There is a tragic story of a town house being on fire. The smoke detector went off the parents got up and went downstairs where a fire has started. The parents come downstairs with their young son. The child, seeing the fire, gets scared, escapes and runs upstairs and ducks under the bed and is killed in the fire. The media is like that child. We see the triple issues of peak oil, environmental degradation and depression, get scared and run and hide. And journalists aren’t the only one, politicians, businesses and individuals just don’t want to deal with this.
Your typical non specialized news media have general news reporters and specialized reporters for such things as sports, business, crime, health, entertainment and politics (federal, provincial/state and local). Totally ignored and considered optional at best is the environment, which includes energy. (In all fairness energy is also included in business, but there it is treated strictly in terms of money and growth.) Heck lotteries receive far more coverage than energy and the environment. Yet our economy and our very lives depend on a healthy environment and good supply of clean energy.
News tends to be framed in terms of whether it is good or bad for the economy, it’s impact on congestion, the number of jobs it will create and whether it promotes growth or not. Energy use is usually ignored and the environment, if considered at all, tends to be secondary to economic growth and jobs. Journalists, like most everyone else, put economic growth and job creation ahead of everything else, including our very lives. Basically short term thinking with no thought or care to the consequences of our behavior.
A good example of this is that auto shows are covered in depth, while bicycle shows, if covered at all, tend to be covered only briefly as form of recreation or entertainment. Another example boat shows also are covered in depth and while boats are recreation they’re big business. New and wider roads are primarily viewed in terms of their impact on congestion and on growth as well as how much they will cost. The underlying assumption is they’re good. The long term impact on energy and the environment is totally ignored.
I saw a technology piece on t. v. recently telling how, among other things, that we will soon be able to have our refrigerators communicate with us to tell us we’re out of milk, for example. The implication was that this was a good thing. No questioned otherwise or what its total impact would be.
When we want to journalists can do an excellent job of investigative reporting. Take for example Paul Bliss of CTV, who uncovered the Ornge scandal. Ornge, for those unfamiliar with it, is an Ontario air ambulance service and the scandal basically involved overspending. Bliss did an excellent job of uncovering and reporting on this. Now where are the Paul Blisses on energy and the environment?
In all fairness good reporting does take time, space and money. However, it also takes good imagination. If we change our priorities the time, space and money are there. It would mean cutting back on sports and entertainment, including stories about lotteries and recreation. Notice I said cut back, not cut out.
A good first step would be for the major media outlets to assign a reporter to cover energy and the environment. Another first step would be to start asking the hard hitting questions that need to be asked of things, like should we be doing this or that and what are the energy and environmental costs of doing or not doing something rather than just looking at the short term economic costs and benefits. It should also be a requirement for journalists to take courses on science, energy and the environment.
Other steps walk, bicycle and use public transit to get to and from work and on our jobs as much as possible. Where a car or a van is still required car share. Use motor vehicles that are as energy efficient as possible. Do what we can to make our homes and places of work as energy efficient and as easy on the environment as possible. All this helps our pocket books as well as helping ensure we’ll still be able to eat, drink and breath tomorrow.
We, as journalists and as a society, need to start putting life ahead of short term gain and pleasure, and we need to do it very soon.
Here’s a link to an update on an earlier blog on newspaper paywalls. Some newspapers are now removing them as being counter productive:
“Paywalls Come Tumbling Down”
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Peak Oil Part II
When I was a child I read a children’s story about a circus train. The giraffe chewed a hole in the roof of one of the passenger cars. The giraffe and all the other animals in that car got out and up on the roofs the train. They danced and played until they came to a tunnel. Then one by one they were forced back through the hole of the car they had come from. This being a children’s story no one was hurt. However, in the real life story of hitting declining oil production millions of people will die and many others will be very seriously injured.
Just think of how VERY oil dependent we are. Phones, computers, food and beverage packaging, rugs, storage boxes, medicine, clothing, furniture, pens, etc. are all made with oil. (Plastic comes from oil.) We use mechanized agriculture, which uses pesticides and fertilizers. We use oil for transportation. Even the lowly bicycle needs oil for lubrication and manufacture. Yes we do recycle far more than we used to, but it takes more energy to recycle things than it does to simply reuse them. For example a glass bottle can be reused an infinite number of times unless it broke, versus a plastic bottle than can only be used once.
