Peter's Place Blog

A Dose Of Reality

2012-02-01T08:44:00.000-08:00

I interrupt my regular journalism blog with a dose of reality, my reality. Life has a habit of doing things like this as I'm sure you know. The reality is I've had a heart attack. The scary thing is I don't know when I had it.

Between 40 and 60 per cent of all heart attacks are silent, like mine. They're silent because the symptoms, such as shortness of breath and nausea, are either ignored or attributed to something else, like indigestion or stress. They're also twice as deadly as non-silent heart attacks and the risk factors are the same, such as lack of exercise, high blood pressure and smoking.

My heart attack was found while being checked out by a specialist for an irregular heartbeat, which, it turns out, I don't have. I was having an echocardiogram done when scar tissue was discovered. The good news is that my heart attack was small and the scar is at the back of the heart not the front where it would be cause for concern. The other good news is that my heart is otherwise in great shape, meaning no blocked arteries and no evidence of heart disease.

The doctor also told me that my heart attack wasn't recent, which I took to mean not within the past month or so. My best guess is that it may have occurred sometime in 2008 when I was under titanic stress from caring for my father, who was alive and still at home with probable Alzheimer's. (He has since died.) However, it might have come last fall when I bought a load of earth and moved it around, something which I do at least once a year. It may have come at some other time.

Receiving the news has come as a shock to me. Now every twinge I wonder if it's another heart attack. Hopefully this hyper-alterness will soon die down. I am trying to change my diet and to lose a little weight. There are many other things I'm doing right and don't have, such as exercising regularly and not smoking. I'm also not diabetic and don't have high blood pressure.

I write this as a warning to others to pay attention to your body. Journalists are often guiltier than others of poor habits. Whether it's poor earting, not exercising, smoking or some other bad habit, make time to change. Remember the life you save might be your own. And as I've learned, it can happen to you.

Crowded TV Screen

2011-09-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

I have a confession to make. I don't watch a lot of TV. In fact I don't have cable or satellite, getting my signal instead from rabbit ears. I also watch the odd show online. Frankly I'd rather curl up with a good book than watch tv or put on a movie.

One of the few programs I do regularly watch is Canada AM for the news, weather, sports and business news. If they're going to be talking about something that interests me I'd stick around longer, otherwise I only watch the first 20 minutes. I especially like seeing the weather across Canada and the business news with Michael Caine.

Another thing I like about Canada AM is the fairly clean screen. In the upper right corner is the time. At the bottom is the Toronto weather, followed by a moving line with more detailed Toronto weather, along with traffic conditions and, when appropriate, transit delays.

I used to get up half an hour earlier to watch CHCH Morning Live, but they cluttered up the screen too much. On the left side of they have show promos with photos, while on the right side they have two traffic cams, temperature and time. At the bottom they have show promos with words and underneath a moving line with sports scores and stock quotes. That leaves only a small box with the show itself for which you need a big screen tv just to see it.

Personally I'd like to see them replace the talking heads with headline news, local weather aroung the region and local events, with a spinning globe, a twirling line and an interactive ticktacktoe thrown in for good measure.

Seriously I've come to conclusion that the redesigned show was created by someone with too much time on their hands. I highly recommend the people at CHCH Morning Live watch Don McMillan's Life After Death By Powerpoint at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbSPPFYxx3o as the principles definitely apply here.

Mobile Devices A Right?

2011-09-02T17:40:00.000-07:00

Is communicating via mobile devices a right or a privilege? This issue came upm last month in the San Francisco area when BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) cut off power to four cellular towers for a three hour period. A protest against police brutality was planned on BART train platforms. (In July a BART police officer shot and killed a transient after he allegedly lunged at an officer with a knife. In 2009 a white BART police officer was found guilt of involuntary manslaughter after killing an unarmed black commuter.) BART cut off the cellular towers in an effort to block protestors from using mobile devices to coordinate the demonstration. The protest went ahead anyway.

Naturally there was an outcry about this from various people, including the American Civil Liberties Union, to the interruption of mobile communication. They called it the wrong response to political protests.

BART in response said they were trying to protect their customers from protestors intent on causing chaos. "It is illegal to be protesting on the platform," a BART spokesperson said.

BART's actions are part of a growing trend to block or interrupt mobile devices users to stop protests. Both Britain and Egypt have used it. All used this tactic in the name of protecting public safety.

