Sez Charlie Smith of the Georgia Straight on the subject of television journalism (his blog in the alternative newspaper is a rant about the resignation of a NDP candidate in British Columbia):
“In Canada, our dumb, pot-smoking-obsessed, issue-avoiding television news programs are probably elevating the risk of a Conservative majority government. Time will tell if Harper can replicate the financial and foreign-affairs records of the Bush administration.”
Jeez Charlie. Why don’t you tell us what you really think?
Continue Reading Blame TV news
Two prominent Newfoundland journalists have crossed the line to run as candidates – and “it’s not pretty,”
observes Greg Locke in this J-Source post.
But when the Sydney Morning Herald threw out the question to readers – Should Ex-journos
Become Pollies? – the response was milder than you might expect. The
question brings to mind the case of former MP and ex-journo Dick Proctor, who
flipped into ‘journalism mode,’ scribbling notes at the sound of a juicy high-level
conversation on an airplane. Jon Filson raises the question: What would a working
journalist have done with the notes?
Then there’s the reverse play: when politicos become
journos. Eric Green of the Washington-watching website America.gov argues politicians may bring
their spin with them, but they also bring an inside track on issues that the
rest of us can only dream about. In Blurry
Line Separates Politics, Journalism, Green points to the example of the
late Tim Russert, an ex-politico who established a solid journalistic reputation.
But this only works when allegiances are shed, the article cautions. In other
words, blurry or not, the line matters – and once you’ve crossed, it’s not so
easy to go back.
Has the defence department muzzled its employees?
Reported Canadian Press: “The Defence Department has ordered staff to limit media interviews during the federal election campaign in a move critics charge is nothing more than an attempt to contain potentially damaging coverage of the Afghan mission.” CP quoted Carleton University journalism professor Chris Waddell criticizing the order: “Whether there’s an election on or not, these people are public servants and accountability shouldn’t be suspended in the course of an election campaign nor should information be suspended.”
But the CP story also quoted a statement from an un-named spokeswoman in the department’s media office that officials “continue to communicate with media and the public and grant select interviews.”
Clear as mud.
Continue Reading Defence officials muzzled?
Federal delays in responding to public requests are at a “crisis level”
and Canada lags behind many other countries on openness scale, says a recent report on freedom of information access laws worldwide.
Continue Reading Canada’s information less free, says report
Elections produce a lot of numbers. A guide to some of the online resources available to help you get on top of the numbers game.
How prepared are journalists to analyze and report on economic issues?
Continue Reading It’s the economy — are we stupid?
Canwest News Service reporter Archie McLean looked for coverage of our federal election in the foreign press and didn’t find much. News media that have reported or commented on the Canadian campaign include The Guardian (columnist despises the Harper government), The Wall St. Journal (editorial writer loves the Harper government) and The New York Times (amazed Canadian politics gets dirty).
Continue Reading Election north of 49 mostly ignored by foreign media
Back in 2005, researchers at the universities of British Columbia and Saskatchewan found that the press was sloppy in its poll reporting during the ’04 federal campaign. The study concluded with a “hope” that future poll reporting would be more compliant with the Elections Act.
Now, a group of Laurier University researchers, critiquing the Globe and Mail’s ‘key constituency’ poll information, state: “Unfortunately this innovative approach seems to be making claims that cannot be substantiated by the data.” < ?xml:namespace prefix = o />
As Canadian news organizations bid to outdo each other in displaying Web 2.0 savvy in their online election coverage, a U.S. study of young voters suggests they should beware of going overboard. Younger voters, it reports, may actually be turned off.
Continue Reading Young voters not impressed by Web 2.0 election coverage, U.S. study suggests
The leaders of the NDP and Conservatives have backed down on their opposition to Elizabeth May being included in the leader’s debate. Was it common sense and an example of character? Was it mere petty politics, a response to a public outcry that May was excluded? Whatever — it’s about time.
Meanwhile, former CBC News chief Tony Burman has a piece in the Globe and Mail online calling the election debate process “a sham” and calling for “Canadians – through the CRTC – to pull the plug on the networks and entrust this vital mission to an independent, non-partisan ‘commission’ similar to how it is done in the U.S.”
I think Burman is right. The refusal of the Tory and NDP leaders to debate May was essentially blackmail — the stand by Stephen Harper and Jack Layton that were May included they’d take their marbles and go home was juvenile at best. It was not only an embarrassing, craven way to play politics, it was a successful attempt to hold the media at ransom. If the political parties were not capable of rising above it, the media consortium that organizes the debates should have been. Independent decision making and clear rules are needed.
As things now stand Joe Clark is right: in a piece criticizing partisanship and arguing that the tone of Canadian politics has sunk, the ex-prime minister called for May to be included and slammed the system as “a club, whose members set their own rules.”
Continue Reading Greens and the election debate