So you can see by this that it will be VERY difficult to get off oil (and natural gas and coal). But get off it we will. We won’t have a choice. We should have started 20 years or more ago. Actually we shouldn’t have wasted as much oil and gas as we have, but we did.
So what will a post peak oil world look like? It depends on how quickly we face up to the problem and start reducing our energy use. The longer we delay the worse it will be.
The worst case scenario would be billions of people starving to death, losing most if not all of our technology, modern medicine, communications and transportation, losing clean running water and electricity. Our homes and businesses would be heated by wood, if at all. Our food would be locally grown, some of it where the suburbs now are, and we would be an agrarian society, dominated by feudal lords. However, it would be cleaner and quieter than today.
Another possibility is that we decide to deal head on with the problem and rapidly reduce our energy demand, which may allow us to continue to heat by oil and gas and keep at least some of our technology and modern medicine, communications and transportation, as well as electricity and clean running water. This would buy us time while we develop alternative and more efficient forms of energy.
Since the first part of my look at peak oil was posted I’ve learned about two realistic alternative fuel possibilities. One is using thorium in place of uranium for nuclear power plants. It’s very common and is safer than uranium and cannot be made into a bomb. I understand that it could be used in Cando reactors without much problem. (See Thorium Video I and Thorium Video II")
Another alternative fuel possibility is something called sun-gas. Basically it uses parabolic mirrors for high heat in a chemical reactor to make solar fuel cells. (See http://Sun-Gas I) These would produce about 20% less greenhouse gas emissions than natural gas. (See Sun-Gas II) Since it would be fuel cells solar power would be both storable and transportable. Sun-gas may be rolled out as early as next month in some western American states.
So what to do? Here are steps you can take both individually and collectively where you work, play or worship. You can start talking and thinking about it. Write your elected representatives to ask them what they’re doing to prepare. Write businesses to urge them to reduce their oil and natural gas use. Urge your place of worship to start dealing with the issue. Start growing at least some of your own food. It’s healthier and you know where it comes from. Walk, bicycle and use public transit whenever possible and if you’re already doing it do so more. If you have a motor home get rid of it the same goes if you have more than one car. Reduce heating oil, natural gas and electric use. Add insulation to your house or business. Learn new skills. Reduce using plastic as much as possible and start reusing things.
And if things don’t get as bad as I and other fear they could using less energy and making yourself and your business reduces your costs and your impact on the environment.
I know this is scary (It is for me.), but forewarned is forearmed. In time we’ll make it.
Here are some links to useful sites:
Sectors Of The American Economy Most At Risk From Peak Oil
Winning The Oil Endgame
Former BP Geologist On Peak Oil
Preparing For A Post Peak Life, part of postpeakliving.com. There are three videos totalling about 60 minutes. The first 8 minutes of the first video explains things in a nutshell. There information on peak oil on this page. It is run by André Angelantoni, whose biography can be read on the site.
Part three will look at specifically how journalists are part of the problem and how we can be part of the solution.
Just think of how VERY oil dependent we are. Phones, computers, food and beverage packaging, rugs, storage boxes, medicine, clothing, furniture, pens, etc. are all made with oil. (Plastic comes from oil.) We use mechanized agriculture, which uses pesticides and fertilizers. We use oil for transportation. Even the lowly bicycle needs oil for lubrication and manufacture. Yes we do recycle far more than we used to, but it takes more energy to recycle things than it does to simply reuse them. For example a glass bottle can be reused an infinite number of times unless it broke, versus a plastic bottle than can only be used once.
So you can see by this that it will be VERY difficult to get off oil (and natural gas and coal). But get off it we will. We won’t have a choice. We should have started 20 years or more ago. Actually we shouldn’t have wasted as much oil and gas as we have, but we did.
So what will a post peak oil world look like? It depends on how quickly we face up to the problem and start reducing our energy use. The longer we delay the worse it will be.
The worst case scenario would be billions of people starving to death, losing most if not all of our technology, modern medicine, communications and transportation, losing clean running water and electricity. Our homes and businesses would be heated by wood, if at all. Our food would be locally grown, some of it where the suburbs now are, and we would be an agrarian society, dominated by feudal lords. However, it would be cleaner and quieter than today.
Another possibility is that we decide to deal head on with the problem and rapidly reduce our energy demand, which may allow us to continue to heat by oil and gas and keep at least some of our technology and modern medicine, communications and transportation, as well as electricity and clean running water. This would buy us time while we develop alternative and more efficient forms of energy.