One person, on a list I'm on, commented, "If BART had failed to spend the money to wire the tunnel, would they be infringing on free speech?" Another said that this is a "value-added" service so it's okay to block it. They also compared it with airlines blocking mobile device use once an airplane takes off.

Others counter by saying that if the towers were not owned by BART they were interfering with a common carrier. Even if the towers were owned by BART then it was blocking public access to a public resource paid for by taxpayers.

So who is right? At first glance the argument for public safety makes sense. However, in Egypt this argument was used as a tool of repression. Governments, their agencies and businesses have been known to hide behind public safety in the name of preventing protests. There's also the issue that BART by shutting down the towers not only blocked protestors from communicating, but also blocked the majority of users who use mobile devices for business and personal use.

How do you handle the two competing interests? When the police want to search a house, tap a phone or examine e-mail, they get a warrant. Perhaps the best way to handle restricting mobile device use for public safety is to get a court order permitting it.

To swtich gears, I want to publicly thank and praise CTV news anchor Lloyd Robertson for his many years of service. I've long been a viewer of CTV news because of Mr. Robertson. I will miss his delivery, which always seemd to strike a right balance. I'm glad he is sticking around in journalism with W5 and other projects and I hope, for his sake, that he dies doing what he so clearly loves to do, but, preferably, not for many years yet. Best wishes to Lisa LaFlamme as she takes over the anchor and becomes a new broadcasting legend.

Finally a tip of the hat to Ken Shaw, also of CTV, for sharing his story of being treated for prostate cancer. It may be just the spur some men need to get tested and thus spare their lives for a few more years. And yes I've had a regular PSA test.

When To Draw The Line

2011-07-03T05:34:00.000-07:00

In my early years I once queried an editor offering to be sort of a proof reader as I had noticed several errors in the magazine. The editor wrote me back pointing out several errors in my letter. Whoops! I can laugh at it now, but I sure felt bad and very embarrassed at the time.

Recently I put my foot in my mouth again with another editor when I threw in a comment that, only after rereading it a couple of weeks later, did I realize I came across as possibly questioning the editor's judgement on something in the publication, which is not what I had intended. I apologized, but the editor has ignored me. I had previously written four articles for the person and had had a good relationship.

On the flip side a new editor I queried was very encouraging until I called the person. Then the editor gave me all sorts of excuses for not using me. When I said you're a closed market then the editor denied it and encouraged me to query again even though it was VERY obviously I'd never be used. On top of this the editor talked down to me. I called the person on this in an email and challenged them to give me an assignment. The person sort of apologized and then underminded it by offering me the assignment on spec.

These examples bring up the tough question of where to draw the line on mistakes made by writers and editors with each other - when to forgive and forget and when to walk or run. I realized that for some things it depends on the personalities of the parties involved. It also depends, rightly or wrongly, on such things as the work load and stress levels of the offended party.

That aside the following are what I consider to be generally good guidelines for either forgive and forget or walk or run:

1. The nature of the offense. It's one thing for a person to put their foot in their mouth and quite another for a person to name call or make threats. For the former forgive and forget is probably in order and for the latter run like heck.

2. The previous history, if any, between the parties. With a generally good relationship I'd say forgive and forget, while with a rocky one I'd say walk or run.

3. Finally is their an underlying medical or psychological problem of some sort. For example did the person suffer a death in the family or did they have an accident? In a case such as this I'd tend to forgive and forget.

Food For Thought

2011-06-09T11:16:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago a St. Catharines radio station had an "Eff Cyclists Campaign" on the Biggs & Barr show with the predictable backlash. They claimed their issue is only "...with those hardcore cycling enthusiasts who seem to think that the road belongs only to them and that anyone who is not riding a bicycle is somehow a lesser human being." and not with those cyclists who obey the rules of the road. They also claim their message is share the road. They prefaced their remarks to a newspaper story, by saying, "Here's the summary of what we actually said without the fear mongering and inflammatory language."

This raises a number of freedom of speech issues. It is in the long standing tradition of journalism and commentators to voice controversial opinions and issues. This leads to change and helps keep society together by allowing people to vent their feelings.

For example in the 1960s and 1970s the non-smokers rights movement was very controversial. They were pushing for such things as no smoking in grocery stores and non-smoking sections in restaurants, which was radical at the time. Radio shows played an important role in allowing people to air their views both for and against.

