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: | |||
It is not quite true that CBC "produced" Kids in the Hall, SCTV and Road to Avonlea. Kids in the Hall aired on CBC but was produced by Lorne Michaels' Broadway Video. SCTV was originally produced by Global, then by Allarcom, then by NBC. Only seasons 3-5 aired on the CBC. And though Road to Avonlea was co-produced by the CBC, along with Disney and Sullivan Films, the creative impetus came from Sullivan.
I find it interesting that the Star chose to protect the identify (or never confirmed identity) of the poster. People need to stand behind their postings. Under any other circumstances, the Star would never have used this material and the fact that it did shows the absolute depths that it will go to shame Rob Ford. It was a low point for journalism.
I was going to wait for Elly Alboim to chime in on this and take a swipe at the media for not doing their homework on this story as he so eloquently posited following the surprising NDP sweep of Quebec following the 2011 federal campaign, but I thought I'd add my own two cents here. I was, like many Canadians pleasantly surprised on Monday not because the PCs won, but because I went to work expecting to follow a tight two way race until the wee hours and instead I got to go home early. It's nice to be surprised in life and being surprised with an election result like I, and so many others, was on Monday night is a bonus. For too many years, we watched to see not who won on election night, but which pollster was the closest in predicting the percentage of popular vote. I think a number of things were at play on Monday, one was that pollsters haven't realized, or maybe they have, that getting access to people's voting intentions and thus and accurate picture of the electorate is very challenging with so many people opting for cell phones over landlines, particularly for those under 35. For some reason political parties in the last federal election knew what was going on in Quebec, and I wonder if political parties in Alberta were also aware of the PCs 10 point lead. The second thing I wanted to mention is that Albertans were in a great political flux in the two weeks leading up to Monday. There were questions about rogue candidates in the Wildrose; Danielle Smith's charisma versus her lack of experience; Alison Redford's standoffishness; damaging scandals in the PC caucus; deficit budgets; a PC party that was no one's dad's PC Party, a booming economy and I think most importantly, there were four parties campaigning on change and no one in Alberta really wanted change.
Context is indeed everything but I don't think mainstream media can shoulder the load for not providing it, nor can social media try to puff itself up as a saviour.
In today's communication mix one can't seem to exist without the other. Much of what gets re-hashed online stems from mainstream reports, and good measure of stories that make it to print or broadcast come from online sources.
For some additional context consider for instance Alan Hunsperger. Social Media helped spread it amazingly well, but it took mainstream media to make it a headline and to get it away from the often very closed circle of social media. If in fact it was leaked by the PC's themselves then neither social media or the big kids on the block can take credit for uncovering anything but both did play into the PC hands. I'm surprised Jim Cunningham didn't mention that Hunsperger was making the news with his views 20 years ago when we he and I were both involved in election coverage. As an ex-journalist Danielle Smith herself should have recognized the Hunsperger name in her candidate list as a possible flashpoint. In the end the story played out well thanks to the online and mainstream mix.
Did Twitter manage to make the Dani-Bus a widespread joke? Sure did - but I wouldn't score that one as a social media success story but rather one that ranks in there with good cat videos. Cute, harmless and of little redemming value. If a CBC reporter first snapped the picture and didn't report on it, I'd even suggest that mainstream made the right choice and moved on to more important things - initially at least, until they too got caught up in a high-school election giggle.
While we haven't hit an ideal state yet I think the ying and yang of professional journalists, strong bloggers, and a good democratic process made this election much more interesting wherever you got your news from.
Good post - just needs a little more context ;-)
Mike
"The reason that culture change is so difficult in any company, one executive says, is because no one person truly has the power to change it."
This is very true especially if the employees were not as flexible as their leaders. Another aspect that could affect is the financial standing of the newspaper industry itself. We are all aware of how far and fast technology has grown, and this maybe a reason why people in the newspaper industry are unsure of where it will head.
Thank you Belinda. We've just steered that apparently unsinkable neologism into an iceberg.
Copyediting 101 eluded me on this one -- thanks for pointing it out Paul.
What I want to know is, in 1912 was anyone using "impact" as a verb?
Centennial College's journalism program was the first college in Ontario to revamp its ethics code for students, after extensive consultation with the Journalism Educators Association of Ontario several years ago. The policy is on the front page of our program websites for all of our streams: post-grad, undergrad, joint program with University of Toronto, and Sports Journalism.
We apply it several times each year, to crack down on academic honesty or plagiarism events, but only after and in conjunction with a seminar we give to all students by the third week of classes, on "How Not to Dress (Plagiarise)."
