Who pays or should pay when the media gets it wrong? Too often the one who pays is the person or business misidentified as doing something wrong. During the recent hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers the New York Post published photos of what they claimed were the suspects in the bombing. One article told of how one of the young men learned he had been identified as one of the suspects when he started getting threatening emails. He feared for his life as a result. When the FBI released photos of the real suspects, the Post made a retraction, but the damage had been done.
Kate Allen writing in a blog on April 22, 2013 quotes former CNN news anchor Ali Velshi, “But being wrong is, at best, a hard kick in the gut. At its worst, it can cost a journalist his or her career and an organization its credibility. Whether or not you tweet at us about it, we journalists actually do understand that being right is all that should matter.” Two questions arise here: do journalists really understand that being right is all that should matter? and what should happen to the journalist and news media that does get it wrong?
The answer to the first is no. Most journalists do not really understand that being right is all that should matter. They frankly don’t seem to care. How else can you explain, for example, that despite all the evidence to the contrary, most journalists insist on calling public money given to passenger trains and urban transit a subsidy, while calling public money given to roads, air travel and water travel an investment, despite it too being a subsidy. How many times have I seen trains referred to as “chugging”? Recently I saw a journalist referring to the Toronto to New York City train as a “commuter train”. Trains don’t chug and never have and commuter trains are local trains making frequent stops, while trains running long distances are intercity trains. When I posted a link to a video about what trains do and don’t do to a journalism list, someone emailed me wondering what that had to do with journalism. I shook my head in amazement. Some of this may seem trivial, but if a journalist can’t get simple little things right, it can call into question everything else they’ve written or said.
When it comes to who should pay, it should be the journalist and/or the media the person works for and not the person(s) or business(es) that have been wronged. Sometimes all that is required is an apology. Once I misspelled the name of a guy I knew. I apologized and he ribbed me about it for several years afterwards. I learned to be more careful. At other times something more serious is required. In the case of the New York Post I believe that young men they misidentified as being the Boston bombing suspects should be compensated in some way for the emotional distress they were put through.
We all make mistakes and journalists are no different. Ultimately when the media makes mistakes we all pay.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Unmuzzling Scientific Freedom
Well it’s about time. Federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault is launching an investigation into allegations that the federal government is muzzling Canadian scientists. The following departments are part of the investigation: Environment Canada, Department Of Fisheries & Oceans, Natural Resources Canada, National Research Council Of Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Department Of National Defence.
A complaint was launched by the Environmental Law Clinic of the University Of Victoria and by Democracy Watch. They produced a report: Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat To Democracy. For example the report claims that in November, 2007 Environment Canada issued a new protocol requiring all media calls to be routed through the department’s Ottawa headquarters. Three years later the department noted the media coverage of climate change science had been reduced by over 80%. In October, 2011 Environment Minister Peter Kent is alleged to have prevented federal ozone scientist, David Tarasick, from speaking about a study he co-authored in Nature on the Arctic ozone hole. And in April, 2012 government media minders were sent to an international polar conference in Montreal to monitor and record what Environment Canada scientists said to reporters.
I’ve heard of reports of documents being freely available on government web sites, only to be later taken down. And it’s not the departments being looked at that control information, the Ministry Of Transportation does too. One person reported that when you ask Amtrak for information on certain routes, you get it, but when you ask VIA for the same type of information they hide it.
The alleged government muzzling of Canadian scientists has drawn negative attention in such publications as Nature and The Economist. Nature had this to say, “...Canada’s generally positive foreign reputation as a progressive, scientific national masks some startlingly poor behavior. The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.”
I agree and I also agree with a Conservative MP who said, “In my view, scientists should stick to science.” To which I add and for governments to keep their nose out of it and to allow the free flow of information, which democracy and a free press is based on. Hopefully the Federal Information Commissioner’s investigation will force the government to do just that.