There is also a very strong tradition of poking fun at groups, issues and society in general. One only has to think of the long tradition of political cartoons and satire. Comics have long poked fun at people, issues, groups and life in general. There is also an equally strong tradition of protecting the vulnerable. This is one of the reasons we don't poke fun at the abuse of people.

The radio station in question said that their "Eff Cyclists Campaign" was meant as tongue-in-cheek and didn't pose a threat to cyclists. Was it? Let's take a look.

In all fairness I didn't listen personally to the show and all I'm going on is the newspaper account and comments. However, one question that immediately comes to mind is how do these hardcore cycling enthusiasts act who seem to think that the road belongs only to them? Is it by riding several a breast on a busy road or is it by a single cyclists taking the lane on a road that is too narrow to safely share. The former is illegal, the latter, according to police, is legally permissible.

A couple of other questions need to be asked. If they did a similar program with any other identifiable group would it be appropriate? The other question is how did cyclists take it? Those quoted in the newspaper article and who responded after the fact feel threatened by it. They did not seem to think it was tongue-in-cheeck as the manager of the radio station said. To be funny something must be seen and heard as such by those on the receiving end as well as on the giving end.

Some food for thought, not only for Biggs & Barr, but for all who comment and/or enourage comments about identifiable groups to think carefully before they act.

See "Radio Hosts Give Cyclists The Gears"
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3143335

Election

2011-04-30T16:17:00.000-07:00

With Monday being the federal election I think it's only fitting that this month's blog be about it. We have three main parties to chose from: the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats. The Greens, for better or worse, are totally out of it.

The Foundation For Democratic Advancement did a non-partisan audit of all federal parties running in this election and rated them totally and by issue. In looking just at Arts & Culture the Foundation rated the Conservatives at 1 out of 10. They said the, "Conservative Party of Canada's policies are extremely vague and demonstrate a lack of interest and support for arts and culture. Moreover, the Conservatives fail to mention their interest in cutting funding to the CBC. The Conservatives mention support for the RC of Music national examination system and Canadian Periodical Fund, and for this reason, the Conservatives received a score of 1."

The Liberals scored the highest at 7. The Foundation said their, "policies are concrete and with no innovation. Moreover, the policies about how to identify Canadian culture and promote and protect it, except through digital, CBC, Radio-Canada, Promart and Trade Routes, Canada Council of Arts, and support for the official languages."

The New Democrats rated 5 as their policies were very general.

On this basis the Liberals seem like the party to vote for. However, last year the Liberals came out with a press release attacking VIA Rail Canada for using freelancers and refused to apologize for it. The Conservatives are well-known for cutting funding to arts and culture. Only the New Democrats seem to have a good track record.

I am a Conservative at heart, but I left the party when the party left the center and moved to the far right. Their track record on other issues, like the environment, the economy and health, also leaves a lot to be desired. Harper is well known for keeping a tight lid on journalists. The Liberals have a reasonably good track record, but their record on the environment and health also leaves a lot to be desired. Their leader, Michael Ignatieff, is about as appealing as soggy cereal. That leaves the New Democrats and Jack Layton. In my two dealings with him I've found him approachable and consistent. For this reason, his fluency in French and the party's support for arts and culture and the press I, as a writer, endorse the New Democrats.

The New Great Depression

2011-03-31T08:03:00.000-07:00

Last year I warned of a new Great Depression that is rapidly approaching. The naysayers probably laughed because, as we all "know", we're not in a depression - yet. However, 1929 and 1930 didn't seem like the beginners of a depression, but historians now consider 1929 to be the start of it. I think future historians will consider 2007 to be the start of the new Great Depression. We're actually in worse shape today than in 1929. Debt levels are higher and more governments, businesses and people are on the brink of defaulting than ever before. Even some American politicians are now warning of a financial Armaggedon. It's like a ship, that on the surface, seems okay, but deep in the hull water is slowly leaking in. Eventually it becomes obvious to all that the ship is in very serious trouble. So how does it affect us as writers? For starters anyone who writes for American markets can expect their incomes to drop drastically. There are plans to replace the American dollar as the reserve currency of the world. If that happens the American dollar sinks immediately. I think the Canadian dollar could go as high as at least $1.50 and quite possibly to $2.50 American. Companies will go bankrupt, which means the loss of markets. Financial insitutions will close, which means loss of money and credit. Governments will introduce drastic cuts in services and assistance, which may not be liked, but are necessary. Extremism is increasing. Some have noticed a rise in anti-unionism, which is a symptom of the coming depression. Any investments you hold could either become worthless or increase in value depending on what they are. For example the bonds of companies and governments that default would go to zero or, at best, be worth only pennies on the dollar. At the bottom of a depression, if you still have money, you can make money by buying stocks, bonds and realestate at bargin basement prices. That would be a good time to start a business as prices are low. In the meantime, if you haven't already done so, cut expenses and reduce debt. Don't get into any new debt. Look for companies that are likely to survive and thrive during bad times. Finally get out of risky investments and end your relationships with companies and governments that are likely to go under.

