted by RRJ at 02:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Daniel Kaszor

As many of you know, the New York Times is in a smidge of trouble. It has a $400-million debt payment due in four months and have a "negative current net worth." Yikes.

Last week Gawker proposed a solution to this problem: sell off everything.

You have this to sell: The Boston Globe; 16 regional papers; About.com; a stake in the Boston Red Sox; and various other small investments. Sure, now is a terrible time to sell any of those things. It's also a terrible time to be a newspaper in general. Forget about how much money you'll lose by selling now; concentrate on doing what it takes to scrape together enough cash to take the company private. Once the Times is private, turn it over to a foundation concerned only with perpetuating its tradition of good journalism.

I've said for years that a private (preferably not-for-profit) foundation is the best owner and stakeholder a newspaper can have. If the current financial crisis can lead to the NYT somehow being controlled by one I can't think of that as being totally terrible. Of course, as mentioned, this is a terrible time to be selling anything. And Gawker posted something just today essentially saying that the NYT shouldn't sell the BoSox and just generally says they're screwed.

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

By John McGrath

It's been a few days since the WSJ managed to publish a story that totally, completely misunderstood the nature of the conflict it purported to cover, while simultaneously ascribing to people opinions they don't hold. Nice work.

On top of that, the WSJ seems to have failed what Mathew Ingram calls "the web 2.0 test" -- an acknowledgment of the world outside their newsroom. Not so much as a link to Google or Lessig's response, just a snide remark in a later piece that their flawed report had "gotten a rise" out of the blogosphere, which is what tends to happen when you do bad work.

Posted by RRJ at 01:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McGrath

Andrew Coyne is upset about what he calls credulous reporting on the state of Canada's auto industry:

The report, with its shock-horror estimate of 582,000 jobs lost, is founded on two premises, both of them utterly absurd. One, that all three of the Detroit-based auto manufacturers shut down all of their operations, not just in Canada, but worldwide (the study models "the impact of the Detroit Three automakers ceasing operations globally.")

Two, that none of the other manufacturers increase production to take up the slack ("foreign vehicle manufacturers in Canada are assumed to maintain production.")

It's on the basis of these two extravagantly unrealistic assumptions that the minister is able to talk about "the demise of auto in Canada" or "the extinction of the auto industry" as "the economic equivalent of a nuclear freeze."

Posted by RRJ at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Chantal Braganza

So the folks at Pulitzer jumped on the bandwidth bandwagon last week. The world's most coveted journalism awards are now recognizing (some) online content: namely just what's American, what's newspaper-based, and what's at least a weekly. The Sturm und Drang of the RRJ blog as of late makes this somewhat optimistic news, but American journalist and citizen-journ advocate Dan Gillmor has some well-considered words:

" First, is the central issue: convergence. Media of all kinds are becoming digital. Moreover, media availability and distribution are moving onto networks where the data is broken up into little packets at the source and reassembled at the other end.

Second, the blurring of media forms is accelerating. It will be impossible in the relatively near future to distinguish among them.

Third, the business model for newspapers is failing. It's not just about the movement of advertising to better online ad operations. It's also the surging price of doing business as a manufacturing operation, including energy costs.

Under the current rules, these facts are a recipe for making the Pulitzers irrelevant, or at best quaint. I would hate to see that happen, because the Pulitzer Prizes matter. They are a touchstone of excellence. Like many others in the field, I believe they're flawed in their current incarnation, but I would hate to see them become an artifact."

Gillmor's argument that these changes to prize rule aren't up to speed with changes in the industry itself is one I totally agree with. Let's hope it doesn't take the Pulitzers another ten years to concede.

Posted by RRJ at 04:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McGrath

James Surowiecki has a short piece for the New Yorker describing -- what else? -- the future of newspapers. The spoiler is that we all killed newspapers:

Usually, when an industry runs into the kind of trouble that Levitt was talking about, it's because people are abandoning its products. But people don't use the Times less than they did a decade ago. They use it more. The difference is that today they don't have to pay for it. The real problem for newspapers, in other words, isn't the Internet; it's us. We want access to everything, we want it now, and we want it for free. That's a consumer's dream, but eventually it's going to collide with reality: if newspapers' profits vanish, so will their product.