Since the first part of my look at peak oil was posted I’ve learned about two realistic alternative fuel possibilities. One is using thorium in place of uranium for nuclear power plants. It’s very common and is safer than uranium and cannot be made into a bomb. I understand that it could be used in Cando reactors without much problem. (See Thorium Video I and Thorium Video II")
Another alternative fuel possibility is something called sun-gas. Basically it uses parabolic mirrors for high heat in a chemical reactor to make solar fuel cells. (See http://Sun-Gas I) These would produce about 20% less greenhouse gas emissions than natural gas. (See Sun-Gas II) Since it would be fuel cells solar power would be both storable and transportable. Sun-gas may be rolled out as early as next month in some western American states.
So what to do? Here are steps you can take both individually and collectively where you work, play or worship. You can start talking and thinking about it. Write your elected representatives to ask them what they’re doing to prepare. Write businesses to urge them to reduce their oil and natural gas use. Urge your place of worship to start dealing with the issue. Start growing at least some of your own food. It’s healthier and you know where it comes from. Walk, bicycle and use public transit whenever possible and if you’re already doing it do so more. If you have a motor home get rid of it the same goes if you have more than one car. Reduce heating oil, natural gas and electric use. Add insulation to your house or business. Learn new skills. Reduce using plastic as much as possible and start reusing things.
And if things don’t get as bad as I and other fear they could using less energy and making yourself and your business reduces your costs and your impact on the environment.
I know this is scary (It is for me.), but forewarned is forearmed. In time we’ll make it.
Here are some links to useful sites:
Sectors Of The American Economy Most At Risk From Peak Oil
Winning The Oil Endgame
Former BP Geologist On Peak Oil
Preparing For A Post Peak Life, part of postpeakliving.com. There are three videos totalling about 60 minutes. The first 8 minutes of the first video explains things in a nutshell. There information on peak oil on this page. It is run by André Angelantoni, whose biography can be read on the site.
Part three will look at specifically how journalists are part of the problem and how we can be part of the solution.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Peak Oil Part I
There’s an old saying with regards to falls from great heights that it’s not the fall that kills you, but the sudden stop at the end. Well for roughly the past 65 years we’ve been falling without realizing it and we’re about to reach the sudden stop at the end. What I’m referring to is the era of cheap oil, which is about to come to an abrupt end. Notice I did not say the end of oil, but the end of cheap oil.
Originally there were an estimated two trillion barrels of oil in the ground. Of this we’ve used roughly half. No problem you say we’ve still got at least 50 years before we have to start worrying. Wrong. What we’ve used is the easy to get at and cheap to produce oil. Think Saudi Arabia, Texas and southern Alberta. It costs roughly $10 a barrel or less to refine. Compare this to off shore drilling, the tar sands and the oil shale, which cost roughly $70-$80 a barrel or more to refine.
Peak oil also means peak production. Production is believed to have peaked about 2008 and has now plateaued. Currently we use between 80 and 83 million barrels of oil per day. That is about where production is at. It is expected to start declining as early as next year. (see The Guardian ) And we will never use all the remaining oil because it will be too costly to extract in terms of both money and energy. As one person so aptly put it, the human body is made up of roughly 70% water, but all we need to do is to lose 15% of that and we die.
Here’s a short video on Peak Oil - How Will You Ride The Slide? The comment above comes from the comments to this video.
There are some who say that new extraction technologies allow us to get more oil from existing wells. That is certainly possible as an article in the May, 2013 issue of The Atlantic shows the Kern River field in California was estimated to have just 47 million barrels of recoverable oil left in 1949 after 50 years of extraction. By 1989 945 million barrels were removed and an estimated 647 million barrels remained. By 2009 1.3 billion additional barrels of oil had been extracted and an estimated 600 million barrels remained. The field will inevitably run dry, but the question is when.
Others point to oil shale and claim that could save the day. Well the Bakken field in North Dakota deplete fast and estimates I’ve seen say this field could peak between 2017 and 2020. Unlike conventional or offshore fields shale oil fields do not plateau, but immediately start dropping once they reach their peak of production. So they could at best give us roughly an additional 5 or 6 years before the consequences of peak oil truly set in.
