I’m shocked. The local southern Ontario Sun Media
newspapers* have suddenly changed. They’re no longer plain, boring sites. They’ve actually become quite interesting.

For too many years their websites have consisted of a list of news articles, with the odd picture and the even odder video, with lots of ads. They didn’t seem to care. They didn’t seem to want business. Maybe that’s why the sudden change. They decided they actually wanted readers and that the only way to get them to spruce up their web sites.

The new sites are dominated by photos. Yes they are all from the same template; the head photo is of a local area, for example St. Paul Street in St. Catharines and the Main Street Bridge over the Old Welland Canal in Welland. The opening page still has ads, but they don’t dominate the way they did previously. You also get the current weather at the top now. For the most part it’s much easier to navigate. They’ve added community events, which is a nice touch.

The news section could stand to be improved by returning to the previous menu section that allowed you to go to local, national and international news from the opening page. Now it’s just news. You click news and then from the news page you get the subdivisions, which seems a bit awkward to me.

The recent VIA train derailment at Aldershot, Ontario, was reported in the same story shared by all the updated papers. However, local stories covering the local angles were also covered. There were photos and videos as well as stories. In past there would be only words with the odd picture.

Local sports and entertainment are now featured daily on each web site, along with bloggers, events and readers’ contributions. (In later blog I’ll discuss the citizen journalist and the ethics of contributing to media sites.

The big question is whether the changes have come too late to make a difference? I think they have, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

*I regularly look at the following papers: Brantford Expositor, Chatham Daily News, Niagara Falls Review, St. Catharines Standard and Welland Tribune, along with the Barrie Examiner, Kingston Whig-Standard and
Woodstock Sentinel-Review, which I occasionally look at as well. The Barrie Examiner, Chatham Daily News and Kingston Whig-Standard haven’t yet changed, but hopefully will soon.

A Dose Of Reality

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.

Sponsored Editorial Part II

In the part I of my blog on sponsored editorial I looked at the history and negative aspects of it. Here I will examine the whys and hows of sponsored editorial.

The most obvious reason for doing it is to bring in additional revenue. This can be especially important to a small publication, radio station, t.v. station or Internet publication. However any size media will appreciate additional revenue.

The Guardian News & Media of Great Britain says, "These [sponsored] supplements are a valued source of revenue and allows us to explore in depth than editorial budgets would otherwise allow..."

So what are some general guidelines for dealing with sponsored editorial? Radio and t.v. stations should not do voice overs. Using sponsored content without attribution undermines the creditability of the station doing this. Opponents call this "fake news".

Related to this is what Australia's Nursing Review has this to say about the handling of sponsored editorial, "The layout, design and text of advertorials must be distinctly different from those of the publication." Some, like ModernHealthcare.com, say that no member of the editorial staff may be involved in putting together sponsored editorial.

Single or limited sponsorship can limit the media's ability to cover a story and can dictate directly or indirectly what stories may or may not be covered and how a story is covered. Probably the best way to handle this is to go for the clearly sponsored program or section. The airline industry has done this for years. Some companies also sponsor a magazine or t.v. show. Two examples of this are Westjet's Up Magazine and Costco's The Costco Connection, both of whom I've written for.

There's a lot more that could be said about the does and don'ts of sponsored journalism, but that will have to wait for another time.

On a sad note, I just learned that one of my favorite magazines, which I have occassionally written for, Harrowsmith, ceased publication July 25th after 35 years. The magazine treated writers reasonably well and provided a unique Canadian voice to country life. It will be solely missed and I wish the staff well in finding new jobs.

Sponsored Editorial Part I

Is it possible to have sponsored editorial without selling your soul (i.e. compromising your integrity)? This question will be examined in a two part blog on this subject. In part one I'll examine the history and negative aspects of it. In part two, to be posted either around New Year's or around Christmas, I'll look at the positive aspects and how to do it.

Purists may argue that sponsored editorial undermines the integrity and credibility of that particular medium, be it a newspaper, a magazine, a t.v. news show, a radio news program or news online site, ezine or blog. However, sponsored editorial isn't new. In the 19th century in Canada and the United States, at least, you had newspapers sponsored by particular parties and religions. Today we have sponsored newspapers, magazines, radio, t.v. and Internet blogs and ezines. For example there's The Costco Connection and The Christian Science Monitor. Sponsored articles and video have been doene for years in the travel, health and food industries.

This still hasn't answered the question of whether or not sponsored editorial is generally good or generally bad. On the negative side it can blue the distinction between advertorial and journalism and undermine the credibility of a particular medium. It can leave readers or viewers wondering about the accuracy of a sponsored product, service or place. Sponsored editorial and segments have the potential of dictating what else can be published or shown.

Some travel magazines, travel sections of newspapers and travel programs on t.v. and radio won't allow a contributor to accept freebees on account of fearing that the contributor's opinion might be colored by this. Speaking as a writer who has taken the odd freebee, my seeking this out was colored by my positive opinion of, in this case, the attractions.

A major problem is not clearly identifying something as being sponsored. There has been a big uproar over fake (sponsored) t.v. news that is not clearly identified as such. The term "fake news" implies a lack of credibility and trust, which is reinforced by the sense of coverup when not identified as being sponsored.

Wraps are another potential problem. These are newspapers or magazines covered with a fake sponsored cover, which may often have some items taken from the real cover.

In my next post I will cover the positive aspects of sponsored editorial and provide some guidelines as to how to deal with it.

By the way, I missed my last post as my girlfriend, who lives out of town, was visiting me for a week and I simply forgot until it was too late.

Crowded TV Screen

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?

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

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.