Does that mean newspapers are doomed? Not necessarily. There are many possible futures one can imagine for them, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to that old standby the deep-pocketed patron. It's even possible that a few papers will be able to earn enough money online to make the traditional ad-supported strategy work. But it would not be shocking if, sometime soon, there were big American cities that had no local newspaper; more important, we're almost sure to see a sharp decline in the volume and variety of content that newspapers collectively produce. For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime -- intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on -- and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.

Colour me skeptical. Internet advertising hasn't replaced the revenues of print advertising yet, but the print outlets that survive online are going to have audiences that are more valuable, not less.

Here's an open question for people to ponder: it's easy to see that GM is in trouble because there are too few customers and too many carmakers out there at the moment. Journalists should be asking what the supply-demand balance for our industry is -- how many news customers are there, and how many outlets are necessary to serve that demand? We might proclaim that a more abundant press is always and everywhere a good thing, but we've also built an industry -- consciously or not -- that overwhelmingly relies on private money. And if people won't pay for it...

Posted by RRJ at 03:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Molly Doyle

Craig Silverman, editor of RegretTheError.com, freelance journalist and author in Montreal and columnist for the Globe and Mail, has just released his 2008 round up of media errors and corrections.

David Gest Does Not Have Herpes

Four different newspapers published apologies this year because they had reported -- inaccurately! -- that David Gest has herpes. Specifically, they reported that Gest alleged that he had contracted herpes from Liza Minnelli on their wedding night. The offenders were The Independent (UK), Daily Mail (UK), Times (UK) and the Baltimore Sun. (Perhaps I missed a few others.) Read all four apologies here, and here's one from the Daily Mail:

In articles published on 23 and 26 May 2008, we gave the impression that Mr Gest had contracted a sexually transmitted infection and alleged that he had Liza Minnelli's dog killed without her knowledge. This was wrong. David Gest has never had a sexually transmitted infection and did not have Ms Minnelli's dog killed. We apologise to Mr Gest for any embarrassment caused.

Correction of the Year

One of the year's most coveted awards goes to none other than Dave Barry. Here's how the famous humor writer chose to correct a misspelling he made in a column published by the Miami Herald:

"In yesterday's column about badminton, I misspelled the name of Guatemalan player Kevin Cordon. I apologize. In my defense, I want to note that in the same column I correctly spelled Prapawadee Jaroenrattanatarak, Poompat Sapkulchananart and Porntip Buranapraseatsuk. So by the time I got to Kevin Cordon, my fingers were exhausted."

Posted by RRJ at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McGrath

The Wall Street Journal today ran a piece claiming that two of the biggest proponents of what's called "net neutrality" have shifted their positions, claiming that academic Lawrence Lessig and Internet goliath Google have backed away from their previous pro-net-neutrality stances.

Just a few problems here: First, the WSJ seems to have gotten the story badly wrong. Secondly, they got the story wrong because they don't understand the basic dispute around net neutrality. Third, certainly in Lessig's case the misunderstanding could have been cleared up by calling him -- Lessig isn't notoriously shy or anything -- and it's pretty clear that wasn't done. (Lessig responds on his blog here, Google responds here, and for a bit more read Tim B. Lee here.)

So just for beginners we have a newspaper publishing a flawed-at-best piece of work. My question is, why is the WSJ still confused about this? The debate over net neutrality has been going on since 2006 in it's current incarnation, and long before that in different forms. Anyone with a passing interest in telecom policy can figure out the basics in a few hours of, yes, Googling.

The debate around net neutrality is fundamentally simple, though certain parties insist it isn't: should a large ISP like Bell or Rogers get to choose what I see on the Internet, or how quickly it gets to me? I think the obvious answer is no: user choices should be as free as possible, and if Google wants to stream me videos of cats with hats, they shouldn't have to -- or be able to -- bribe a telecom company for privileged access.

If you want to understand the difference between that and what Google is actually proposing, you should really read that Tim Lee link.

Posted by RRJ at 01:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Heather Li

Please tell me you saw this yesterday -- an Iraqi journalist threw shoes at President Bush during a press conference. My question is: Did he pull his own shoes off in the heat of the moment or were they an extra pair he was carrying around for that sole purpose? (No pun intended.)

I hope as a journalist, he followed the rule to do his research well, and carried the shoes with him.

