Recent comments
 | Support J-Source | ||
 | Best online-only article or series | ||
J-Source and ProjetJ are projects of The Canadian Journalism Foundation in collaboration with leading schools and organizations Editor-in-chief, J-Source: | |||
| Support J-Source | ||
| Best online-only article or series | ||
J-Source and ProjetJ are projects of The Canadian Journalism Foundation in collaboration with leading schools and organizations Editor-in-chief, J-Source: | |||
I suggest that Justin Ling should read, or perhaps re-read, two pieces from the Canadian Journalism Project:
1. "What is Journalism? The CAJ’s ethics committee takes a stab at definition," by Patrick Brethour, and
2. "What is Journalism?" a report by the Ethics Advisory Committee of The Canadian Association of Journalists.
Sure, I think it's vital that contemporary journalists reject the traditional idea of a "view from nowhere," (see, for example, Jay rosen). In so far as Ling seems to be advocating for this, I agree. But Sun News seems far too interested, and too lacking in transparency about their interests, to meet the criteria set out by the CAJ. And even though Ling down plays the role of Ezra Levant, it's kinda because he has to: Levant is a well known public relations and communications professional and he's worked a large number of private contracts for multiple right wing and industrial interests.
I agree with you, brilliant work for sure. Nicely written post by by the way. Regan, you have done a good job. Take care
vous etez audacieux, tout ceu qui ont essayer de toucher aux system de ploutocratie mondial sont effacer et minimiser d'impact abituellement, mais je crois que ces la meilleur chance de percer les division social, economique et territoriel que d'informer la société et j'aimerais avoir une chance de faire ma part de quelque facon que ce soit !
meme si je crois qu'ils faudra continuer la batail contre ce system de privatistion de developpement pour mettre une poigné de famille informé juska la moelle par des generation et des génération, qui, avec la plus grande facilité que de juste controler le savoir et les pouvoir. sa cree une société divisée falcifier qui fait decourager chaque personne avec linteligence necesaire pour savoir faire les lien des abscence de reponce... mais comment ne pas voir que le monde cour a sa perte avec un system economique imposé avec des lois mal interpreté dans le but de concerver cet poignée de gens aux pouvoir. on dirai que leconomie qui cour a sa perte en amerique du nord base sur des motif aussi nocif que de vivre le moment present en tout temps sans voir se soucier.
spour sa je dit que ces plus un pouvoir emotif que mediatique, car la tactic morderne du maintien d'unne ploutocratie est de simplement ignorée les idéologiste ou progressiste, car le ''systeme'' batie pour exploité l'ignorance a atteint son appogee depuis longtemps depuis le debut d'un avancement technologique en communication, car ces sa le progres inépuisable, car si on était tout le monde de la planette allié et informé dans une équilible economique stable et un équilibre social basée sur les compétance et non pas sur le savoir des classe social. pour cela il faut partager le progress quit a cognée a chaque porte pour amener un debat mondial pour amener une équilibre total des chose qui nous amenerai a une vitesse de developpement plus vite que jamais réunisant chaque inteligence chaque plus de chaque personne
on a fait l'erreur de prendre un chemin qui nous divise, il est plus que temps de s'unir par la connaissance universel de tous et chaqun
je peut surment amener une contribution quelquonque a tout sa que ce soit en trouvant bénevol qui informerai les gens de ce site de partout dans les rue du quebec pour un rasemblement sur tout patron a intention special, qui deverais etre ilegal par logic de morale
Did Madhavi-Acharya also involved in a plagiarism charge many years ago?
Looks like there still are a few rewrite guys hanging around, eh? Again, there's been a sea change in Society and not everyone has caught up. At least some of us, when we used to rewrite an article, would actually rewrite the facts, which are not in dispute in any case.
I'd like to come back to the web in a hundred years to see how many news sites there are, and how everyone refrains from copying everyone else's facts. . . .