A complaint was launched by the Environmental Law Clinic of the University Of Victoria and by Democracy Watch. They produced a report: Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat To Democracy. For example the report claims that in November, 2007 Environment Canada issued a new protocol requiring all media calls to be routed through the department’s Ottawa headquarters. Three years later the department noted the media coverage of climate change science had been reduced by over 80%. In October, 2011 Environment Minister Peter Kent is alleged to have prevented federal ozone scientist, David Tarasick, from speaking about a study he co-authored in Nature on the Arctic ozone hole. And in April, 2012 government media minders were sent to an international polar conference in Montreal to monitor and record what Environment Canada scientists said to reporters.
I’ve heard of reports of documents being freely available on government web sites, only to be later taken down. And it’s not the departments being looked at that control information, the Ministry Of Transportation does too. One person reported that when you ask Amtrak for information on certain routes, you get it, but when you ask VIA for the same type of information they hide it.
The alleged government muzzling of Canadian scientists has drawn negative attention in such publications as Nature and The Economist. Nature had this to say, “...Canada’s generally positive foreign reputation as a progressive, scientific national masks some startlingly poor behavior. The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.”
I agree and I also agree with a Conservative MP who said, “In my view, scientists should stick to science.” To which I add and for governments to keep their nose out of it and to allow the free flow of information, which democracy and a free press is based on. Hopefully the Federal Information Commissioner’s investigation will force the government to do just that.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Writer's Home Office
As writers we usually work out of our homes. This is a mixed blessing. On one hand there’s no commuting, there are tax benefits, greater flexibility in work hours, flexibility in dress (heck you can even work naked if you wish) and a home office is cheaper than renting. On the other hand there can be numerous distractions, like children and pets, friends and neighbors who may not see your working at home as work and it is isolated from others. Basically you need space, some office furniture, equipment and good lighting.
Where you place your home office depends on your needs, the available space, the needs of others in your household and how much money you can spare. If you live with a spouse/partner and have children you’re going to have to consult with them and have to compromise.
Start with knowing your needs. How much space do your require? Do you need lots of storage space? Will you be meeting with clients? How easily distracted are you? How much energy do you require? Do you require a permit for a home office? Do you require more than just a chair, desk and computer? Will desk drawers do or do you need bookshelves and filing cabinets? Do you needs lots of peace and quiet and no clutter or can you ignore a noisy environment with lots of clutter and other distractions?
Once you’ve assessed your needs you can then review the available space. For example you might live with a spouse/partner and two children in a single story house. In this case maybe you’ll have to settle on an underused corner of a room. You might wish to consider putting up a screen, which has two uses: one to keep out distractions and to hide your space when company comes. Another option is to store your things in a closet and take them when you’re working. Desktop computer might be on a small rolling desk.
I would strongly advise against using a corner of your bedroom for workspace. I did when I started out and I came to deeply regret it. As I was stuck in the room for sleeping and working that it made both very hard to do.
On the other hand you may live in a large house or condo or apartment or live alone in which case there might be an underutilized room you could convert to an office. If this is the case maybe all you need to do is move whatever is currently in the room out and put your desk, chair, computer and anything else you need in. Maybe some extra lighting is needed or maybe you need to build in some bookshelves. Maybe you have an unfinished attic or basement that could be fixed up for an office.
Finally you may be one of the lucky ones who have the money and space to convert a garage into an office, build a room onto your house or build an outbuilding specifically for writing. In this case you get to start from scratch.
In my case I’ve taken a basement bedroom and converted it into an office. I have some built in bookshelves, cupboard, some filing cabinets, a closet and a desk and chair, with a computer and printer. I have a ceiling light, a small window and a task light. During the summer time, since I don’t have central air conditioning, my office is one of the coolest in the house. It’s not ideal and some day I’d like to move my office upstairs to what used to be a den, but is now used as a library.
Where you place your home office depends on your needs, the available space, the needs of others in your household and how much money you can spare. If you live with a spouse/partner and have children you’re going to have to consult with them and have to compromise.
Start with knowing your needs. How much space do your require? Do you need lots of storage space? Will you be meeting with clients? How easily distracted are you? How much energy do you require? Do you require a permit for a home office? Do you require more than just a chair, desk and computer? Will desk drawers do or do you need bookshelves and filing cabinets? Do you needs lots of peace and quiet and no clutter or can you ignore a noisy environment with lots of clutter and other distractions?
