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.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The New Great Depression
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.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Objectivity
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Innocence And The Media
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
WikiLeaks & A Tale Of Two Editors
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.
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.
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Future Of Magazines
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
A Tale Of Two TV Shows
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)