Why am I not surprised? the entire history of Native/White relations is a trail of broken promises, misunderstanding, sleight-of-hand, recriminations, apologies followed by more of the same, and if I were a Native from Attawapiskat I wouldn't be happy with the way the leaked media report was handled.
How is the auditor's comment about lack of supporting documents any different from comments on audited bookkeeping in the federal bureaucracy? Having been there I could tell you a few stories that are at least as bad as what appears to be problematic here. And I have no doubt that bookkeeping at media headquarters has a few weak areas of its own.
What people ought to be angry about is that the federal government hands an amount of money to the Native community and essentially says "take it, use it" etc but never teaches any one of them how and what to use as supporting documents, how to enter expenditures against the appropriate line items, and all the other fun basics of bookkeeping that everyone loves. Is it just me or is there a distinct odour of "give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves"???
The auditors also slammed the federal government and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, tho that was lost in most of the electronic reports (those pesky ten-second clips! and those angst-riddled reports of journalists savaged by Attawapiskat's policeman! having to leave without a story!)
Here's what ought not to be overlooked: there are traditional ways of doing business, no matter which side of the equation you are looking at. But there has been a sea change in attitude by Society as a whole, necessitating more rigorous record keeping for almost everything.
Then how can Natives - whom the Government always leaves alone at such times - keep better records when they have neither been informed of, nor taught, the stricter requirements?
In the following sentence: "you cannot apply your own standards and your own morays to people".
"Morays" looks like it should be "morals".
I am a great fan of LaPierre’s, the time span of work was really small but it was memorable enough! There are great works done and will never be forgotten.
The Star's editor and the writer owe readers a timely and full explanation. Plagiarism is among the most serious threats to a newspaper's credibility.
A high-minded invite to media tradespersons to be more 'mindful', seems rather too precious for use in the trench warfare to today’s revenue-stricken marketplace.
Unmindful journalism -- using negative, distorting biases, wishful thinking, dismissive of contrary facts, while promoting stereotypes -- predominates largely for the same reason political attack-ads do: it works. The revenue-stream challenges confronting each and every media format today are certain to ensure that the decline in standards many note will only continue.
Perhaps the proposal of Messr. Bryan Myles -- president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec – to certify journalists, should be extended throughout the country. A certification should also exist for corporations, too.
A consumer of information, like me, needs before-the-fact reassurance that standards not only exist but will be reinforced. One could then safely select and chew-on any certified media-product, reasonably confident that its DNA will not prove corrupted.
I realize that on December 17, 2012, there was no report—or hard information available—about the actual "date of death", only a confirmation of LaPierre's death. On Dec. 21, the Ottawa Citizen published the obituary for Laurier LaPierre, including Dec. 16 as the actual date of death.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/ottawacitizen/ -- (Choose "LaPierre, Laurier", under Recent Obituaries)
Therefore, your lede should say --
"Laurier LaPierre, who died Sunday, December 16, at the age of 83, was a pioneer in modern television broadcasting. His flamboyant style was designed to engage and provoke, but ultimately to hold powerful people to account."
Your lede (at J-News) currently states that he died on Monday, which is incorrect.
"The first duty of a publisher is to stay in business."
Not sure who first said that; I've heard it attributed to the former Globe and Mail editor-in-chief, Dic Doyle. In any case, the idea is coming up on two centuries old. It dates from the 1830s, when "penny press" publishers began to liberate themselves from ties to partisan political backers by creating a mass audience and selling advertisers their ability to reach it.
New York publishers were the pioneers -- the first to recognize that "sales and marketing, strategy, leadership and, first and foremost, revenues" (to use David Skok's words) would create a sustainable revenue base for news-gathering. Pulitzer and Hearst refined the model; British and Canadian newspaper publishers followed. One of the most successful was Joseph Atkinson of the Toronto Star.