Once you’ve assessed your needs you can then review the available space. For example you might live with a spouse/partner and two children in a single story house. In this case maybe you’ll have to settle on an underused corner of a room. You might wish to consider putting up a screen, which has two uses: one to keep out distractions and to hide your space when company comes. Another option is to store your things in a closet and take them when you’re working. Desktop computer might be on a small rolling desk.
I would strongly advise against using a corner of your bedroom for workspace. I did when I started out and I came to deeply regret it. As I was stuck in the room for sleeping and working that it made both very hard to do.
On the other hand you may live in a large house or condo or apartment or live alone in which case there might be an underutilized room you could convert to an office. If this is the case maybe all you need to do is move whatever is currently in the room out and put your desk, chair, computer and anything else you need in. Maybe some extra lighting is needed or maybe you need to build in some bookshelves. Maybe you have an unfinished attic or basement that could be fixed up for an office.
Finally you may be one of the lucky ones who have the money and space to convert a garage into an office, build a room onto your house or build an outbuilding specifically for writing. In this case you get to start from scratch.
In my case I’ve taken a basement bedroom and converted it into an office. I have some built in bookshelves, cupboard, some filing cabinets, a closet and a desk and chair, with a computer and printer. I have a ceiling light, a small window and a task light. During the summer time, since I don’t have central air conditioning, my office is one of the coolest in the house. It’s not ideal and some day I’d like to move my office upstairs to what used to be a den, but is now used as a library.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Looking Glass World
Imagine having twenty television sets on and being unable or with great difficulty to turn them off or turn them down. Imagine being given vague instructions. Finally imagine being a Mexican jumping bean. If you can imagine any of these you can imagine my world as person with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or may be one yourself.
ADHD affects me both personally and professionally as a writer. For example I get bored after 15 to 20 minutes and need constant stimulation. I usually have many projects on the go. I’m currently writing three books, a magazine article and updating my journalism site, not to mention reading a book. My brain races at about a thousand kilometers per hour, while the rest of me struggles to do five. And when I go to a newsstand or bookstore I am overwhelmed by the numbers of magazines and books.
Once at church someone commented on some preschoolers how nice it would be to have their energy. I had that much energy into my twenties and I never ever want it again. I just couldn’t concentrate. Even today I still have lots of energy, but my concentration has improved.
Sometimes I’ll get an assignment and read it, but miss seeing something important until I’m almost at the deadline and then I scramble to take that something into account. It’s not uncommon for me to put my foot in my mouth with unintended consequences as I hadn’t thoroughly thought things out.
It’s no picnic. I find having ADHD very frustrating as no doubt those who have to deal with me. What adds to the frustration is being fairly intelligent. I suffer from anxiety as a result and am constantly second guessing myself.
Society has never been fully accepting of ADHDers and those with other differences and mental health issues. For all the recent talk of dealing with disabilities and mental health issues, I have yet to see any significant changes.
Fortunately I have learned some coping skills. Writing weekly and daily lists of things to do are a big help. For example my weekly list will include appointments, which I also write on a chalk board, specific tasks to do, like get groceries, and ongoing things to do, like reading the book I’m reading or a piece of work I’m writing. My daily list will include such things as take my vitamins and aspirin, appointments, reading and working on specific writing projects, like an article I’m on deadline for. Writing lists has greatly improved my productivity.
Speaking of deadlines, I’ve learned that big tasks get done and done quicker if I break them down into much smaller ones. So once I get a deadline I mark it down and work back from there as to when specific tasks must be done and write it down. I find projects go a lot easier that way and I also reward myself for completing certain tasks, like taking a ten minute break outside or playing a computer game.
To cope with having lots of energy, I bicycle and walk regularly, plus do daily exercises. When writing, I’ll sit for five to fifteen minutes and then get up and walk around. I go back and forth like this until I finish what I’m working on. It helps me cope and focus better.
I’ll have more to say on ADHD in future blogs.