One note to reporters: I think it's unnecessary to tell the audience that throwing shoes at a guy's head is "a grave insult in the Arab world." It may be, but it's not exactly a French kiss in this part of the world, either.

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

By Daniel Kaszor

This seems seriously close to hitting some sort of very scary tipping point ...

It seems that the Detroit Free Press is about to halt home delivery on all days but Thursday, Friday and Saturday and only sell abbreviated copies on news stands on other days.

I don't know about you, but with all the talks of newspapers shutting down over the past few days, I've become increasing worried that some sort of tipping point or cascade effect is about to begin. Over the summer I said newspapers had five years left. Now this looks overly optimistic.

New media people would be well-advised not to gloat, as the recession is gobbling up marginal players on the web, too: Torontoist will be shuttered in the new year. Gonna be a lean year.

Posted by RRJ at 08:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McGrath

Frank Harris III writes, in the Hartford Courant, that the press could use a bailout but probably won't get one, and certainly wouldn't ask for one because of free speech concerns. I, on the other hand, think a bailout is a great idea. So far the US government, and governments across the world, have laid out billions for banks that can't save and car companies that can't make good cars, so trying to prop up newspapers that people don't read is really just the next step.

I'm being kind of cranky, but when you read about the state Tribune Co. is in, it's really not a stretch to compare ridiculous mis-management across the auto, finance, and media sectors.

Posted by RRJ at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have to say, I don't understand the impulse. But if you thought the GTA needed a fifth 24-hour news channel, Rogers Media has something special for you!

Posted by RRJ at 02:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McGrath

Posted by RRJ at 02:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So yesterday Stéphane Dion was replaced officially by Michael Ignatieff as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Now we have the kind of odd sight of watching the press decide that a new era has dawned in Ottawa. To pick only one example of many, many candidates, I give you Lawrence Martin in the Globe and Mail.

From the bumbling and disorder under Stéphane Dion came a sense, at least on this day, of competence, authority and direction.

Michael Ignatieff, who entered politics at age 58 and has been in the game just three years, served notice to Stephen Harper that the pushover period of Liberal history is over.

A telling moment came when someone asked him at his first press conference how he would cope with attack ads from the Conservatives. With a look of defiance and a rising voice, Mr. Ignatieff warned Mr. Harper that in the middle of a parliamentary crisis, "it would be a very serious mistake" to do so.

I'm skeptical because I remember the same defiance and bold words coming from Dion himself two years ago, and his career unfolded quite differently than expected in the days after his win.

Like all journalists -- especially those watching Ottawa like I have been -- I'm interested by what's going on in Ottawa. But maybe the press should wait until Michael Ignatieff, I don't know, actually does something before anointing him the next philosopher-king? Just sayin'.

Posted by RRJ at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McGrath

Foreign Policy puts out the list of 10 worst predictions of 2008. Bill Kristol, take a bow.

Posted by RRJ at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McGrath

Some columns don't get a lot of time before their best-before date. Jim Travers of the Toronto Star, from this morning's paper:

Anointing another new leader, the third in five years, will immediately strengthen the official opposition for the political showdown that resumes with Parliament next month. It won't end the increasingly nasty power struggle between Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae or restore a badly diminished brand.

Rae's refusal to bow to pressure to step aside for Ignatieff guarantees tomorrow's caucus meeting will be contentious. More significantly, the decision to have a new leader in place in time for January's confidence votes means Liberals are opting for a quick fix.

The Star's website, as of 2:30 PM:

OTTAWA -- Michael Ignatieff is poised to become the new leader of the Liberal party after rival Bob Rae bowed out of the leadership race this afternoon.... Rae gave a gracious exit from the race that he entered just three weeks ago, pledging his "full and unqualified" support to Ignatieff and urging his supporters to do the same.

This isn't to mock Travers, but it is a perfect example of how quickly events can overtake even seasoned observers. There's been a lot of that from Ottawa lately.

(The title quote is from British PM Harold MacMillan, who was asked what was most likely to blow a government off course. A good thing for journalists to remember.)