Aggressive promotion was a significant part of this strategy from the beginning. Much of it was undertaken by news organizations, but individual columnists and correspondents churned out books based on their news exploits and undertook extensive speaking tours. These folks had no qualms about marketing their work. Neither did privately owned news agencies such as United Press International, or co-operatively-owned agencies such as Reuters selling their services outside their home markets. Now that The Canadian Press is a for-profit agency, it's not surprising to see client relations and marketing move closer to the strategic core.
Editorial departments don't need an impermeable firewall between themselves and promotion or marketing. (Who wouldn't want their work to be promoted?) But where advertising sales are concerned, they do need to be wary. This would have been the reason for the washroom peculiarity Ivor recalls. And as both David and Scott acknowledge, it remains essential to bar advertisers from influencing news decisions.
That concern is as important as ever -- especially as news organizations seeking new revenue streams move more aggressively into custom publishing, develop new forms of advertorial and infotainment, and forge partnerships with non-news organizations centred on news events or issues.
Such endeavours don't necessarily compromise editorial integrity. But they should be carefully designed and transparent.
For example, David asks: "Why not involve the marketing and sales teams in coordinating an event around a particular issue?" Well, if prominent newsmakers appear at an event organized or co-sponsored by a news organization, how much should we be told about who's paying for what, and under what conditions? Or, if a news organization puts on an event featuring a reporter who covers a particular beat and gives preferential access to advertisers in that sector, should it tell the world about the arrangements?
I can recall conversations with advertising sales people for whom editorial integrity was an important concern. They knew it was one of their big selling points.
There's nothing wrong with co-operating to make a business model sustainable. But if that model includes reliable news that's independently gathered and edited, it also needs a clear and public division between the editorial church and the advertising state.
Happy holidays, everyone!
Due date: February 1, 2013
Looking for: Early-career journalists to participate in a 9-month reporting fellowship in East Africa, starting June 2013.
More info: http://www.akfc.ca/join-us/international-development.html
There has got to be more to it than what is being reported. Chances are The Selkirk Record needed to make some cutbacks, and whacked the gal that was causing management the most grief.
Always follow the money.
This story caught my interest, as I have run into these types of situations a number of times in 34 years working in community newspapers.
My first observation is that reporters in doing news stories must be objective and be seen to be objective. In smaller communities, signing a petition, even a fairly general one as in this case, is a strong sign of subjectivity. Whether or not it is the newspaper's policy, journalists should stay away from signing petitions, speaking at public meetings and expressing opinions or other obvious signs of what could be interpreted as bias.
The story's point about sources, businesses or MPs (as mentioned) refusing to deal with a newspaper because of a certain reporter is an important one. This type of pressure is often applied to media outlets, large and small, but can be more pervasive at smaller media outlets. This is often because we are dealing with the same sources on a regular basis, living in the same communities and interacting with them much more than would be the case in a large city.
These are all reasons why it is important to keep being as objective as is humanly possible.
However, it is also important to mention that journalists are called on to express opinions as part of their jobs — if they are editorial or column writers. In such cases, they are being asked to take a stance. In my experience, virtually every community newspaper is happy to allow its reporters to take stands within columns and editorials. I believe this allows reporters to express themselves, and if they do so in a well-researched and well-presented fashion, they will attract interest and readership. They must at the same time be open to those who differ, and be prepared to be chastised in letters, comments on websites etc. It is also important when a newspaper publishes a letter that disagrees with a column or editorial that the reader's opinion be allowed to stand, and not be immediately rebutted.
If an issue comes up which involves a jourmalist's family members, the journalist needs to take a hands off approach and be sure that the news story (or other item) is handled by someone else at the newspaper and that those involved in the issue know that.
Journalists in my experience should not belong to political parties or run for office, even of the smallest nature, until they have left the field of journalism.
I have run into all these situations over the years and it seems to me that adhering to these principles will avoid most problems.
Frank Bucholtz, editor, Langley Times
Does anyone agree that impartiality and fairness are far more comprised when a Legislative reporter is married to a person who works as a high-level communications official for the provincial government? http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/pdf/2012-01-18-Adey.pdf
Ms. Winzoski's action pales in comparison, doesn't it?