ADHD affects me both personally and professionally as a writer. For example I get bored after 15 to 20 minutes and need constant stimulation. I usually have many projects on the go. I’m currently writing three books, a magazine article and updating my journalism site, not to mention reading a book. My brain races at about a thousand kilometers per hour, while the rest of me struggles to do five. And when I go to a newsstand or bookstore I am overwhelmed by the numbers of magazines and books.
Once at church someone commented on some preschoolers how nice it would be to have their energy. I had that much energy into my twenties and I never ever want it again. I just couldn’t concentrate. Even today I still have lots of energy, but my concentration has improved.
Sometimes I’ll get an assignment and read it, but miss seeing something important until I’m almost at the deadline and then I scramble to take that something into account. It’s not uncommon for me to put my foot in my mouth with unintended consequences as I hadn’t thoroughly thought things out.
It’s no picnic. I find having ADHD very frustrating as no doubt those who have to deal with me. What adds to the frustration is being fairly intelligent. I suffer from anxiety as a result and am constantly second guessing myself.
Society has never been fully accepting of ADHDers and those with other differences and mental health issues. For all the recent talk of dealing with disabilities and mental health issues, I have yet to see any significant changes.
Fortunately I have learned some coping skills. Writing weekly and daily lists of things to do are a big help. For example my weekly list will include appointments, which I also write on a chalk board, specific tasks to do, like get groceries, and ongoing things to do, like reading the book I’m reading or a piece of work I’m writing. My daily list will include such things as take my vitamins and aspirin, appointments, reading and working on specific writing projects, like an article I’m on deadline for. Writing lists has greatly improved my productivity.
Speaking of deadlines, I’ve learned that big tasks get done and done quicker if I break them down into much smaller ones. So once I get a deadline I mark it down and work back from there as to when specific tasks must be done and write it down. I find projects go a lot easier that way and I also reward myself for completing certain tasks, like taking a ten minute break outside or playing a computer game.
To cope with having lots of energy, I bicycle and walk regularly, plus do daily exercises. When writing, I’ll sit for five to fifteen minutes and then get up and walk around. I go back and forth like this until I finish what I’m working on. It helps me cope and focus better.
I’ll have more to say on ADHD in future blogs.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Underreported Stories Of 2012
I thought I’d start the year off with my list of underreported stories for 2012. It is based on my knowledge and so I may have missed some.
The Environment Cliff: Much has been made about the American so-called Fiscal Cliff, but we hear little of the environmental cliff, which we are rapidly plugging over and from which there is no return. It includes not only climate change, but the greatest period of extinction since perhaps the Permian Period, when about 90% of all life went extinct. Each year we’re losing several species, some unknown to science. Some of these might have given us the next cure for some disease. Another part is the global water crisis and the quality of air, except for the summer smog alerts.
Loss Of Democracy: Very little has been said about this in the media. We go through the motions of elections, but little discussion is made in the media about how more and more our lives are governed by big corporations, other special interests and the super rich. They are controlling more and more what can be said and done in society. For example SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) are used to silence critics of business when they want to do something that others don’t want them to do.
Concentration Of Wealth: Each year the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class shrinks. Government in the name of austerity are cutting back on social programs, while increasing benefits to the wealthy. Unions are being crushed under freedom to work legislation. Part of this is the policy of deliberately keeping interest rates low and the other part is by destroying credit.
Loss Of Press Freedom: Press freedom is being lost through the concentration of the media into the hands of a few and through restricting free access to information. A recent article in the Toronto Star through delaying tactics and making the cost of obtaining this information prohibitive except for wealthy institutions and people.
Deflationary Depression: In all the talk about the economy, politicians and the media are strangely silent about the possibility of a deflationary depression. When it strikes it will come as a complete surprise to most people. The government warns people about high debt, but fail to heed their own advice.
The Environment Cliff: Much has been made about the American so-called Fiscal Cliff, but we hear little of the environmental cliff, which we are rapidly plugging over and from which there is no return. It includes not only climate change, but the greatest period of extinction since perhaps the Permian Period, when about 90% of all life went extinct. Each year we’re losing several species, some unknown to science. Some of these might have given us the next cure for some disease. Another part is the global water crisis and the quality of air, except for the summer smog alerts.