Objectivity

2011-03-03T08:53:00.000-08:00

A post on the Online Journalism Blog and interview with David Weinberger raised an interesting question - Objectivity Has Changed - Why Hasn't Journalism? http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2011/03/03/objectivity-has-changed-why-hasnt-journalism/#more-13244

I agree with the premise "that sustaining the appearance of objectivity is unfeasible and unstainable, and that transparency is a much more realistic aim." One can argue that there has never really been objective journalism.

As a Great Lakes marine historian I'm aware of the changes in journalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Traditionally in newspapers there has been a conservative paper, a liberal paper and sometimes even a socialist paper. When you read a particular paper you knew you were reading a particular bias.

Toronto, where the tradition lives on, has four major newspapers: the National Post is very conservative, the Globe & Mail is right of center, the Toronto Star is left of center and the Toronto Sun is very liberal. This has carried on into t. v.: think of Fox News for example, which is very conservative.

And it's not just in the particular culture of an organization, but also in how news is chosen and what views get aired. For example the local Toronto station of CTV recently aired a story about people complaining on the higher price of gas. The underlying bias was that higher prices are bad and lower prices are good. They didn`t explore the argument that higher gas prices might actually be good for people and the economy.

Objectivity was originally raised in a vain attempt to present both sides of the story, but sometimes there isn`t two or more sides. I have yet to hear anyone in the mainstream media argue, for example, that child abuse is really good for children. The assumption, and rightly so, is that it is bad.

This gets down to scrapping the farce that there is objectivity and instead focus on transparency so that your audience can make up their own mind about a particular story and why it was chosen over another one or over a different angle. It also offers your audience an opportunity to further explore a particular story even if they agree with it and your bias. This is what I was trying to get at in a previous post that compared Behind The Story with Washington Week.

I`ll return to this at a later time.

Innocence And The Media

2011-02-02T13:54:00.000-08:00

Imagine being accused of a crime you didn't commit. How would you feel? How would you react to the reaction of family, friends, colleagues and total strangers? This month's post is about the negative role of the media on those accused of a crime.

On December 9, Richard Dyde, 47, of 57 men charged with child pornography, jumped off a bridge and died. It was just one day after he had made bail on December 8. Dyde, a researcher at York University, had expressed to his lawyer a desire to fight the charges. According to Jim Rankin, writing in the Toronto Star, December 17, facing the media after his bail hearing seemed like the tipping and lead to his suicide.

Rankin reports that Arthur Lurigio, co-author of "New Defendants, New Responsibilities: Preventing Suicide Among Alleged Sex Offenders In The Federal Pretrial System", says that "...the public "outing" by police and the media of those accused of child pornography crimes increases the suicide risk...."

It raises the question of the responsibility of the media, as well as the police, in being very careful in what information is disclosed to the public about the accused and remembering that the person or persons are only accused, they HAVE NOT yet been found guilty.

I DO NOT condone the sexual exploitation of children or abuse of children. I'm positively disguested and greatly angered by this. And I strongly suspect that both Rankin and Lurigio feel the same. However the media, as well as everyone else, needs to remember that we, in Canada, have the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes it seems as if it's guilty until proven innocent.

Getting back to Richard Dyde, maybe he was innocent or maybe he was guilty. We'll probably never know. While it is the duty of the media to report on those accused of a crime, it is not the media's to pass judgement on them as so often seems the case. It is also the media's duty to be as respectful and as balanced as is reasonably possible, which may mean withholding some information from the public until the person has been convicted.

We need to remember that there have been some high profile cases of people convicted of crimes against children, of sexually assualting another adult and of murdering another adult, who have subsequently been found innocent through new evidence.