There is also the possibility that methane hydrate (crystalline natural gas) could take us off oil and coal and thus save our economies. However, there are major problems with this. It is found in low concentrations on the continental slopes. Since it is in a form similar to dry ice that means it has to be mined rather than drilled. Then there’s the problem of transporting it to shore. Finally it’s very costly.
The Japanese have been working at this for the past twenty years and estimate that it will take at least another ten years to finally bring this to production. So assuming they are right that would still leave a gap of as much as ten years between when oil production starts to decline and when methane hydrate starts to take over.
Again I refer you to the article in The Atlantic on this issue.
One thing that will definitely delay the consequences of the permanent decline in oil production is a new great depression. As I’ve discussed in previous blogs (see The New Great Depression) we’re facing a debt bubble, which is about to implode and will begin to happen this year. It will trigger a world-wide depression that will, unfortunately, be worse than the 1930s depression. If the depression suppresses oil demand deep enough and long enough it could delay the fall in production by perhaps as much as twenty years.
Let’s say that the depression reduces world demand from the current 83 million barrels a day of oil to 63 million barrels over 15 years. In 15 years time as global economies recover and oil demand starts to rise again we could find that we now have a permanent maximum production of say 70 million barrels of oil a day and declining. If we haven’t begun to take serious steps to wean ourselves off oil we will once again be facing very serious trouble.
What to do about peak oil, how to cope and the post peak world may look like is the subject of my next blog post in about a month’s time.
Copyright 2014 Peter D. A. Warwick
Originally there were an estimated two trillion barrels of oil in the ground. Of this we’ve used roughly half. No problem you say we’ve still got at least 50 years before we have to start worrying. Wrong. What we’ve used is the easy to get at and cheap to produce oil. Think Saudi Arabia, Texas and southern Alberta. It costs roughly $10 a barrel or less to refine. Compare this to off shore drilling, the tar sands and the oil shale, which cost roughly $70-$80 a barrel or more to refine.
Peak oil also means peak production. Production is believed to have peaked about 2008 and has now plateaued. Currently we use between 80 and 83 million barrels of oil per day. That is about where production is at. It is expected to start declining as early as next year. (see The Guardian ) And we will never use all the remaining oil because it will be too costly to extract in terms of both money and energy. As one person so aptly put it, the human body is made up of roughly 70% water, but all we need to do is to lose 15% of that and we die.
Here’s a short video on Peak Oil - How Will You Ride The Slide? The comment above comes from the comments to this video.
There are some who say that new extraction technologies allow us to get more oil from existing wells. That is certainly possible as an article in the May, 2013 issue of The Atlantic shows the Kern River field in California was estimated to have just 47 million barrels of recoverable oil left in 1949 after 50 years of extraction. By 1989 945 million barrels were removed and an estimated 647 million barrels remained. By 2009 1.3 billion additional barrels of oil had been extracted and an estimated 600 million barrels remained. The field will inevitably run dry, but the question is when.
Others point to oil shale and claim that could save the day. Well the Bakken field in North Dakota deplete fast and estimates I’ve seen say this field could peak between 2017 and 2020. Unlike conventional or offshore fields shale oil fields do not plateau, but immediately start dropping once they reach their peak of production. So they could at best give us roughly an additional 5 or 6 years before the consequences of peak oil truly set in.
There is also the possibility that methane hydrate (crystalline natural gas) could take us off oil and coal and thus save our economies. However, there are major problems with this. It is found in low concentrations on the continental slopes. Since it is in a form similar to dry ice that means it has to be mined rather than drilled. Then there’s the problem of transporting it to shore. Finally it’s very costly.
The Japanese have been working at this for the past twenty years and estimate that it will take at least another ten years to finally bring this to production. So assuming they are right that would still leave a gap of as much as ten years between when oil production starts to decline and when methane hydrate starts to take over.
Again I refer you to the article in The Atlantic on this issue.
One thing that will definitely delay the consequences of the permanent decline in oil production is a new great depression. As I’ve discussed in previous blogs (see The New Great Depression) we’re facing a debt bubble, which is about to implode and will begin to happen this year. It will trigger a world-wide depression that will, unfortunately, be worse than the 1930s depression. If the depression suppresses oil demand deep enough and long enough it could delay the fall in production by perhaps as much as twenty years.
Let’s say that the depression reduces world demand from the current 83 million barrels a day of oil to 63 million barrels over 15 years. In 15 years time as global economies recover and oil demand starts to rise again we could find that we now have a permanent maximum production of say 70 million barrels of oil a day and declining. If we haven’t begun to take serious steps to wean ourselves off oil we will once again be facing very serious trouble.