Loss Of Democracy: Very little has been said about this in the media. We go through the motions of elections, but little discussion is made in the media about how more and more our lives are governed by big corporations, other special interests and the super rich. They are controlling more and more what can be said and done in society. For example SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) are used to silence critics of business when they want to do something that others don’t want them to do.
Concentration Of Wealth: Each year the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class shrinks. Government in the name of austerity are cutting back on social programs, while increasing benefits to the wealthy. Unions are being crushed under freedom to work legislation. Part of this is the policy of deliberately keeping interest rates low and the other part is by destroying credit.
Loss Of Press Freedom: Press freedom is being lost through the concentration of the media into the hands of a few and through restricting free access to information. A recent article in the Toronto Star
Deflationary Depression: In all the talk about the economy, politicians and the media are strangely silent about the possibility of a deflationary depression. When it strikes it will come as a complete surprise to most people. The government warns people about high debt, but fail to heed their own advice.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Newspaper Pay Walls
With the recent conversion of the Globe & Mail from advertising based to subscription based and the Toronto Star about to go this way also, it’s time again to revisit newspapers. When I looked at this issue in June (Newspapers Again) , I said I have mixed feelings about pay walls and I’m not entirely convinced that they are the answer or at least not in the way that newspapers seem to think they are.
I find it a bit ironic that newspapers are having so many problems with the Internet when they were among the first to jump on it. It reminds me of Kodak inventing the digital camera and yet going bankrupt because of digital cameras.
The biggest problem that I’ve seen is newspapers seem to forget that the Internet is layered. Papers have struggled with this for years and they still don’t entirely have the hang of it. For example, how many poorly done videos have I seen on newspaper sites? They have gotten better, but need more refinement. And I’m still seeing too many flat stories, that is stories with no deeper connections. For example an article in the Portland Press Herald Ceremonial ride to mark Downeaster's Maine expansion on the expansion of rail service fails to include a link to the new schedule. The Toronto Star also often fails to include links, for example a story on a new high-tech card for the Detroit – Windsor tunnel High-Tech card will speed travel through Windsor to Detroit toll boths didn’t include a link for further information.
This raises the question that if layering can be done for information why not for pay walls? Online medical journals do this. If I want to take a look at a particular study I have two choices: read the abstract for free or read the entire study for the price of a subscription. Why can’t the newspaper industry follow these examples?
Why does it have it to be an all or nothing deal for them? Why can’t they post a synopsis of one to three paragraphs, depending on the story, for free viewing and if you want to read the full, in depth article, then you’d have to subscribe? For an investigative piece(s) like the Toronto Star’s recent series on Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario Marineland animals suffering former staffers say a newspaper could post a longer shortened version online for free. If you then wanted to read more you get a subscription. They can always post full articles free for anyone to read, like for election night or for storm reports.
And while a pay wall does provide additional income, it also drives away readers. People can go to a t.v. website and get news for free. You can go to the Business News Network and view and read business stories, like the Globe & Mail covers, for free. It seems to me the last thing newspapers need is to further drive away readership.
Finally why can’t I go to one place and get a subscription to a number of newspapers instead of having to individually subscribe to each newspaper I want. There are about five newspapers I would be willing to subscribe to if the price was right and it was convenient for me to do so, as in being a one stop, one payment, place.
I’ll talk about Newsweek’s decision to go digital in a future post.
I find it a bit ironic that newspapers are having so many problems with the Internet when they were among the first to jump on it. It reminds me of Kodak inventing the digital camera and yet going bankrupt because of digital cameras.
The biggest problem that I’ve seen is newspapers seem to forget that the Internet is layered. Papers have struggled with this for years and they still don’t entirely have the hang of it. For example, how many poorly done videos have I seen on newspaper sites? They have gotten better, but need more refinement. And I’m still seeing too many flat stories, that is stories with no deeper connections. For example an article in the Portland Press Herald Ceremonial ride to mark Downeaster's Maine expansion on the expansion of rail service fails to include a link to the new schedule. The Toronto Star also often fails to include links, for example a story on a new high-tech card for the Detroit – Windsor tunnel High-Tech card will speed travel through Windsor to Detroit toll boths didn’t include a link for further information.