Posted by RRJ at 03:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Molly Doyle

Dorian, a gay men's magazine in Sweden, will to anything to help enlighten readers it seems. Some of the staff members have underwent plastic surgery so they will be able to better inform readers and recommend procedures to them, according to a report on The Local, an English-language daily in Sweden. Dorian's latest issue deals with superficiality, so they decided to have various surgeries, including a nose job, muscle enhancement, a facelift, lip augmentation and liposuction. "Dorian Magazine represents an artistic fantasy world with an idealized beauty. Having the editorial team undergo plastic surgery in order to get insight into the ideal we promote was almost a question of credibility," said the magazine's creative and fashion director, Jake Rydqvist, in a statement on The Local website.

Just because we live in a society that values the young, fresh, beautiful look of men and women, does that mean everyone should strive to look the same with surgery? Should editors and writers of magazines get procedures done to help readers decide they if want to look "better?" I know it's good to actually do things and write about your experiences so readers get a sense of what you've gone through, but is it really necessary to try to achieve perfection yourself and go to extremes to get your magazine to sell?

Posted by RRJ at 01:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tribune files for bankruptcy.

NYT puts its brand spanking new HQ up for grabs.

Posted by RRJ at 03:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Jacqueline Nelson

In the Globe and Mail's "This week in questions" I learned a couple of interesting things:

1) That existing home sales fell 50% in the Greater Toronto Area since this time last year. That's probably bad news for this little guy.

2) That Lil Wayne received the most Grammy nominations this year beating out Radiohead and Coldplay. Apparently, a decade later, his block is still hot.

And, most disconcertingly,

3) That Britney Spears was the most searched term on Yahoo this year. She beat out Barack Obama, Iraq and American Idol for the top spot.

I can only assume that Canadians were busy searching things like "foreign policy", "Prime Minister" and "renewable energy". That it was solely our neighbors to the south that pushed Brit to the Top. Imagining that the public find Ms. Spears (now arguably more famous for her antics than her music) more intriguing than prez-elect Obama is enough to cause the vein in my left temple to throb.

Fortunately, only 31% of the other Globe and Mail readers that took the quiz got this question right. Maybe there's still hope for the future.

Posted by RRJ at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Daniel Kaszor

As I was keeping myself abreast on world events today (read: procrastinating), I found an editorial on Gawker about the "new" two source rule:

But here's the key difference between now and the old days: if a rumor is reported online, people tend to treat it as a rumor until it's reported somewhere else. Then, two places have it up separately, and ta-da! It's the internet version of double-sourcing. It doesn't necessarily require any enterprise on the part of lazier blogs-just wait until two places report it, and it's gold! No actual sources necessary!

It's funny how you can find journalistic ethics in the strangest places, such as, for example, and online gossip rag.

Posted by RRJ at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McGrath

In trying times, America's Finest News Source can always be relied on to give us the truth.

Posted by RRJ at 03:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Daniel Kaszor

It took almost three months longer than statistics would have suggested it would, but today sadly marks the hundredth death of a Canadian solider fighting in Afghanistan. Three Canadian soldiers were killed when their vehicle struck an IED.

Earlier this year Morgan Passi wrote a piece for the RRJ about media preparation for the event, and she talked about the experience on our podcast.

It will be interesting to see if the plans laid out for the memorial in August and September still hold.

Posted by RRJ at 02:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McGrath

Rob Spence wants to implant a videocamera in his eye. The Canadian documentarian lost his eye in an accident with a firearm when he was younger, and thinks that technology has progressed far enough (or almost) that he could implant a digital camera in his eye socket. It's not just for kicks, though:

"People are more scared of a center-left documentary maker with an eye than the 400 ways they are filmed every day at the school, the subway, the mall," he says.

He hopes he will help get people thinking about privacy, how surveillance cameras and the footage they record are being used and accessed.

"Sometimes I run a little experiment," he says. "I tell people around me, 'Did you know there are 11,000 new video cameras being installed in our country every day?' Then I will exaggerate and say there are 50,000 new video cameras going in everyday," says Spence. "Most of the times I get the same answer: 'That's interesting. Now what's for lunch?' or 'The weather is nice today.'

It's bad enough that the media is competing with funny videos about cats on Youtube. How does a show like Big Brother compete with a guy who records every moment of his life? The rise of reality TV really has shown that the appetite for voyeurism in media is nearly insatiable, so I'm sure this will be a hit if it works.