What to do about peak oil, how to cope and the post peak world may look like is the subject of my next blog post in about a month’s time.
Copyright 2014 Peter D. A. Warwick
Monday, December 2, 2013
Querying
Let’s face it querying is a crap shoot or, as one person put it, a moving target. I say this as editors don’t always know what they want. One editor will take a one paragraph query, while another wants a one page query. The fun part is when a junior editor wants queries one way and a senior editor wants them another. Also an editor might take queries on one subject one day and reject queries on the same subject the very next day. Occasionally an editor will actually admit they have no clue what they want. I once had one tell me that, while my query was good, they were rejecting it because it didn’t catch the person’s fancy, whatever that is. Another editor might have assigned me the story. Sometimes an editor will reject a perfectly good query that’s right on target for no other reason than it’s late in the day and they just want to go home or they might be under a lot of stress when your query is read.
I once picked up an assignment on the basis of one sentence in a letter of inquiry to a magazine I didn’t know too well. On the other hand I sent a well-crafted query with a unique angle to a magazine I knew very well. Initially the editor was very encouraging and invited me to call. When I did the editor turned me down because I did not work in their field, something the person already knew. It was a complete waste of time.
In all fairness to editors they receive A LOT of queries that are totally inappropriate. The potential writer may demonstrate they haven’t studied the publication by querying on a subject that has just been covered or that they never cover. The potential writer may simply not know enough about the subject they want to write on. Editors also receive a lot of queries that are too broad and not focused enough. The writer might propose an article on women’s health, for example, instead of narrowing it down to a specific aspect of it. I confess I’ve made all of these mistakes at times much to my regret and embarrassment.
While querying is generally a serious and maddening business sometimes it can be funny too. Back in snail mail days Writer’s Digest, which was supposedly writer-friendly, used to send out rejections that were hilarious. It was a form rejection that rambled on and on and on about why they hated using form rejections, but here’s why. This continued for a while even after they published an article about using check-list form rejections. I don’t know what they do now as I haven’t queried them or looked at the magazine in years, but hopefully they’ve grown since then. I still recommend Writer's Digest for beginners.
Bottom line is while querying is quite a bit of a crap shoot, studying the market, having at least a general knowledge of the topic you’re proposing will definitely increase your odds. Finally above all keep your sense of humor you’ll need it.
By the sorry for missing the November post, but it was web host renewal time and as they only sent me the invoice the day before they blocked access to my website I couldn’t post anything. Frustrating.
I once picked up an assignment on the basis of one sentence in a letter of inquiry to a magazine I didn’t know too well. On the other hand I sent a well-crafted query with a unique angle to a magazine I knew very well. Initially the editor was very encouraging and invited me to call. When I did the editor turned me down because I did not work in their field, something the person already knew. It was a complete waste of time.
In all fairness to editors they receive A LOT of queries that are totally inappropriate. The potential writer may demonstrate they haven’t studied the publication by querying on a subject that has just been covered or that they never cover. The potential writer may simply not know enough about the subject they want to write on. Editors also receive a lot of queries that are too broad and not focused enough. The writer might propose an article on women’s health, for example, instead of narrowing it down to a specific aspect of it. I confess I’ve made all of these mistakes at times much to my regret and embarrassment.
While querying is generally a serious and maddening business sometimes it can be funny too. Back in snail mail days Writer’s Digest, which was supposedly writer-friendly, used to send out rejections that were hilarious. It was a form rejection that rambled on and on and on about why they hated using form rejections, but here’s why. This continued for a while even after they published an article about using check-list form rejections. I don’t know what they do now as I haven’t queried them or looked at the magazine in years, but hopefully they’ve grown since then. I still recommend Writer's Digest for beginners.
Bottom line is while querying is quite a bit of a crap shoot, studying the market, having at least a general knowledge of the topic you’re proposing will definitely increase your odds. Finally above all keep your sense of humor you’ll need it.