By the way, sorry for missing the December post. My girlfriend, who lives in another city, was visiting me and I forgot.

WikiLeaks & A Tale Of Two Editors

2010-12-01T09:55:00.000-08:00

Should classified American diplomatic cables have been published by WikiLeaks? The short answer is no. In my view their publication does far more harm than good. If the intent of WikiLeaks was to stir up trouble for the Americans and other countries then WikiLeaks has accomplished it.

That isn't to say that I always believe classified documents should not be release that have relevance for today. Governments and businesses are notorious for hiding behind the cloak of secrecy things that should be out in the open. Where to draw the line is very tricky, but I think you need to ask will the public benefit knowing about it and will releasing the material do more harm than good. I'll leave further comments on this issue for another time.

Now to tell a tale of two editors. During the past several years I took care of my father, who died in June, during his battle with Alzheimer's. As anyone who has ever had to deal with something like this knows, it is EXTREMELY stressful and affects every part of your life including, in my case, writing.

Among the many ways it impacted my writing was with two pieces I did for two different publications that I had written for previously, one was for a travel magazine and the other for The Costco Connection. The pieces I wrote for both publications were so lousy that each editor told me not to bother querying them again.

I waited until my father had been placed in a nursing home and I had a chance to recover before contacting them again. I explained the situation with my father and that was why I had written such a poor piece for them. I then asked for a second chance.

It took three emails, three phone calls and a registered letter before the travel publication editor bothered to respond. The person claimed to except my explaination, but was non-committal on another chance. With The Costco Connection it took two emails and a phone call before I got response. I had a lovely chat with the editor who accepted my explaination and offered me another chance to write. This showed real class.

So I queried The Costco Connection and ended up doing a short member profile, which will be appearing shortly. I also queried the editor of the travel magazine. I didn't hear anything and did a follow-up. I received a polite brush-off.

By the way may I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah.

The Future Of Magazines

2010-11-01T09:03:00.001-07:00

There has been a lot of talk about the future of the magazine, including whether or not it even has a future in the digital age.

With the launch of Apple's iPad, Popular Science launched an online version of itself specifically for it. In an article on Apple's web site http://www.apple.com/ipad/apps-for-ipad/popular-science/ Popular Science's Director Of Research & Development, Sara Ohrvall, said, "We figured that once there was device in the market that you'd want to curl up with on your couch, then digital magazines would become interesting again."

Pat Foran, on CTV's Consumer Alert, also talked about the future of magazines. He reported that they will have both an online presence and a printed presence and that racks of magazines for sale will continue. I agree with both comments.

However, one thing that Ohrvall and Foran failed to mention is that there cannot be a future for magazines if there is no future for writers. And right no there is no future for writers with magazines, which is why many good writers have left.

Writers must be paid a decent wage. Since the digital age began more and more magazines began demanding more and more rights, but not paying for them. Writers are currently paid anywhere from about 30 cents a word to a dollar word. The odd magazine pays more. These rates haven't changed in decades.

In the pre-digital age writers, in order to make ends meet, would sell an article to magazine A and then resell it to magazine B and possibly magazine C, all in different markets. In the digital age writers can't do this as magazine A takes all the rights.

Some magazines have said they don't want to pay more for taking additional rights as they don't make anything those additional rights. If that's the case why do they insist on taking the additional rights? They take them because they to have value and here's an example.

One American magazine that I've written for demands all rights because they weren't making anything from them. Today this same magazine is making money from these additional rights, but I'm not despite it being my writing.

Contracts are offered to writers on a take it or leave it basis. Sometimes they'll allow room for limited negotiation. Sometimes too they demand that the terms of the contract not be shared. I thought contracts were suipposed to be negotiated between the parites, not forced on one?

So if the magazine business really wants to have a future they've got to do as Harlan Ellison says http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE PAY THE WRITER!

I'll have more to say on this in future posts.

A Tale Of Two TV Shows

2010-09-28T13:46:00.000-07:00

To get a partial look at the future of tv journalism take a look at Washington Week http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/ on PBS. It looks at the major Washington news stories of the week. Within the framework there is a surprisingly wide variety of stories ranging from legislation to elections to scandals to the economy to foreign affairs. There is usually a panel of four journalists and a moderator. The journalists may be from a newspaper, a news magazine, an ezine, tv or radio.