This raises the question that if layering can be done for information why not for pay walls? Online medical journals do this. If I want to take a look at a particular study I have two choices: read the abstract for free or read the entire study for the price of a subscription. Why can’t the newspaper industry follow these examples?
Why does it have it to be an all or nothing deal for them? Why can’t they post a synopsis of one to three paragraphs, depending on the story, for free viewing and if you want to read the full, in depth article, then you’d have to subscribe? For an investigative piece(s) like the Toronto Star’s recent series on Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario Marineland animals suffering former staffers say a newspaper could post a longer shortened version online for free. If you then wanted to read more you get a subscription. They can always post full articles free for anyone to read, like for election night or for storm reports.
And while a pay wall does provide additional income, it also drives away readers. People can go to a t.v. website and get news for free. You can go to the Business News Network and view and read business stories, like the Globe & Mail covers, for free. It seems to me the last thing newspapers need is to further drive away readership.
Finally why can’t I go to one place and get a subscription to a number of newspapers instead of having to individually subscribe to each newspaper I want. There are about five newspapers I would be willing to subscribe to if the price was right and it was convenient for me to do so, as in being a one stop, one payment, place.
I’ll talk about Newsweek’s decision to go digital in a future post.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Wentegate
I confess I really don’t care for Margaret Wente, never have ever since her days at Canadian Business. However, I will not call for her head over her plagiarising a couple of sentences from someone else’s column.
It’s very easy to see how something, like what Wente did, can happen. A journalist is reading and talking and emailing so much that, as Wente herself said, you can make notes and forget to put down where something came from. That doesn’t excuse plagiarism, but it does make it understandable.
What she did was careless, not, it seems, part of a regular habit. And there is a BIG difference between someone like Margaret Wente and someone like Jayson Blair to whom plagiarism and fabrication seemed as regular as breathing.
The Toronto Star’s public editor Kathy English put it nicely in a recent column, “One can have zero tolerance for unethical journalism, but still possess understanding for the journalist.”
The Globe & Mail did err in its slow response to the allegations of plagiarism. And Wente did not help herself when in her column of September 25th she seems to excuse her behavior by blaming the blogger who Carol Wainio, who Wente says “...has more than once accused me of stealing the work of other writers with whom I happen to share an opinion.”
Rightly or wrongly Wente feels harassed by Wainio. And while I can appreciate Wente’s feelings, in my view it would have been far better had Wente left out the third and second last paragraphs of her column and just ended with a whoops I goofed.
One final comment, is plagiarism any worse than lying or deceiving? For example the media regularly labels money given to passenger rail and to transit a “subsidy”, while money given to roads is always labelled an “investment”. That is a deception/lie. I’ll deal with this issue and the media’s turning a blind eye on certain issues in a future blog.
It’s very easy to see how something, like what Wente did, can happen. A journalist is reading and talking and emailing so much that, as Wente herself said, you can make notes and forget to put down where something came from. That doesn’t excuse plagiarism, but it does make it understandable.
What she did was careless, not, it seems, part of a regular habit. And there is a BIG difference between someone like Margaret Wente and someone like Jayson Blair to whom plagiarism and fabrication seemed as regular as breathing.
The Toronto Star’s public editor Kathy English put it nicely in a recent column, “One can have zero tolerance for unethical journalism, but still possess understanding for the journalist.”
The Globe & Mail did err in its slow response to the allegations of plagiarism. And Wente did not help herself when in her column of September 25th she seems to excuse her behavior by blaming the blogger who Carol Wainio, who Wente says “...has more than once accused me of stealing the work of other writers with whom I happen to share an opinion.”
Rightly or wrongly Wente feels harassed by Wainio. And while I can appreciate Wente’s feelings, in my view it would have been far better had Wente left out the third and second last paragraphs of her column and just ended with a whoops I goofed.
One final comment, is plagiarism any worse than lying or deceiving? For example the media regularly labels money given to passenger rail and to transit a “subsidy”, while money given to roads is always labelled an “investment”. That is a deception/lie. I’ll deal with this issue and the media’s turning a blind eye on certain issues in a future blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)