By the sorry for missing the November post, but it was web host renewal time and as they only sent me the invoice the day before they blocked access to my website I couldn’t post anything. Frustrating.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Help My Mind Is Blank - Writer's Block
Sorry for the delay in this month’s blog, but I suffered writer’s block. For the few of you who have never experienced it, it is where your mind goes completely blank when faced with a clean screen or sheet of paper and you have no clue what to write. (My wife says I have no clue about many things, but that is another story.) It can be especially frustrating when you’re totally on your own having to come up with both the subject and the words to say. In these times it can seem like your battery is running low and you need to recharge it, but there is no place handy to do it. And so you have to try to get every last bit of juice out it until you are able to get it recharged.
To recharge my batteries I often find either making a list of potential subjects to write about or reviewing what you and others have written can be a big help. Another is to read a newspaper or magazine. If you have the luxury, delaying for a day or two might be just what you need. Call a good friend you can bounce things off of and maybe the two of you can brain storm an idea to get you started.
It’s a bit easier when you at least have a general idea of what you’re writing, but just can’t seem to figure out how to start. I often find that just writing anything related to the subject at hand is better than staring at a blank screen or piece of paper even if it’s the worse piece of crap you’ve ever written. No one needs to see it, but you. It starts the creative juices flowing. Once you’ve written something it is very easy to change it.
Sometimes even that may be impossible in your present situation. In this case read something similar to what you’re going to write. Go over your research. Take a walk, play a game, go shopping or do whatever to take your mind off things and then come back to it. I’ve found this technique helps when you’re really stuck for words. I’ve been amazed what your mind can come up with once you’re fed it and allowed it time to think. I used to think I was procrastinating, but now I realize this is part of the creative process.
So best wishes to those of you, who like me, suffer from the occasional bit of writer’s block.
To recharge my batteries I often find either making a list of potential subjects to write about or reviewing what you and others have written can be a big help. Another is to read a newspaper or magazine. If you have the luxury, delaying for a day or two might be just what you need. Call a good friend you can bounce things off of and maybe the two of you can brain storm an idea to get you started.
It’s a bit easier when you at least have a general idea of what you’re writing, but just can’t seem to figure out how to start. I often find that just writing anything related to the subject at hand is better than staring at a blank screen or piece of paper even if it’s the worse piece of crap you’ve ever written. No one needs to see it, but you. It starts the creative juices flowing. Once you’ve written something it is very easy to change it.
Sometimes even that may be impossible in your present situation. In this case read something similar to what you’re going to write. Go over your research. Take a walk, play a game, go shopping or do whatever to take your mind off things and then come back to it. I’ve found this technique helps when you’re really stuck for words. I’ve been amazed what your mind can come up with once you’re fed it and allowed it time to think. I used to think I was procrastinating, but now I realize this is part of the creative process.
So best wishes to those of you, who like me, suffer from the occasional bit of writer’s block.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Another Look At Newspapers
With the Toronto Star going behind a pay wall it’s time again to revisit the issue, not that anything much has changed from the last time I wrote about this. As a reader I understand and appreciate the Star’s need for an improved income stream in order to do investigative reporting, general reporting, cover special events and for columnists. However, it can be very counterproductive.
In my case twenty years ago I got about 70-80% of my news from newspapers and the rest from tv and magazines. Today it varies from about 1-40%, depending on the subject. The bulk of my news comes from tv, magazines, ezines, online lists like Newswise and All Aboard, press releases, blogs and websites. If the Toronto Star and most other papers were to shut down today I wouldn’t miss them as much as I would have twenty years ago.
So what to do? For starters the Star and other papers need get ads that people are actually interested in. I remember this one VERY annoying pop-up ad on the Sun Media papers websites for bridal dresses. It was totally irrelevant for me as I’m both male, very happily married and with no children. There have been other ads that were totally irrelevant to me on various newspaper sites, including the Star’s. What’s one thing that all of us need on a daily basis? FOOD! So where are the grocery store ads? I’ve yet to see one on any newspaper site. Put them on and I promise I will look at them at least once a week. The same thing for ads for other things that it shouldn’t take a genius to figure out what people might be interested in, like hardware and clothing stores.
Another thing, why, if I want to subscribe to several newspapers, do I have to go to the Toronto Star’s website and subscribe to the paper and then go to the Globe & Mail, New York Times, St. Catharines Standard and any other paper I may wish to subscribe to instead of going to just one website? It shouldn’t that hard to do. Heck I can go to a cable company and I can at least buy package deals on t.v. stations. Metrolinx has been creating one fare card for use across the GTA.
