Esquire's Chris Jones—and homegrown Canadian writer—is under fire for a 370-word post about how some women aren't as good in bed as they may think they are.

“I’ve slept with you: unenthusiastic, uncomfortable, and uncommunicative, the human equivalent of the space between the couch cushions, only without the bonus possibility of my finding loose change in there,” wrote Jones below an admittedly creepy illustration of a naked woman smoking and a man’s shadow looming in front of her. (Bonus points for making a spare change joke the same day we rid ourselves of the lowly penny.)

“The trouble is, most women act as though they’re sexual Olympians, as though they’re doing the men in their lives the greatest of favors merely by presenting themselves like a downed deer strapped to the hood of a car.” Oooh, stop, you’re getting me all hot and bothered.

 

The Twitter reaction has been mixed, but much of it has been shocked indignation.Gawker took it one step further, saying that the post boiled down to a question of "Why don't women fuck me better?" 

The writer, John Cook, suggested the piece had something to do with Jones's wife, Lee, whom he married in 2003. Cook advised Lee to "Lose the 'terror clamp' every time two-time National Magazine Award-winning magazine writer Chris Jones attempts to perform cunnilingus on you." Hey, who wouldn’t mind being referred to as a two-time National Magazine Award-winning magazine writer in bed? We all have our kinks.

Jones's reaction? "Do you really think I'm going to write that my wife does the terror clamp when I go down on her?" Christ, for her sake, I hope not.

“I’m guessing John Cook’s a single dude without kids,” Jones told us over the phone. “Once he started packing on my wife, that starts crossing a line. I thought that was pretty dirty pool.”

Certainly, the post looks bad out of context, painting women as starfishes in bed, served to men on platters who are then expected to be overjoyed at the mere sight of a couple of perky tits. Jones, however, clarifies his statements by the final graph. “The bottom line is that if your sex life is bad, you bear at least some of the blame—maybe even an entire half of it. Do you want better, more satisfying sex?” (Yes, please.) “Tell your eager man what you’d like him to do to you….You’re not a slut if you like sex.”

Call it slut shaming—even though Jones explicitly states that women are treated unfairly in the realm of sex politics—but no woman would get the same backlash for criticizing her own gender that Jones has gotten in a few short hours. “Constantly, guys are told when people aren’t good in bed, he’s got a small dick, he comes too quickly. This goes both ways,” says Jones. “There’s a double standard that exists because women have been treated incorrectly for so long. Sex should be a fun and awesome thing people do to pass the time together.”

The post isn’t about telling all women they’re bad in bed. It’s not about criticizing women for their bodies. It’s about explaining to some women that to have good sex, you need to be comfortable with your own equipment. But that’s the nice thing about writing. It gives context, even up until the 370th word.

Besides, Jones gets the last word. “This is only good for me,” he told the Review. “Thanks for all the hits.”

Image via Flickr user FontShop.

As it's been a slow week for Canadian journalism (scandals), it looks like we'll be leaning on America again for a source of ethical debate. This time, we shift to Wisconsin, where 25 Gannett employees have been called out in print by their publisher for signing a petition seeking the recall of Governor Scott Walker.

Kevin Corrado, publisher of the Green Bay Press-Gazette, issued an apology to readers on Friday, writing that "those who signed the petition were in breach of Gannett's principles of ethical conduct…. [J]ournalists who work within a professional news organization must go to extra lengths to ensure against even the impression of favoring a candidate or a position." And Walker, not the British 1960s heartthrob pop singer but the guy who removed collective bargaining rights for union workers, has not been popular with the leftish media, so something like this was bound to happen. (Twenty-nine circuit court judges already signed the petition, which itself was a matter of controversy, a story broken by journalists from none other than—drum roll—Gannett.)

 

Corrado deserves kudos for coming clean to readers when he could have easily kept the incident on the down-low. And the fact that the signers will be receiving some sort of disciplinary action shouldn't come as a surprise: one of Gannett's ethical principles states that "We will avoid potential conflicts of interest and eliminate inappropriate influence on content." But this issue of journalists being discouraged from expressing a semi-public opinion on anything—signing a petition, having a sign on the lawn during an election season—is starting to seem like a sentiment from a bygone era.

Someone needs to explain—clearly, and preferably without yelling—how thinking and believing Walker should be recalled is so different from putting one's name on a sheet. True, it may mean that said journalist is more out front with his biases, and perhaps even to an audience-insulting degree—that's up to the discretion of the editors or publishers. But coming out against the principle of a "professional" journalist exhibiting a political opinion has always seemed a little patronizing to me; it's as though the publishers assume readers are too stupid to think beyond the text and consider what biases may lie in or behind the writing—and biases will always show, whether you want them to or not. Respectable in archaic intent as Corrado may be, positions like his give the appearance of impartiality—which is unachievable, thank God—instead of the actual thing. It's the idea that we should read with an elephant in the room. What if a journalist didn't sign the petition, but wrote a column expressing similar sentiments? Is his other reportage then tainted as well? (Makes you wonder what would happen if a politician decided to do away with the collective bargaining rights of journalists. Who'll write the news?)