Why do we give the seminar? Because most students have learned how to do attribution only for essays and high school or university course writing, but not how to apply it for journalistic writing, be it online, broadcast, print, magazine or photo.
I attach the link here. And the first few paragraphs.
Centennial College Journalism Program Plagiarism, Fabrication and other acts of Academic Dishonesty
POLICY
The Journalism program at Centennial College was founded on the principles of honesty and truth in all forms of storytelling be they print, online, imaging, broadcast or magazine.
Why? First, because our readers and audience demand accuracy and honesty about where the information they are consuming comes from; and second, because the industry – where journalism students are now or soon will be working -- insists on rigorous standards of truth and honesty in the news information that they convey to the public.
It’s a matter of public trust, one that we believe deeply in. You need to be on board, as well.
In the past few years, we have suspended or expelled students for violating the code, after an appeal hearing process that takes the case all the way up to the College's senior administration.
With these programs gone the dumbing down begins. I beleive that the Feds are only more than happy to have as many as possible ignorant of what is going on around the world. Sad.
It seems that there are a lot of organizations that are feeling the crunch, sometimes a devastating crunch to their budgets. It makes some wonder when it will ever end. I hope those affected will find comparable work soon.
Even in places that most think will be ok during times of online play we see that there are layoffs and great cuts happening.
Can't some highly-paid CBC anchors and "personalities" take a pay cut so the superb program, Dispatches, can be saved?
Is this an early indication that expedient measures will be used rather than doing a close analysis of where big bucks are being spent? You could start with The National's budget.
A return to radio advertising on CBC is long overdue. CBC has a large listener base in many cities, and sponsorship advertising, as with PBS in the U.S., would be something that many companies and organizations would like to participate in. CBC can use the revenue and taxpayers do not have to subsidize the CBC to the same degree. This will not affect journalistic integrity or independence and help ensure the long-term viability of CBC, which is a valuable part of the media landscape in Canada.
Oops. My mistake. I just saw this (http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/01/26/thats-western-university-to-you/). What a silly thing to do, Western!
What is Western University? This place? I rather assume you're talking about the large institution in London, Ont. Last I checked it was called the University of Western Ontario, or "Western" casually, but I have never heard "Western University."
What this article does not mention is that CBC audio podcasts (some of them) have advertising already http://www.insidethecbc.com/adsinpodcasts/
It is really interesting that someone was able to crack the code and get this information to begin with. Freedom of the press is very important but there are always those who want to take it away.
Freedom of the press takes on a whole new meaning if news and tips are obtained in illegal manners but only an investigation can get to the truth.
I stumbled upon this site while researching Patrick Brown and Don Murray, hoping to find them doing well. I am a citizen in James Moore's riding and a longtime CBC fan .... in fact, I credit the CBC with saving my life ... but that's another story. I was stuck by how critical many of you are about your colleagues at CBC, and while I have many criticisms too, the people on the front line and those who support their work aren't the ones I deplore. I recall they all spoke up strongly when PB and DM were so badly treated. I had the misfortune to stumble upon 'citizen' blogs when I was working on a submission to the CRTC which was delayed in expectation of the cuts to come. I have since found them on many other sites, including the CBC service itself. I cannot imagine keeping my perspective, equilibrium or composure in an environment where there is nothing but pressure to do things you would never choose to do, by people who hold an axe over your head, driven by people who irrationally HATE you .... call you biased (with no evidence) left-wing (now that's funny!) incompetent, spendthrift, etc. etc. ... hate is not too strong a word .... the vitriol and insulting accusations are rife .... MPs circulating petitions that feed this nastiness... and you have to politely interview these jerks on air? They are jubilant, rubbing their hands in glee ... pushing for the elimination of David Suzuki, Terry Milewski, and Wendy Mesley at the top of their list, and they are full of derision that the CBC is 'too ethnic', too 'french' and 8 Aboriginal languages! ha, what nonsense. Then we have the Globe and Mail's Doyle dancing all over the CBC's grave, telling them to 'suck it up' .... and next day a piece on what a fine guy Moore is, right, who's behind the push to focus on the royals ....? Moore's having a party at all these events and trips and performances ... if he 'loved the CBC' as he told me, he would have fought hard enough for us to notice. You folks seem to have a reasonably comfortable spot to launch your opinions from .... maybe a little objective analysis of the impact of the 2009 cuts plus the working environment created by those and the everlooming threat of new ones should be considered ... where are the articles about the need for talented foreign correspondents? unfettered journalism? less media concentration? All CBC journalists can do, is resign ... and I'm sure many of them will. I admire them tremendously for putting up with all this ***** this far, and what will we have left? Tony Parsons. If people who should understand your plight only add insult to injury, and offer no support, what else can you do? I'm sure there are many facts about how well the CBC actually performs as a national broadcaster ... especially when funding levels and mandate are compared... but they would get ignored/clobbered if they published them .... sounds like a good project to me ... guess I'll have to figure it out for myself .... thanks for listening to a stray voice from the outside .... have a nice life!