And why can’t there be two versions of a paper and several levels of access instead of just two? One version would be the full subscriber version. The other would be the free version with all the things that remain free with synopsis of non-free articles, like the investigative series the Star did on Marineland. From the shorter version of the article have a link to the full version, which would count towards the 10 or whatever free articles per month or require a subscription to. Right now my choices are 10 free articles a month or a full subscription. Why not another level that allows me to buy say 25 or 30 articles a month? For some people that might be all they need. It shouldn’t be that difficult to do this.
And please don’t do what the St. Catharines Standard did, which turned me off the paper. I quit subscribing to the physical paper as the price of the subscription kept going up and I didn’t think I was getting good value. I considered subscribing digitally, but when I investigated it found that I had to go through an American company and pay in American dollars or the Canadian equivalent. That has totally turned me off the paper.
I find it ironic that newspapers were among the first to embrace the Internet and yet are still having problems in learning how to deal with it. They remind of Kodak, who invented the digital camera and yet went bankrupt as they weren’t able to figure out what to do with it. It’s a shame because I VERY strongly that we still need newspapers, but not in their current form.
My advice to the Star, Standard and other newspapers, if you’re listening, which I doubt it, GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER, if not and you are determined to commit suicide then please do, but do it quickly and get it over with. This slow death is like watching someone kill themselves by smoking.
In my case twenty years ago I got about 70-80% of my news from newspapers and the rest from tv and magazines. Today it varies from about 1-40%, depending on the subject. The bulk of my news comes from tv, magazines, ezines, online lists like Newswise and All Aboard, press releases, blogs and websites. If the Toronto Star and most other papers were to shut down today I wouldn’t miss them as much as I would have twenty years ago.
So what to do? For starters the Star and other papers need get ads that people are actually interested in. I remember this one VERY annoying pop-up ad on the Sun Media papers websites for bridal dresses. It was totally irrelevant for me as I’m both male, very happily married and with no children. There have been other ads that were totally irrelevant to me on various newspaper sites, including the Star’s. What’s one thing that all of us need on a daily basis? FOOD! So where are the grocery store ads? I’ve yet to see one on any newspaper site. Put them on and I promise I will look at them at least once a week. The same thing for ads for other things that it shouldn’t take a genius to figure out what people might be interested in, like hardware and clothing stores.
Another thing, why, if I want to subscribe to several newspapers, do I have to go to the Toronto Star’s website and subscribe to the paper and then go to the Globe & Mail, New York Times, St. Catharines Standard and any other paper I may wish to subscribe to instead of going to just one website? It shouldn’t that hard to do. Heck I can go to a cable company and I can at least buy package deals on t.v. stations. Metrolinx has been creating one fare card for use across the GTA.
And why can’t there be two versions of a paper and several levels of access instead of just two? One version would be the full subscriber version. The other would be the free version with all the things that remain free with synopsis of non-free articles, like the investigative series the Star did on Marineland. From the shorter version of the article have a link to the full version, which would count towards the 10 or whatever free articles per month or require a subscription to. Right now my choices are 10 free articles a month or a full subscription. Why not another level that allows me to buy say 25 or 30 articles a month? For some people that might be all they need. It shouldn’t be that difficult to do this.
And please don’t do what the St. Catharines Standard did, which turned me off the paper. I quit subscribing to the physical paper as the price of the subscription kept going up and I didn’t think I was getting good value. I considered subscribing digitally, but when I investigated it found that I had to go through an American company and pay in American dollars or the Canadian equivalent. That has totally turned me off the paper.
I find it ironic that newspapers were among the first to embrace the Internet and yet are still having problems in learning how to deal with it. They remind of Kodak, who invented the digital camera and yet went bankrupt as they weren’t able to figure out what to do with it. It’s a shame because I VERY strongly that we still need newspapers, but not in their current form.
My advice to the Star, Standard and other newspapers, if you’re listening, which I doubt it, GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER, if not and you are determined to commit suicide then please do, but do it quickly and get it over with. This slow death is like watching someone kill themselves by smoking.
Friday, August 2, 2013
PR 101
Just like death and taxes, accidents are a fact of life. There’s no escaping it. So why were Edward Burckhardt and the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway seemingly so totally unprepared for the accident at Lac Megantic? It’s not like derailments are uncommon. This has become a textbook case of what not to do in a crisis.
So here’s what you should do.