The ironic thing is that Gannett is deciding not to release the names of the signatories, which seems to render the whole "transparency" idea rather moot. (Also, as pointed out on The Guardian's blog, Corrado's letter to readers was also published in other Gannett papers, with different bylines—though this seems to have been corrected now.)

In the upcoming issue of the Review, so lovingly put together by us all, there are a few feature stories that concern these types of dilemmas—specifically, when (and if) it's okay for a journalist to cross the line and become something more (or less). There's something to be said for the idea that journalists' opinions could carry some well-reasoned weight (talking to people and finding their little facts, as they tend to do). One shouldn't necessarily express one's biases frivolously if such weight is to be maintained, of course. But this petition wasn't (isn't—an election is anticipated) a frivolous request. If you've got something to say, say it—you're already thinking about it.

Lead image via Justin Sullivan/Getty Images 

The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism released its annual State of News Media report last Monday, focusing on social media's growing role as a tool for delivering news. Still, the report showed that respondents' use of social media as a means to access news is not as common as visits to a publication’s website, or even searches of the web—not yet, anyway.

While people are turning to their smartphones or tablets to consume the world's goings-on, there are still a large number of people who depend on their laptops or desktops to do this. These individuals may welcome the more novel ways to receive the news, but that doesn’t mean they'll forget about the old ways altogether. As the report said, “[T]heir news experience widens and deepens.” 

 

An article that appeared on Poynter earlier this week reported that according to the survey, 70 percent of Americans still turn to their laptops and desktops for news coverage, and 23 percent get news on at least two kinds of devices—with smartphones and tablets becoming a more popular way to read. It also noted that only nine percent of Americans get news from social media.

In regards to Facebook and Twitter, the former was shown to be a greater source for news than the latter, with seven percent of people getting news from Facebook “very often.” The study found that Facebook users follow links posted by family and friends, whereas Twitter users are getting these links from other sources like journalists and publications.

The bottom line is that the way people consume news do is constantly changing. For news publications, this means targeting all areas by producing more practical websites, constructing smartphone apps, and getting involved in social media. Stated more simply: get creative.

Any day is a good day when Geraldo Rivera opens his mouth on camera.

Rivera, perhaps best known for revealing how much Al Capone's vault sucked, gave his take on Fox & Friends last Friday about Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teen who was shot and killed by a self-appointed neighbourhood watchdog because he looked "suspicious."

"I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies," Rivera said. "I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as George Zimmerman was."

 

You hear that, parents of dark-skinned children? You cut that out, with your ethnic sweatshirts and attached head-coverings. If your kid gets shot, 50 percent of the blame will be on their clothes. Were they wearing dark colours? Gang colours? Baggy jeans? Fanny pack? Makeup? Hijab? Turban? Short skirt? No bra? Six bras? There are consequences, you know.

Natalie Matutschovsky, a former Ryerson image arts student and Time magazine's current senior photo editor, is flying in from New York to give a guest lecture for the IMA Student Lecture Series this Thursday, alongside Jason Logan, the creative director of all Rogers' publications. 

Before joining Time as the associate photo editor in 2010, Matutschovsky headed photography for The Walrus, of which Logan was the founding art director. She was also the photo editor of Modern Painters and Culture+Travel, as well as the senior photo researcher for The New Yorker. 

 

Freeloaders, it’s time to pay up. That’s the message being sent by The New York Times, anyhow, as the paper announced yesterday it was changing the number of free articles visitors to the website could access each month. 

 

When the paywall was first introduced in March of last year,the Times said that visitors to the paper’s website could access up to 20 articles per month free. This number has now been decreased to 10. When the limit has been reached, users can pay $15 per month for web and mobile access, $20 for web and tablet access, and $35 for access to all three.

Sometimes journalists get it wrong. In the case of National Public Radio's This American Life, it was the fact-checking process that caused the popular radio show to air a retraction for its most-downloaded episode, "Mike Daisey and the Apple Factory." The mistake was letting Daisey's story air, and the staff freely admit it. The show never should have made it past fact checking, especially when Daisey set up obstacles to the process, although Craig Silverman, author of Regret the Error, argues that This American Life didn't really fact check the piece at all.

Instead, Rob Schmitz, of American Public Media's Marketplace, figured out that Daisey's "reporting" was flawed after the episode aired. 

 

Mike Daisey isn't a journalist—he's an actor-writer, and one who had an agenda in getting his piece onto This American Life.

