Have your say

What's the fallout been to your (paper/show/network)'s coverage of the multi-media suicide note left by the Virginia Tech shooter?
There has been  vigorous internal discussions here at the Spectator on our decisions to publish several of the photographs (and portions of the video transcript). We ran six photos on our front page yesterday: gripping the hammer; talking into the camera; smiling; two guns in outstretched hands;
pointing gun at camera; and holding gun to his head. Opinion was as divided and as vigorous as I suspect it was in most newsrooms, especially when one reporter checked over 100 front pages via the
Newseum site and found that we were one of only two to use the "suicide" photo on our front.
I see from a Globe story that the CBC decided to air none of the material - anyone else go that route?
We also asked readers for their thoughts and have published a selection on the web - with a picture  of the front page, if you're interested at: http://tinyurl.com/2teac9 (or go to www.thespec.com and click on the link in the NewsNow box).
Readers, by the way, are highly critical of our decision, by a 4 or 5 to 1 margin, it looks like.
Thoughts and experiences, anyone?

Bill Dunphy
(Who tried - and failed - to convince his paper to not publish any more Karla Homolka stories larger than a brief at the time of her release from prison)

Harper Government controls the media. The Canadian Media has been used by Harper and makes it harder for Canadians to get honest democratic reporting. Why is there not more reporters that will make an honest effort and get the news that Canadians deserve. Harper used the media on his last trip to Afghanistan to be given photo opportunities for Canadians back home. From the line of questions, I do not understand why the reporters went, Canadians did not get the truth about the visit, as reporters are controlled by Harper. Reporters, stand up for the rights of all Canadians, WHY HAVE YOU GONE INTO THIS BUSINESS. Make a stand. it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO. For those reporters that make honest efforts against odds but forward by the Harper Government, MY RESPECT AND THANK YOU. MUCH RESPECT. and to Canadians. SPEAK UP OR PUT YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND WHY HARPER KICKS YOUR BUTT.

Can Anyone suggest decent videos/DVDs to use in a beginning news writing class. Thanks, Ken Tabacsko Alma College

I read Gary Mason's recent column in the Op-Ed section of the Globe with dismay. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/quantum-computing-may-lead-to-a-quantum-canadian-leap/article1496565/ How does Canada's newspaper of record justify giving prominent space to a story about a maybe-soon-to-be commercial product, without the slightest balance or critical inquiry? The only person Mason quotes is the president and CEO of D-Waves, and he dismisses some very viable scientific skepticism by saying it's too complicated to explain. The skepticism, by the way, comes from reputable scientists at MIT and UC Santa Barbara. But whatever the merits of the science behind this new computer, readers deserve more than fluff and hyperbole about a new gadget that may or may not work, and that may or may not be a boost to Canadian research.

Hi Diane, Mary Agnes here from the CAJ. We do still have a national staffer in Ottawa, but he is on part-time hours. Not ideal, but also not a permanent thing, we're hoping. As for the summary of reader responses, are you referring to the comments on the piece on J-Source recently about the state of the CAJ? If you are, I can tell you we poured over all the comments to glean ideas about how to move forward. We also got some ideas (along with some very welcome words of support) sent directly to me and our national office. Is that what you wanted to know? If not, drop me a line at maryagnes.welch@freepress.mb.ca and I can fill you in on anything else. MA

Yesterday, on CBC's Connect with Mark Kelley, reporter Jennifer Hollett did a piece on Craigslist and the controversy in the US over its censoring of the "erotic" listings. http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/Connect_with_Mark_Kelley/ID=1587270169 Hollett interviewed a Toronto woman who said that the erotic ads on Craigslist in Canada and the US are a front for human traffickers of women and children for the purposes of sex. The interview was a strong one, based largely on the woman's own experience. However, that's where the story ended. Hollett did NOT try to validate the woman's hypothesis by, for example, contacting any of the people posting the erotic ads and trying to determine if, in fact, they are being exploited, or if they are adults and free agents. That would be a natural journalistic follow-up to a story like this. But it didn't happen. Instead, Hollett introduced a clip from a CNN reporter asking the man who runs Craigslist: "What are you doing to protect these girls?" There was a 3-second pause, and then the clip ended. Craig (last name not provided) eventually responded to the CNN reporter, but Hollett didn't tell us what he said. His pause, we are left to believe, was enough to damn him. It was the classic how-long-have-you-been-beating-your-wife interrogation, carrying a presumption of guilt, along with a wink and a smirk. Who says the "girls" need "protection?" Sounds like a story that needs more work.