The show lasts for 28 minutes and has a webcast extra lasting for 8 minutes. Viewers may email any questions they may have and at least some will get answered on the webcast extra. They also have a weekly blog written by the moderator, Gwen Ifill, and an online archive of previous shows. This allows people, like me, who prefer to watch the show online or can't watch it at the time it's on to do so. As if this isn't enough there are backgrounders on each of the panelists, plus Ifill and the show itself and a segment called "On The Radar". These are links to news stories and video of upcoming and past stories.

It may not be perfect in terms of interaction with the viewer, but it's A LOT better than CTS's Behind The Story http://www.ctstv.com/bts/, which is a bit like going back in time. Behind The Story takes a look at the week's major and not so major stories. They run the entire gambit from religion to politics to the environment to human rights and everything else. There is usually a panel of three print or e-journalists and a moderator, but sometimes the moderator goes one on one, which is interesting. In contrast to Washington Week, their panelists chiefly come from a newspaper, magazine or ezine.

This show lasts for about 48 minutes. There is no webcast extra and no way for viewers to ask any questions of the panelists. They used to have a weekly blog written by moderator Richard Landau and they used to have backgrounders on each of the panelists. However, once they started putting the show online with an archives of previous shows (which was long after Washington Week had done so), this got dropped. In contrast again to Washington Week there are no links to news stories and video of upcoming and past stories being discussed. They do give an email address to send in comments and recently added a send a comment section to their website. I occassionally sent in comments until I finally gave up on this and the show as I felt I was talking to a brick wall.

That isn't to say that Washington Week doesn't have room for improvement. One thing I'd like to see is a viewer's forum where viewers could comment and interact with each other on the week's stories, with occassional input from Ifill and the reporters.

While making tv journalism relevant to the audience is especially challenging in today's world, Washington Week has a much better grasp on how to reach out to viewers than Behind The Story. That's a shame as they both have moderators who are intelligent, knowledgeable and professional and there's no reason why Behind The Story couldn't be just as good as Washington Week and no reason why Washington Week couldn't be a whole lot better.

Newspaper Web Sites

2010-09-01T08:27:00.000-07:00

If your house needed a major overhaul to update date it and reduce costs would you just paint and wallpaper it and leave it at that? I wouldn't and neither would you so why do newspapers do it? Time and time and time again I see newspapers revamp their website only to basically rearrange the furniture and paint it. Whoopee! What's really needed is a major overhaul.

The Hamilton Spectator did an article and a video on the Friday the 13th motorcycle rally at Port Dover in August. The video just showed motorcycles passing by on a highway. There was nothing special about it. There was no voice-over to tell you why it was important. The short article basically said it's Friday the 13th and motorcyclists from around Ontario and parts of the United States are once again gathering in Port Dover. Where was the link to the history of the event? It didn't provide an answer as to what they do there or the impact of the event on the community.

Again with the Spectator, they've done several articles on the proposed light rail line. (Light rail is something I have a great interest in.) There was no map, no table showing cost comparisons and no intereactive graphics so you could see the potential impact of light rail in various locations. It just lay flat.

And it's not just the Hamilton Spectator that does this sort of thing. Take a look at any major newspaper in Canada or the United States and you see the same thing. The Buffalo News, for example, recently revamped its web site and, like the Spectator, basically just did window dressing. The basic problem remains. The smaller papers are far worse. Their design screams out that they don't care. At least with the big papers they're making some effort to care.

Ironically newspapers were among the earliest businesses to embrace the Net, but they have failed to grasp that, unlike print, the Net is multi-dimensional. Unless they learn that before it's too late, the newspaper industry will likely go the way of the horse and buggy. That's a shame because we need a healthy newspaper industry.

Lisa La Flamme

2010-08-11T18:31:00.000-07:00

The recent appointment of Lisa La Flamme as successor to CTV anchor Lloyd Robertson was about as much a surprise as someone announcing the radical idea of putting sugar on their cereal. Some years ago the Ryerson Review Of Journalism profiled her and anointed her heir apparent to Robertson. They seemed to imply that she was being shuffled from place to place until that position opened up. It reminded me of Prince Charles, who is cooling his heels until his mother dies and he becomes king.