During his interview with Ira Glass for the retraction show, he said:

"I think I was terrified that if I untied these things—that the work that I know is really good and tells a story, that does these really great things for making people care—that it would come apart in a way where, where it would ruin everything." 

Silverman believes that "fooling the media is a justifiable means to an end for some people." Daisey wanted to bring attention to the factory conditions where Apple products were produced—and he did—but his story isn't a work of journalism. And he apologizes for this; though he believes in his work, he admitted it was wrong to have it aired. 

What the retraction episode shows is that the fact-checking process is still important. It's still necessary to get people on the phone, even when the story in front of you is supported by many other credible news sources. It's not always an easy process (as Rachel Giese mentions in her "These American Lies" on The Walrus's blog), but it ensures that published stories are accurate and truthful. It's more than having a defence in a libel lawsuit—it's about maintaining readers' trust.

The next time I start sorting through a checking package, I know I'll remember the uncomfortably long pauses between Glass and Daisey in that retraction show.

"That Was Then, This Is Now" explores the beginnings of some of Canada's favourite writers and journalists.

Jian Ghomeshi, host of CBC's arts and culture show Q, started as a music artist on the other side of the microphone, just like those he interviews daily.

Ghomeshi was raised in Thornhill, just north of Toronto. While his family is originally from Iran, he was born in England. When they first arrived in Canada, Ghomeshi and his family lived in an apartment on Don Mills Road.

 

Even as a young man, Ghomeshi had that musical itch. When they were in Grade 9, Ghomeshi and a few friends started a band called Urban Transit. Unfortunately, it didn't get far.

Lead image via the Toronto Star.

It's taken a few days, but Joseph Kony's now-infamous last name has finally disappeared from my list of trending Twitter topics. And considering how viral Invisible Children's Kony 2012 film and the ensuing controversy were, that's quite a feat.

Like many others, until only a few days ago, I was completely unaware of Kony, head of Ugandan guerrilla group the Lord's Resistance Army, and had no idea why I should want to "stop" him. Being late to the bus, I arrived just in time to see the plethora of shared links to the video—accompanied by disclaimers, warnings, and criticisms. And this is what I found most intriguing: the questions. How can we criticize something that questions our collective conscience? Of course I care if children are still being forced to fight wars that they should be far away from. What will not watching this video say? What does joining a campaign I knew so little about yesterday say about my ability to digest media hype?

 

• In Joseph Kony 2012: A Model of Modern Campaigning, Matt Warman of The Telegraph doesn't criticize the campaign itself, but addresses its success in gaining momentum and support as a film. He also sheds light on the ramifications of using a mainstream medium to breach bigger battles: "But the internet, for all that it contains all the world's information in one place, has turned complex African and global politics into a single issue. The world wants to #stopkony but the long list of complex issues that need solutions remain as long it ever was. More people may now know about Joseph Kony—but the web has not helped us to work out whether the campaign to capture him really is now more important than it was just a few days ago."
  
  
• The Los Angeles Times offered similar opinions in James Rainey's 'Kony 2012': Two Sides to Being a Digital Media Sensation roundup, faulting the video for "oversimplifying the challenges in Northern Uganda." However, a quote from Rebecca Rosen of The Atlantic online raises the issue of how the video's factual errors could potentially stain the credibility of the issue: "It would be a terrible outcome if those who initially pushed the video along were discouraged by this experience from further engagement, overlearning the lesson and believing there is no positive way for Americans to engage in the world abroad."
  
  
• NPR took a different approach. In Fact Checking the 'Kony 2012' Viral Video, freelance reporter Michael Wilkerson fact-checks the film and explains the controversy. In a radio broadcast and transcript available on the site, Wilkerson addresses the futility of "awareness" via social media: "[T]he goal is to raise awareness, and you define awareness as more than just 'I know Joseph Kony's name, and I've watched this video, and I shared it on Facebook.' Awareness means understanding some basic facts about where the [Lord's Resistance Army] is and where Kony is today. Because if you want to stop him, you have to understand that he has a tiny force scattered in a vast jungle area across three countries. And so it's not simply a matter of flicking a switch and saying, 'Yep, we voted—let's stop Kony now.'"
  
  
• On CBC.ca's site Strombo.com, in the updated version of George Stroumboulopoulos' Kony 2012 - The Filmmakers Respond to Their Critics, Stroumboulopoulos contextualizes the video, listing some of the major issues regarding its facts and publicity. The article also links to other news sites like The Independent and a blog called Justice in Conflict by a Canadian human rights scholar, offering some critique of these sources in relation to the issues at hand, and includes Raymond Provencher's 2010 National Film Board of Canada documentary Grace, Milly, Lucy... Child Soldiers.
  