So what was the alleged incident? Why so sparing with the facts?
"Journo" is "journo jargon."
Plagiarism is a regular occurrence at community newspapers. I worked under such an environment for several years and even when superiors were made aware of ongoing fabrication, nothing was done. So, don't be surprised when it flourishes. Without clear and stiff penalities for such misconduct, journalists will not be considered as professionals.
As for Mr. Jeffrey, he claims to be a board member of the Alberta Weekly Newspaper Association but that too seems to be another fabrication.
I have had discussions with everyday readers to those covering this story and still find it difficult to condone how this is being covered by the media. I know the media is trying to be compassionate and, as journalists, need to balance that with objectivity. But somewhere, sometime, somehow the rules of reporting have changed and with social media it is rapidly evolving.
This is a polarizing topic with strong pro and con connotations where people take a stand one way or the other but not in between. As a freelance writer/journalist I have done my best to research both sides but as a parent and reader I am still having difficulty condoning the way this has been reported.
Others will disagree with me. That's fine. I just wanted to say that, after much research and many discussions I haven't changed my mind. My heart goes out to the Stafford family.
What a great summary, thanks. I think press freedom is essential to democracies, but cannot happen if we have a lot of public apathy.
Many australian gamers would prefer to have interaction in play online in Canada and revel in tons of bonuses and viewpoints of slot physical exercise titles.
Your analysis is flawed. The Irving example is a lousy example for a variety of reasons, none more so than your thesis that it is about the 'value' of news. Anyone living in New Brunswick knows the Irving publications for what they are and that is worthless. They have nothing to protect by putting the content behind a paywall. Here is why the Irvings have a paywall:
The Irvings, unlike many newspaper owners, still make a lot of money from the print product. They own the trees. They own the paper making machinery. They are less vulnerable to shifts in paper prices. Nor are they straddled by debt like some newspaper chains which took on too many assets with a view to recouping the money through advertising which failed to materialize due to the recession. As well, they invested heavily in new printing presses not that long ago and are desperate to recoup that money. Because of this, the Irvings have no interest in online news. They want people to buy the printed newspaper and that is why they are pricing the online version as they are, not because they want people to go online or because the online version has any value. While all this may seem illogical given the way technology and the Internet is changing the way many people access news, the Irvings don’t care. They have a monopoly in every city. If you want a local newspaper you have to buy an Irving paper. They will reap every last penny from their print product until they can reap no more.
In a response to recent blog on the significance of the Guardian Open Journalism initiative, one critic says the not-for-profit status of the publication distorts the innovation being brought to table.
There will always be those who measure the success of innovation by monetary gains. Limited by a vision based on traditional business models, any experimentation is placed against the yardstick of fiscal viability. And, with a big harrumph, a finger is wagged.
Journalist Bill Doskoch waded into a debate with a post on his own blog, saying a major point was missed because the article does not acknowledge the Guardian is operated as a trust without a mandate to be profitable and its losses are subsidized.
Open Journalism is about overhauling traditional models. It wants to change relationships, rethink roles, redefine an struggling industry and so forth. To say whether it is profitable or not is impossible at this time. It will take a while for everything to sort itself out. And, if it ends up creating losses, thank god the Guardian has a way out.
Innovation is about risk.
The Guardian has taken a huge leap forward as a leader in the industry. Many of the practices it is using have already been done elsewhere but on a much smaller scale. To see a respected news organization of the size and influence of the Guardian taking such bold steps is welcomed. As argued in the article, it means a fundamental redefinition regarding how journalists do their job, challenging a paradigm that has existed since Walter Lippmann outlined the first building blocks for modern journalism nearly a century ago. It has captured the transition of journalistic principles from inform, explain and interpret to the new model of educate, engage and empower.
No one ever forgets journalism is a business. And critics like Bill will ensure this. As stated before, it remains to be seen if it will be a profitable one under the Open Journalism model. If a point needs to be made regarding the business model of the Guardian, it should be simple: we should be grateful these kinds of news organizations exist so they can take chances, push boundaries and continue to stretch our imaginations so we can be innovative as we search to redefine the future of journalism.