Another story that kind of begs a question I have never seen addressed on J-source, or anywhere else where people calling themselves journalists gather to talk about the state of things here in Canada - namely, what kind of media does a country have, and what can it expect from them, when the financial status of whatever media it is, and profits for investors, come ahead of, eclipse, really, providing either high-quality, fair and impartial reporting, or working within a general national environment which allows a wide range of opinions about what to cover, and how, and do so with reliability and trustability? What should a democratic citizenry, through their government, be doing to ensure that their media is not only free, which doesn't seem to be much of a problem, but responsible to 'the people' rather than entirely moulding itself to the desires and demands and POVs of the people (a) expecting a profit from its operation, and (b) expecting any media they own to promote opinions and policies of the owners, which does seem to be a quite major problem these days?
I am sure the first response, should anyone care enough to even bother, will be to try an endrun around the question, by claiming we really do have 'left' and 'right' and 'balanced-centrist' media outlets, with for example the CBC-Toronto Star, NP-Sun, and Globe, respectively, and thus of course the people are well-served, but any impartial consideration of the situation leads very clearly to the conclusion that while all of these major Cdn media outlets have some 'progressive' elements in terms of 'personal freedoms' in Canada (everybody, with the exception of the odd antediluvian or far-right-nutbar columnist featured for some 'color' and/or 'controversy', supports women's rights, gay rights, dealing fairly with first nations, mocking and attacking smokers and people who are disinclined to wear seat belts, etc etc these days, all those 'social' things that might be called 'politically correct') - and every single one of them is also somewhere between center-right and far right economically and politically, and there is simply nothing coming from a truly 'leftist' (as in 'for the interests of the people' rather than the rightwing 'for the interests of big money and 'investors'') side of the spectrum economically or politically to be found in any Canadian (mainstream) media editorially (pointing to an odd column in the Globe or Star with some minor criticism of the latest 'free trade' or regime change operation proposal is not sufficient to label a paper 'leftist' politically, regardless of the screaming from the rightwing nutcases at every tiny word daring to oppose their 'freedom' to do as they wish without criticism, showing little more than their complete disconnection from reality, as they tend to do with everything they write. But I digress ..).
Indeed, rather than a good collection of spirited journals with honest journalists and quality columnists dedicated to working for the people and fostering open, inclusive, wide-ranging discussion and understanding of important issues through speaking for different segments of our society, sort of working mainly around the center left-center right of the economic-political spectrum, which is where most people live and was the situation at one time in the past, the current situation vis a vis the media in Canada is much more like the Canadian media have morphed into a small number of sub-outlets of a single corporate-state media, with different editions and focal points for different demographics but all with the same underlying philosophy and messages concerning the really important stuff (reduce taxes!!!! austerity rules but that's ok it's good for you!!! hate (demon of the day)!!, etc), whilst featuring different opinions on trivial things, for instance encouraging the proles to believe that the Lib-Con-NDP tweedledee-dum-dumber parties actually respresent different ideas of government, and different visions of what they would do in the country if elected, and that keeping up with the latest teen bands and sports news etc is of far more importance and interest on a daily basis than thinking about what is wrong with our country and system that has led to the current mess. No doubt that thought will be met with considerable indignant protests (again if anyone cares enough to read and respond at all), but I would challenge anyone to point to any differences in ongoing, long-term policy between any governments in Canada the last 30 years, federally or provincially - take away party labels and media hype, and you could not pick the dee from the dum in any jurisdiction, every one without exception preaching 'fiscal austerity' and cutting 'fat' from programs and reducing taxes, every one endorsing the latest "free trade" proposal and the 'war on terror' and regime changes around the world and heavier and heavier intrusions of 'the state' into people's personal lives. And, it is worth noting, virtually none of the things these various branches of this Bay St government have been getting up to the last 30 years has had the approval of any 'majority' of the people, but they all have had the virtually unanimous approval of the ruling Big Business-Money-Investor class in the country, minority though they are, in 'democratic' numbers. (Talking about whether or not it is legitimate or honest to even call this country a 'democracy' any more is something else those calling themselves 'journalists' don't seem overly eager to address either, but that is stuff for a different comment.)
