Recent comments

The voices of the "homeless" surely do not receive as much prominence as they ought to. But the voices of journalists are absent from Barbara Schneider's Journalism article, which presents evidence obtained exclusively through content analysis but also includes considerable speculation about the factors influencing the reporting, writing and editing of the newspaper stories in question. When Dr. Schneider presented this work at the Canadian Communications Association meeting in 2010, I asked her whether she planned to interview journalists who have written about the "homeless." I was pleased to learn that she planned to do so in a future phase of the project. This will be of keen interest to those interested in illuminating decision-making and promoting best practices in journalism, as well as demonstrating its shortcomings. Yes, it never hurts to contemplate the choices journalists make - neither does it hurt to ask them about their work. 

The problem I feel, at least in the times I've come across this very same issue, is not that *every* organization wants to go dig up the name. At least in smaller centres, where ticking a lot of people off could actually do some damage, there are some organizations who don't want to publish a name, don't want to cover a funeral, etc.

But the competition will. Then it looks like they beat you. Unfortunately, not enough of the public cares about the ethics of it, so at the end of the day, your audience thinks they won and you lost.

Hi, Dylan. Thanks for asking about the student discount, information, which is missing from the website. Students from institutions other than Ryerson can attend the conference by presenting student ID and a cash registration fee of $10.00 (per day of conference) at the registration desk located on March 8th in Rogers Communication Centre, 80 Gould Street and on March 9th at Oakham House, 63 Gould Street. The keynote lunch on March 8th is now sold out.

I'm old enough to remember when freedom of speech and expression was a left-wing cause. It should be again, while remaining a right-wing cause and becoming a middle-of-the-road cause. All of us have more to fear from people who might want to shut us up than we have from the people we might like to make shut up.

"Lucky us that here, information of public importance can be pursued without unreasonable impediment. Here, stories are vigorously told without fear or favour, and while politicians, police and bureaucrats may not like those stories, they dare not be seen as standing in the way of truthful reporting."

Your opening paragraph struck a chord with us here in Windsor. We at the Windsor Square have requested numerous times to be added to the City of Windsor's distribution list for media announcements and news releases. Continually we have been denied the basic custom enjoyed by those in the traditional media and many of those engaged in online reporting. You see, our politicians and City Administration do stand in the way of the Windsor Square being able to provide our readership with "truthful reporting".

The powers that be are seen every day to be standing in the way by providing unreasonable impediment of stories they do not want the public to know, especially if it is contrary to their official dogma.

The Toronto Star thought they had it tough with Rob Ford. He's a pussy-cat when compared to Eddie Francis.

Silverberg may date Citizen Journalism to 2004, but you can go a great distance back in time to the coffee houses in Mecca (banned in 1512) Europe (500 in London 1740) and the US, in all of which the first of what can be called citizen journalists passed around news, information and criticism.  Tom Paine wrote the pamphlet "Common Sense" (take that, Mike Harris) in  1776 and sold over 100,000 copies when there were only about 2 million colonists in total.  Journalism and newspaper publishing arose out of refinements to the coffee house/pamphlet process and in the US were greatly aided by the inclusion of the coincept of a free press in the Consitution. In a sense, all early newspaper writers and publishers - frequently the same - may be termed citizen journalists because they, like the CJs of today, were considered subversive by the establishment.

I am not certain that every CJ of today wants to be "subversive" or "muck raking", both of which declined in mainstream journalism as conglomeration of the industry proceeded.  It is hard to bite the hand that feeds, even when that hand is dirtied by the work of other parts of the organization.  And for many CJs it is the thrill of access in the guise of reporting that motivates them.  Some are dazzled by the idea of their names online in bold letters, and others are genuine journos at heart.

Some of the above is taken from a paper on CJ which I delivered at a meeting of the freelancers' group of the CAJ last year.  I found, as well, that early online newspaper experiments were, for the most part, colossal failures.  It is labour-intensive to keep updating web pages all day and night; CJs usually cannot be paid (except in rare circumstances where a news outlet just had to have what they were offering - for example, a picture of the fellow who shot John Lennon) and for the most part there is no feedback from the public, which can trigger the feeling that one is operating in a vacuum.  This is not a fancy.  Millions upon millions of people never read a newspaper, and the statistics for other forms of reading were equally dismal:

* 1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.

* 42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.

* 80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year.

* 70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a book store in the last five years.

* 57 percent of new books are not read to completion.