  
• And The Guardian's Reality Check with Polly Curtis featured Kony 2012: What's the Real Story? by Polly Curtis and Tom McCarthy; it preceded a session of live blogging, gathering opinions from editors, writers, NPO directors, and readers, among others. The live blog included a clip of Ugandan journalist Rosebell Kagumire speaking about the Kony video, as well as one produced by The Guardian capturing the reactions of London children after watching the viral documentary. The session also featured user-submitted screen caps of Kony 2012 merchandise—available on eBay—and YouTube statistics of the Kony doc's success (including number of views and audience demographics).

When I decided I wanted to be a journalist, I was motivated by a desire to help people. I thought I could help more people by writing about major concerns than by actually working to stop the problem. In retrospect, I may have chosen the wrong profession, but I still believe that as journalists we have the ability to draw attention to events and issues that many people may not know about.

But it can be hard to get to the root of a matter, such as child soldiers, and figure out how to cover it fairly and accurately in a five-day trip to Africa. We can go to a village, ask some questions, observe that life is hard for people there, snap a few photos and get out. But it’s nothing more than an outsider’s perspective. Even a 30-minute viral web video doesn’t give the viewer an idea of what is really happening, in Africa or anywhere else.

 

So how do we cover the big problems of the world without alienating ourselves and other journalists from the people we are trying to cover? Try anthropographia, a term coined by anthropologist and photographer Matthieu Rytz.

Anthropographia combines both anthropology and photography in order to present the subject matter in a way that sheds a new light on and helps us to better understand societies and cultures that are different from ours.

Although this approach is interesting on its own, photojournalist Marc Ellison decided to take it one step further when he visited northern Uganda last summer. Instead of taking the photographs, he gave cameras to several women who were former child soldiers, asking them to document their daily lives and things that were important to them. Ellison was aware that these women and others before them had been questioned by journalists previously, and that many didn’t see any reason to speak with him.

But by being creative and taking a big risk, Ellison was able to tell the women's stories from a whole different perspective. At one point, he even had the women interview their friends, who had similar experiences as former child soldiers.

It’s easy to recognize that there is a problem that should be highlighted. Anthropographia may not always be the solution to superficial coverage, but it holds out the promise of getting to know the people experiencing problems and understanding their biggest struggles. 

Lead image via J-Source.

Sorry, Bono, but if Good magazine had to live "with or without you," it appears the publication would choose the latter.

In an editorial titled, “We Were Offered 10 Minutes with Bono—Why We Didn’t Care,” Good senior editor Cord Jefferson writes about the typical banality of celebrity interviews and why he won’t put up with it. Specifically, Irish rocker Bono’s publicist offered the magazine a 10-minute interview with the U2 lead singer and activist, but the magazine decided to decline. It isn’t so much that Jefferson has a problem with giving attention to famous people—in fact, he says he’d happily discuss some less flattering issues relating to Bono’s charity work—as it is that he has a problem with the walls these celebrities are forced to put up. It seems that most interviews with famous people become stale before even getting the chance to ripen.

 

In the last three or so weeks, NBA player Jeremy Lin has been the subject of much media fodder. The New York Knicks point guard's sudden rise to fame has been a hot topic in both sports and mainstream news alike. Unfortunately the frenzy surrounding the Asian-American player has resulted in less than stellar news coverage. Case in point: ESPN’s editor Anthony Federico. Federico filed an online story with the headline “Chink in the Armor: Jeremy Lin's 9 Turnovers Cost Knicks in Streak-stopping Loss to Hornets” on February 19th. He was fired the next day. 

 

On Tuesday, Jeff Sonderman posted an article to Poynter focusing on whether news outlets should publish information acquired through so-called "creeping" on Facebook and Twitter.

The latest case occurred when an Oshawa teen was struck and killed by a moving train on February 13. The next day, durhamregion.com, Durham’s community news site, published an article about the incident, which said in part, "Durham Regional Police are not releasing the boy’s name upon the parents’ request, but his friends and peers have turned to social media to share their condolences, identifying him in their messages as Jacob Hicks."  

 

William Robert "Bob" Davis, co-founder of This Magazine, passed away last week at the age of 77 while on vacation in Cuba. In addition to his time in the journalism industry, he was an educator, philanthropist, author, and activist.  

 

Davis published the first issue of This Magazine, then known asThis Magazine Is About Schools, in 1966 with a group of fellow school activists. Interested in developing a magazine that allowed for interaction between the readers and the magazine, Davis wrote in the first issue: "This Magazine will die and should die if it merely reflects the views of a small group in Toronto." Today, the alternative magazine is known for its focus on Canadian politics, culture, and the arts. It has featured a number of well-known Canadian contributors, including Margaret Atwood, Naomi Klein, and Michael Ondaatje.