So the question is very valid - when stories like the one above, about yet more cutbacks in one or another of the media outlets Canadians rely on for their news and 'insight commentary', why doesn't anyone get into the deeper questions, the much more important questions, about how well are Canadians served by a media controlled by and serving the financial and political interests of, 'big business', which are very much not the same interests as 'we the people' have concerning most issues of importance in our country and world?
Well, this grows long for a comment, and I have not even gotten to discussion of some of the specific things that show the entire Cdn media, including those presented as 'lefty' media and thus supposedly 'for the people' rather than the accepted rightwing views of most Cdn media, operate from the 'right' of the political spectrum in terms of the most important economic and political matters, very much against the political and economic wishes of most Canadians living in the 'progressive' people-friendly center left. However, I recently wrote a letter in response to another article outlining exactly how the "leftist" CBC is indistinguishable from the acknowledged right wing media, in terms of its actions regarding the important economic and political things they promote, for some more detail about such things, if anyone cares to take up this challenge - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/vgi/letters/121121-mcguire-cbc.html .
Geez, Sue Ann, if you can't express yourself correctly in 140 characters, don't tweet!
Ha ha ha - oh it is to laugh.
The QMI agency/Sun/Canoe ball of wax (to quote an old boss of mine, who had a kiss-kurl on his forehead and still used words such as 'copacetic' before they became ironic) is weeping crocodile tears again.
MEANWHILE, let us just look at last week's Standard, in St. Catharines: four pages were paginated with "photo essays" such as "how does a bee make honey" (don't have it at hand so cannot cite the exact topics but they were banal. . .. lawdy, were they banal) Each took half a page and - with the half-page ad below - they successfully gave the illusion of four pages of "news".
Additionally, QMI, having turfed out Judy Bullis and other group publishers in mid-November, ostensibly to save money, turned around and announced that its new publisher and regional sales director would be Mark Cressman. I am not privy to their salaries, so I don't know how much less Cressman will make in his double-duty job, thus don't know how much the company actually is saving. In a too-cute-for-words touch, Cressman's brother Michael was booted up the ladder to replace Mark as editor of the Niagara Review. Cozy, eh?? Please don't use the words nepotism, sexism or ageism, the company would tell you, if you asked, this entire exercise was about saving money; as Bullis's career stretches back to the 1980s, whereas the Cressman boys have been in it for a mere decade.
Meanwhile, the Standard, with its gutted newsroom, is sinking fast in the local-news department - one wonders why. And This Week is mopping the floor with it. It has all the news, the ads, including employment, and has even made an effort to grab the obits.
Pathetic.
Another pathetic, biased mish-mash that reminds one of the sandbox. Why is everyone falling over everyone else to be first in a universe where "first" no longer means anything - most certainly not in this instance, when the more important point is to be factual and complete??? Personally, I would prefer that the first article I read about an event such as this be just that, factual and complete, with editorial opinion and broad spectrum commentary (man in the street, other pols etc) to come. The media landscape that has been created is going to make ADD/OCD sufferers of us all.
I should also point out that shortly after 10:30 a.m. the full text of Judge Hackland's decision was posted in .pdf format online, thus enabling anyone to read it, which made much of the twittering babble both irrelevant and annoying.
When every media outlet is babbling and frothing and tweeting essentially the same 140 characters, who has an advantage? nobody, of course; the only advantage will go to the medium that provides the additional factors - as above.
The Toronto Star covered the Rob Ford ruling with aphodisiacal delight, and devoted an entire sectionto this ruling, letting every report and/or columnist who was interested to contribute a story about it. This was in addition the front page story. A bit of overkill and a lot of sour grapes.