But it is on the point of writing that many newspaper professionals draw the line in the sand - excluding CJs.  CJs, for the most part, are not trained - not through experience and not through schooling - and may not know what to ask, when to press a point, what makes a good lead, a good story, what to avoid that may be libellous . . . these days, unless the event being covered by a CJ is extremely important or theirs is the only coverage, the input from CJs is almost more trouble for beleaguered staff (such as remain) to deal with.  Pictures and tapes are a different matter.  Is it any wonder that there is a mass migration to the visual rather than the written world?

What should be the relationship between CJs and journalism?  If there were no turmoil I could envision semi-formal arrangements in some areas of journalism, perhaps even to the point of further training, via fellowships, of the more committed and promising CJs.  But in light of the epidemic of failing publications, consolidation of remaining outlets and back-shop treadmills being staffed these days by the last remaining writers and editors - who may not look kindly upon lower-compensated amateurs - I see real difficulties of the two segments working together.

Finally I would like to add my conclusion (taken from my CAJ paper) about CJ:

That many people envision their names in lights and are willing to give away their work to gratify their egoes will only weaken the resolve of publishers to keep paying fair rates.  That occasionally a good writer will come out of the hundreds of wannabes is also a given.  But "citizen journalism" is not the threat many of us had imagined it to be, if only for the nuts-and-bolts aspect of putting something up and keeping it there, well-researched, factually correct, technically sound.  Citizen journalism is the dream child of those who feel dispossessed, the hero who will right the wrongs and put their names in light, at last.

How is this different from the Vikileaks case? 

Ms. Szekeley says: "The problem is that the public doesn't have equal access to social media news. If you're friends with certain people, you'll get the news before others." Precisely. If you're a journalist, with a bunch of journalist friends, you'll know all kinds of things the plebes never hear about. And we call it a "free press."

In the Vic Toews case, journalists knew about his messy divorce but chose not to open the "private life" can of worms. So, it was Twitter to the rescue.

In the case of the dead teen, the family asked to keep his name private, much as Toews expected when his divorce proceedings unfolded. Yet when it came to a tragic death, journalists decided otherwise, opting for a "compassionate story."

What was served by giving a "snapshot" of a deceased person and what was not served by ignoring politicians who make rather immoral, questionable decisions, be it in private or public life?

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your comment, and thanks for clearing that up, Belinda.

I had heard of GoJournalism.ca before, but it slipped my mind to insert it in the story. There are so many online start-ups that it's impossible to list them all.

I am glad to see your school is making an effort to help students adapt in today's journalism enviornment. That being said, there is always room for improvement. Schools can learn from each other, and I hope this piece helps to open up that dialogue.

Thanks again.

Hi Joe, 

Thanks so much for your comment. Those are some great points to add to this conversation and I'm glad to hear that j-schools are taking the initiative. 

However, I do want to clear up that I did not write this piece -- Arik Ligeti, a journalism student at Carleton University did. (My name just shows up at the top as the person who posted it in our CMS). Sorry for any confusion. 

Let me suggest another reason for the dearth of climate change news. It is that ever so slowly more and more science is emerging which challenges the accepted scientific consensus which the mainstream media have adopted, for the most part uncritically. For evidence of this, one need look no further than  Antonia Zerbisias' own paper, which, in a notoriously memorable headline when the IPCC report came out, deemed the debate settled. However, every few weeks yet another peer-reviewed report comes out challenging the accepted conclusions, but these never see the light of day in the MSM. You have to find this stuff on the  Net, and it is most definitely there. The last line of this piece says it all -- but I suspect not in the way it was intended.

Ms. Alzner has omitted GoJournalism.ca as part of the mix of Canada's new online media ventures. It is the only not-for-profit venture in the country that partners with existing and new media to broker stories, with 100 per cent of the freelance fee going to the journalist. It is not a competitor to mainstream media, but a partner. We have worked with the Ottawa Citizen and most recently, OpenFile Ottawa, to whom we have funnelled story pitches. Owned and operated by the Journalism program at Algonquin College, it is part of a curriculum mix that gets students journalists and graduates closer to the self-employment model Ms. Alzner mentions. We bolster that by teaching students how to write query letters, pitches and the how-tos of publishing for profit for themselves, both in print and online. 

Beyond this, my suggestion for anyone, including Ms. Alzner, who want to learn about entrepreneurial media, is to first find out which of the many journalism programs in Canada teach it. As she is finding out, not all do.

Mes collègues pigistes ont été nombreux à déplorer, dans les réseaus sociaux, qu'aucun atelier ne porte directement sur les joies et les peines du journalisme indépendant. Mais au tarif réclamé pour y assister, ça m'étonnerait qu'un grand nombre de pigistes y participent.