On a similar note, British science-fiction writer Charlie Stross wrote of the potential for "life-logs" as the cost and capacity of digital storage improves. Basically, a person could record every waking moment and never have to delete a second of it. Stross wrote about the implications for law enforcement, but it's tantalizing to wonder whether reporters in dangerous situations might opt for something similar to do their jobs.

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

By John McGrath

CNN has announced that it will be closing its science, space, environment and technology unit, which means that Miles O'Brien will be leaving. O'Brien has issued the usual happy-talk statement, but I can't help but be saddened by the news for two reasons.

First of all, good science journalism is going to be even more critical in the near future then it already is. After the, shall we say, fraught relationship the Bush Administration has had with things like climate change, stem cells, and the engineering of flood-resistant levies, having a corps of journalists ready to competently explain scientific issues to the public was already a must. With the incoming Obama administration these issues will hopefully be less politically divisive, but will be no less important.

Secondly, there's the reason CNN gave to TVNewser.com for axing the broader science unit:

"Now that the bulk of our environmental coverage is offered through the Planet in Peril franchise, which is part of the AC360 program, there is no need for a separate unit,...

Banging. Head. On. Wall. I'm overjoyed that CNN is taking environmental coverage so seriously. But the environment is not the sum total of all science journalism, and climate change is not the sum total of all environmental coverage.

Personally, I'm particularly sad to see O'Brien go because of his expertise in space issues. During the tragedy of the space shuttle Columbia's destruction on re-entry, O'Brien provided excellent coverage which notably included him getting testy with offscreen staff who repeatedly gave him information he knew to be impossible. It was a brief moment, but for those of us watching that day it was good to know that the person on the other end our televisions actually had a grasp on the matters at hand.

Posted by RRJ at 01:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Christal Gardiola

Media mogul Ted Rogers died last Tuesday from a heart condition. He was 75. Rogers is the founder and CEO of Rogers Communications Inc., which owns a majority of wireless, cable, broadcast and publishing outlets in the country. The company also boasts as being Canada's largest magazine publisher. Among its titles are Maclean's, Flare and Chatelaine.

Upon his death, newspapers have paid their tributes. The National Post, the Star and the Globe and Mail have all published obituaries remembering Rogers' legacy-from his greatest achievements to his most quotable quotes. Political leaders have also expressed condolences.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper called him one of the greatest Canadians of all time, while Mayor David Miller released a statement on the same date as Rogers' passing.

"I was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Ted Rogers this morning. Ted Rogers was a great Torontonian through and through. He was born here, raised here, built an incredibly successful business here and passed away here. His legacy will forever be one of connecting people.connecting them to family, friends and information through his telecommunications and publishing empire and also to opportunity through his philanthropic work like his recent $15 million contribution to Ryerson University.

I had the pleasure of meeting and working with Mr. Rogers on a number of occasions and came to respect him as a true city builder and a true Torontonian. Ted Rogers' roots run deep in this city and his influence and will forever remain here and I thank him for all he gave to our city and all his legacy will bring in the future. On behalf of all Torontonians I extend deepest condolence to his family, friends and colleagues. He will be very much missed."

Funeral arrangements have also been finalized and condolences can be forwarded through the official tribute website.

Posted by RRJ at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Barbara Jobber

As we noted yesterday, MastheadOnline is in fact here to stay. Despite North Island Publishing Ltd's announcement last month that Masthead and its popular website would fold, they have revised the plan and found potential on the web. "As we budget for it we can see that it has potential to make money," says Masthead editor Marco Ursi, who will keep his full-time position. Annual features, which include Canada's top 50 magazines by revenue, will relocate to the website. While inadequate revenue fuelled the magazine's closure, Ursi said MastheadOnline was the only part of the magazine that wasn't draining money.

The magazine about magazines had been in print for 21 years and has been a key resource in the industry. Masthead staff learned the extent of their contribution when they were "inundated" with feedback from well-wishing readers following their announcement. Ursi said this also helped their decision to keep the website. The November/December issue of Masthead will be its last, with a Collector's Edition out in Janurary.