It's one or two reporters today, but that's a slippery slope to go down. I started at a small SunMedia daily in 2008 that had an editorial staff of six people. Today, that newsroom has just two — one reporter, one editor.
Good summation.
But I believe I further wrapped my criticism of the three network honchos and the lack of storytelling in their newscasts around the proposition that social media, Twitter, Facebook and "citizen journalists", offer facts but by their very nature can't and don’t offer reasoned understanding of those facts.
Only traditional storytelling can bring that vital understanding. It's by far the most efficient method of passing on information and meaning, one to the other, that humans have ever invented.
Storytelling doesn't mean — as is the norm in so much of broadcast journalism today — starting the story at its end and working back to the beginning, thus giving away the climax. That's for newspapers.
Nor does it mean the anchor telling all the facts before handing over to the reporter who then has to somehow keep viewer interest in a story of which the outcome is already known.
Traditional storytelling is about context, dramatic development and climax. In that order. It's about drama. It's about holding the viewer/listener's interest with the age-old question "how's all this going to turn out?"
Storytelling is the same in all cultures. Always has been. Always will be.
It’s the one weapon, I believe, that can save our honourable profession from the pernicious erosion of social media.
Tim Knight
Auther, Storytelling and the Anima Factor
As usual, the reality lies somewhere between.
The resources are, as my old friend James notes, being realigned in difficult times.
Mostly, though, I suspect it's to keep feeding the SUN TV beast which has no audience and no real revenues. That's a Montreal decision and a bad one.
Sure, it's just one or two positions. But in such a small newsroom it's a big bit. What? 10% of staff. 25% of general news reporting staff?
The reality though is the Sun is more homegenous across the chain and the local flavour has been watered down.
And while Rob takes issue with those who were laid off in the decade or two before him as whining for the ways things used to be.....well, maybe some do.
We recognize the industry is in trouble and has been for a while Many of us still work in this business.
What we miss, perhaps, is not so much the gravy days of big staffs, fat papers and the budget to chase big stories, but the feeling we were all in it together.
Quebecor has pissed away the magic, secret sauce. I can't put a dollar value on that but I do know 333 King is not a happy place compared to what it was. We're talking about a feeling and I think the vast majority of us who were privileged to have been there at the apex will always remember that with fondness.
And if I could put a dollar figure on it, I'm sure shareholders would be outraged.
Pierre Karl Peladeau's legacy will not be that he presided over difficult times in the newspaper industry. It will be how he dismissed an asset because he couldn't account for it on his financial statement.
It isn't the decisions he makes - though we could quibble there too - but mostly its the way he makes them. Hats off to a CEO with all the warmth and empathy of a shark.
Oh, perhaps I've been too harsh on sharks.
You use the phrase "do more with less." I shake my head.
I once worked for The London Free Press, before taking a buyout. Before Sun Media and Quebecor came on the scene, that paper won numerous awards for its fine reproduction. Today the halftones are done offsite to accompany stories cranked out by QMI Agency and Sun Media. Sometimes the black and whites are so dark that the images are lost in ink. (I have heard rumours that the halftones are done by computer and the software is often fooled into setting the white point on a light source or spectral highlight, thus driving the important midtones into the shadows.)
I shake my head. The ability to simply place a dot on a page with confidence has been lost. (And readers have noticed. Or should I say former readers. If Sun Media and Quebecor had respected their readers, they would have realized this.) It comes as no surprise that putting words down on a page with the skill of a professional writer is also a skill being lost.
There was a reason that newspapers had all those reporters and editors. They were important to the quality of the published product.
You may not believe the newsrooms have been gutted or the news staffs left crushed but I assure you I know people still working at a number of Sun Media papers and they all, yes all, would disagree with you. Well, maybe they wouldn't, they fear they might lose their jobs when the next round of cutback hits.