I also found it interesting to read some of the comments posted about La Flamme, including one that seemed to damn her for being more emotional than Robertson. The last thing that CTV needs is a Lloyd Robertson in a dress and high heels. Journalists need to show emotion when the situation calls for it. I think back to that radio reporter, Herbert Morrison, who covered the Hindenburg disaster in 1937 at Lakehurst, New Jersey. As the airship caught fire and crashed he exclaimed, "Oh, the humanity and all the passengers."

I was going to make a few a few comments about the journalist as celebrity, but I'll leave that for another time. So I'll conclude by saying that, in my opinion, La Flamme has a good combination of having a certain sexiness, combined with being very intelligent and is not afraid to show emotion, who is also very professional. I think she'll do very well as anchor.

Reflections On The Deaths Of My Parents

2010-07-11T16:33:00.000-07:00

With my father's death on June 25th, memories are all I have left now of both my parents. (My mother had been dead for nearly 11 years.) Ironically in the end for both I was their memory, for they had probable Alzheimer's.

Alzheimer's slowly robs a person of their memory and the essence of who they are. It is slightly different for each person and is a slow death; agonizing for their caregivers and others around them. You mourn as the person you know slowly dies one bit at a time.

My first stage of mourning was the loss of their memory and their independence. Both were frightened and saddened by this. My mother, who always had a good memory, was more accepting of this loss, making things much easier on herself and me. I was allowed to mourn with her. My father, who always had a poor memory, STRONGLY resisted, making things much harder on both of us. I could not mourn.

Next came the introduction of outside help. With my mother it was a counsellor from the Alzheimer Society, homecare and a nurse. With my father it was a counsellor, homecare, the senior day program and respite.

My next stage of mourning came when they finally had to be placed inb a nursing home. It was like running a van into a brick wall at full speed. My parents were suddenly no longer physically present at home. I had a chance to mourn the loss of who whey once were. The counsellor stopped, the homecare stopped, the nurse stopped, the day program stopped and the respite stopped. While it was for the best I was able to get my life back to normal, I felt very lonely and I grieved. It took me many months to work through this.

The last stage of mourning came with their physical death. It too was like running a van into a brick wall, only this time at a much slower speed. The person was dead and I once again felt/feel the loss of the person they were. Once again I felt lonely as the visits to the nursing home stopped, as did the phone calls telling me what medications they've been put on and any incidents that happened to them.

My care giving is over now. While it has been very draining, in a way it has been very easy too. Emotionally I'm glad to have had mounring in stages rather than all at once, as is the case with a sudden death. Yet, in one way, I'm still waiting for that phone call that will tell me of my father's death, even though that phone call has already come. I will miss them both.

The Local Newspaper

2010-05-31T06:33:00.000-07:00

It's that time of year for me again, decision time. Do I or don't I want to renew my subscription to the local paper? On the one hand I'd miss the local news and opinions, but on the other hand I get a lot of local news from the free paper that comes twice a week. As for health, environment other than local, science, national, internation, transportation and business news other than local I get most of this from other sources.

And then there's the cost. Once again the cost of the paper has risen for the printed version, this time by 5.2%. True they do have an electronic version, which is about half the price and that I may end up trying. Cost is a major concern for me. It's not that I'm not willing to pay for information, it's just that I'm on a limited budget and can't afford to pay for all that I want. That means for the information I am will to pay for it must give me good value for my money and I'm not sure I'm getting it from my local paper.

My biggest concern in tryibng the electronic edition is that it will be the same as the printed version or worse the same as their website, which is DULL! DULL! DULL! I understand the paper not wanting to give away ther storme, but their website and that of most local Canadian newspapers takes it to the extreme. There's no interactive graphics and the video looks and sounds like it has been just thrown together. They don't seem to understand that they're in the business of selling a product - their paper.

Compare this to a firm like Elliott Wave International, who are selling a forecasting service through a series of regular newsletters geared to your particular needs. They have free stuff that doesn't give away the store, but does inform. Their website has depth. It's far from dull. Their presentation got me to finally subscribe to one of their products. I'm not sure if its the one for me, but I am willing to try others to see what happens.

This has great implications for newspapers (and magazines), which I'll go into more in a future post.

On Mass Writing

2010-05-03T16:58:00.000-07:00

I recently received an email from one of those mass markets inviting me to write for them at the princely sum of $5 to $25 an article for all rights. I declined the offer. This isn't the first offer from such a market I've received or probably the last. It's an offer that I'm not interested in accepting no matter what.