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

By Heather Li

MastheadOnline announced today that it is going to keep running with Marco Ursi remaining as full-time editor. At the end of October, North Island Publishing Ltd. said they were closing Masthead, the magazine about magazines, after 21 years in print and its website component. (I wrote a story for RRJ.ca investigating the reasons why it was ending that you can read here.) Many people in the industry were saddened to hear about its demise, and hoped that the online site would still be able to stay open. So it looks like the labour of love will continue, thanks to enough people's kind messages.

Posted by RRJ at 02:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Exciting times in Ottawa, of course. Nevertheless, it occurs to me that this is one of those times where being a journalist, or a consumer of news, is so frustrating. There's simply so much ambiguity in the moment, and as exciting as it can be it's also got to be maddening. Example: will Stephen Harper be able to prorogue the Parliament if he chooses? I've been watching Newsnet and Newsworld all morning, and I've seen both sides argued. The reality is that this decision is going to be made in the mind of one woman, the Governor-General. When that's the case, what's a journalist to do?

Shhh. Question period is about to begin...

Posted by RRJ at 01:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Daniel Kaszor

As I clicked through my news last week this little nugget popped up via Jsource: The Globe and Mail has entered a hiring freeze.

I'm not exactly sure what that means exactly (will there be summer interns next year? Does that only mean no new contracts? Are part-time hires safe?) What it does show is that even the media corporations that are doing well are tightening their belts right now.

What really scares me is the fact that I'm almost sure that when the economy eventually rights itself there won't be any newspapers left to right.

Posted by RRJ at 01:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Carolyn Morris

The Gazette published an editorial last Friday with the headline "'Maternity tourism' makes suckers of us all." It talked about about the case of a Mexican woman who is married to a Canadian and has applied to immigrate to Canada but doesn't have healthcare coverage. She had a baby the previous week and now the couple is facing a huge medical bill. The obstetrician withheld their baby's registration papers when the couple said they didn't have the money to pay.

The editorial talks about the problem of "maternity tourism":

"There is a phenomenon known as 'maternity tourism,' in which wealthy mothers from other countries come to a rich, stable country to give birth, bestowing upon the born a coveted citizenship. Sometimes, when this happens, medical bills are not paid."

This is followed by a discussion of the money owed to hospitals by people who refuse to (or can't) pay, until, in the last paragraph of the editorial it says:

"None of this applies to Marley's mother. She applied for landed immigrant status after marrying Samuels in June. But there is a systematic abuse of medicare here and the government, not MDs or hospitals, needs to find a solution, one that takes into account humanitarian needs but is also fair to doctors - and taxpayers."

In fact, according to another article published in the Gazette the day earlier, the couple had been with the obstetrician since early on in the pregnancy and had paid a $100 registration fee as well at $50 per visit. When they said they could not afford the obstetrician's $2,000 fee, they asked if they could negotiate a payment schedule. They are facing a bill of over $5,000 for the delivery including the hospital fees.

If, as the editorial admits, their case is not an example of "maternity tourism," then why is it framed as such? How can the Gazette justify writing an entire article about this case and about "maternity tourism" and then say oh.. but of course, none of this applies to them -- in the very last paragraph? If their case does not fit into the mold of "maternity tourism" than don't use their case to talk about it. If you can't find another case that fits, well, maybe you should throw out the mold.

Posted by RRJ at 03:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Heather Li

Libel is a sticky (and costly) issue for journalists. It seems like we're constantly explaining what our job is--basically, to inform the public--and fight for our rights to do it. The Toronto Star must have been thrilled when the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a jury's verdict that the paper pay $1.5 million in damages to businessman, Peter Grant. The jury found the Star guilty of libelling Grant in a story that suggested he was using the political influence of former Ontario premier Mike Harris to expand his private golf course. The appeal court saw it differently:

In a 3-0 decision [on Friday November 28], the court said the trial judge made numerous legal errors while instructing the jury and in applying a new "public interest-responsible journalism" defence.

...

"In fairness to the trial judge and to counsel, both very experienced and knowledgeable libel lawyers, they were all proceeding in new legal territory, as the courts still are with this defence," said appeal court Justice Kathryn Feldman.

The case won't end there though. A new trial has been ordered but it will likely make it's way up to the Supreme Court before that happens.

It's hard for me to believe that responsible journalism for the public's interest is a new defence in the legal world. Call me a wide-eyed, idealistic kid, but I thought that was implied when it came to journalism.

Posted by RRJ at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)