Develop a plan of action well in advance of any crisis. Waiting for a crisis to happen and then trying to ad-live is no way to handle it. The action plan should include how to deal with the media, the victims and the public at large, including politicians and others businesses. The plan should also include how to handle the monetary aspects of a crisis.
Treat the media with respect and don’t lecture them. Answer questions truthfully, which doesn’t mean telling them everything you know. The media is just trying to do their job and most of their questions are predictable.
When a crisis, like the one at Lac Megantic, happens the CEO should show up within 24 hours not 4 days later as Burckhardt did. A delay in showing up signals that the CEO doesn’t care. However, the visit must be carefully managed keeping the CEO clear of the immediate disaster area so as not to interfere and must try to show genuine concern. Basically put yourself in the place of those immediately impacted by the accident and ask yourself how you would like to be treated.
Wait for the facts to present themselves before making a comment, passing judgment or admitting liability. Burckhardt first blamed the firefighters and then blamed the engineer for the accident at a time when it was too early to know exactly what happened. And what if the person or persons you blamed turn out to be truly innocent? Now you’ve got another problem on your hands. In a crisis there is lots of misinformation and speculation floating around, which the CEO and other company officials don’t need to contribute to.
Come with money. Even if you aren’t legally liable bringing at least some money shows genuine concern and will go far to help improve the imagine of your company. And pay your bills promptly.
One last thing don’t act nervous or play the poor me game. As Alan Bonner said in the Toronto Star the crisis isn’t about you.
Here’s a story I heard about how the Boy Scouts Of America handled an accident at one of their camps. One teen took an unauthorized joy ride with a friend in a motor vehicle and was killed in an accident and the other teen injured. The Boy Scouts paid for the funeral of the boy who was killed and the medical expenses of the one who was injured. They treated the families with genuine concern and respect. The result was neither family sued. That’s how to handle a crisis.
Unfortunately the Lac Megantic accident may end Burckhardt’s career or at the very least tarnish it. This is sad, as prior to this he was greatly admired in railway industry for turning around several railways in the United States and New Zealand. “Ed is a living legend,” Henry Posner, CEO of Railroad Development Corp., quoted in Business Week Business Week
The bottom line for those of you working in public relations is be prepared.
So here’s what you should do.
Develop a plan of action well in advance of any crisis. Waiting for a crisis to happen and then trying to ad-live is no way to handle it. The action plan should include how to deal with the media, the victims and the public at large, including politicians and others businesses. The plan should also include how to handle the monetary aspects of a crisis.
Treat the media with respect and don’t lecture them. Answer questions truthfully, which doesn’t mean telling them everything you know. The media is just trying to do their job and most of their questions are predictable.
When a crisis, like the one at Lac Megantic, happens the CEO should show up within 24 hours not 4 days later as Burckhardt did. A delay in showing up signals that the CEO doesn’t care. However, the visit must be carefully managed keeping the CEO clear of the immediate disaster area so as not to interfere and must try to show genuine concern. Basically put yourself in the place of those immediately impacted by the accident and ask yourself how you would like to be treated.
Wait for the facts to present themselves before making a comment, passing judgment or admitting liability. Burckhardt first blamed the firefighters and then blamed the engineer for the accident at a time when it was too early to know exactly what happened. And what if the person or persons you blamed turn out to be truly innocent? Now you’ve got another problem on your hands. In a crisis there is lots of misinformation and speculation floating around, which the CEO and other company officials don’t need to contribute to.
Come with money. Even if you aren’t legally liable bringing at least some money shows genuine concern and will go far to help improve the imagine of your company. And pay your bills promptly.
One last thing don’t act nervous or play the poor me game. As Alan Bonner said in the Toronto Star the crisis isn’t about you.
Here’s a story I heard about how the Boy Scouts Of America handled an accident at one of their camps. One teen took an unauthorized joy ride with a friend in a motor vehicle and was killed in an accident and the other teen injured. The Boy Scouts paid for the funeral of the boy who was killed and the medical expenses of the one who was injured. They treated the families with genuine concern and respect. The result was neither family sued. That’s how to handle a crisis.
Unfortunately the Lac Megantic accident may end Burckhardt’s career or at the very least tarnish it. This is sad, as prior to this he was greatly admired in railway industry for turning around several railways in the United States and New Zealand. “Ed is a living legend,” Henry Posner, CEO of Railroad Development Corp., quoted in Business Week Business Week
The bottom line for those of you working in public relations is be prepared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)