Why? For starters I don't give up all rights. You want the extra rights you pay for them. Also in order to make a decent wage I'd have to earn at least $25 an hour, which at seven hours per day (an hour for lunch), five days per week and 48 weeks per year (allowing for holidays, vacation and sick days) would bring in $42,000. I'd have to produce 1,200 to 2,000 words per hour or 8,400 to 14,000 words per day. Put in another way that would mean no more than 20 minutes per article to research and write. Personally I don't feel that I could do a topic justice in that short a time. And even if I could, it would take the joy out of writing for me.

I won't judge those who do write for these outfits. I just know that it's not right for me.

How did these sorts of companies arise? I believe from over expansion of media companies who are now saddled with huge debts and the desire to squeeze more money from their investments. The older, smaller media companies were satisfied with much smaller profits in order to take the time to do more in depth reporting. Another reason is that with the rise of the Internet, people, who formerly used to pay for content, now started getting content for free and are very reluctant to go back to paying for it.

I don't think it will last. The new Great Depression will wipe out the debt and many of the giant media companies. I also think that people will eventually realize that writers need to be paid a decent wage, which in turn allows them the time to really dig into various topics. All parties benefit from that, including the media companies themselves.

The New Great Depression

2010-04-16T16:31:00.000-07:00

I'm now starting to batten down my economic hatches by cutting expenses wherever possible and by preparing to move my finances to safety in preparation for the HUGE economic storm that is about to hit. The HUGE storm we're facing is another deflationary depression like the dirty thirties. We're entering the dirty teens.

Depressions are caused by an implosion of credit. In other words people, businesses and governments get addicted to debt. More money gets lent/borrowed than can possibly be paid back. This leads to people, businesses and governments (at all levels) defaulting on their debts. Prices on most items decline as a result.

During normal ups and downs stocks, bonds and property will make you money, while cash will not. During deflation the revers is true. Cash, even with no or little interest, will make you money, while stocks, bonds and property will not. There is an exception to this. Stocks will make you money if you short them in a deflationary environment.

How will cash make you money? As I mentioned prices fall in a deflationary environment. The rate of deflation is your rate of return on cash. So if you have $10,000 in cash and the annual rate of deflation is 10% then after one year your $10,000 would have the equivalent spending power of $11,000. Some things deflate more than others. During the last depression property values dropped by as much as 90% or more.

For those of us in the writing, editing and publishing business, a depression offers both enormous challenges and enormous opportunities. The bottom of a depression is a great time to expand a business or to start a new one if you have the cash.

I'll talk more than this in the future.

The Future Of Newspapers

2010-03-29T06:45:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the first post of my new blog for Peter's Place Of Freelance Journalism. The postings will reflect the links and issues relating to the world of journalism. Initially postings will be made around the end of the month. Frequency will increase as I become more adept at this. It will grow as I grow in learning new things. And now to my first comments.

The future of the newspaper is the Daily Prophet. If you haven't heard of the Daily Prophet watch Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban and Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire. The Daily Prophet has moving photos and print that talks. It is a broadsheet, folded in two, with four printed pages. It is capable of being folded and burned. It commands attention.

While the Daily Prophet is part of the magical world of Harry Potter, a real Daily Prophet is non-magical and it is quite possible. Computerized paper is under development. Paper that can be folded and crumpled and imprinted with images and print. Why not a resuable paper that updates are automatically sent to it? Why not inable me to be able to save or print items from it? With a touch of my finger have it speak to me or contect to other content.

But we have the Kindle and other e-readers you say. True, but these are not capable of being folded and thrown down without breaking. They're also too small.

Content is an issue I'll discuss another item, except to say that it needs to be multi-dimensional and not lie flat as current content usually does.

Peter's Place Blog

A Dose Of Reality

Sponsored Editorial Part II

Sponsored Editorial Part I

Crowded TV Screen

Mobile Devices A Right?

When To Draw The Line

Food For Thought

Election

The New Great Depression

Objectivity

Innocence And The Media

WikiLeaks & A Tale Of Two Editors

The Future Of Magazines

A Tale Of Two TV Shows

Newspaper Web Sites

Lisa La Flamme

Reflections On The Deaths Of My Parents

The Local Newspaper

On Mass Writing

The New Great Depression

The Future Of Newspapers