My apologies for keeping you waiting so long between posts. December was a bit more crazy than I gave it credit for. But I'll be back with vengeance for sure in 2013. We're just starting a couple of days early, that's all.
Let's talk about one of my favorite things in the whole world of reporting: the scrum. You see it in the TV news every night, especially in sports. It's when the interviewee has a handful, well, several handfuls of microphones in front of his/her face and they are being asked questions from the circle. It saves the interviewee from having to answer the same ten questions over and over again. It's also time-saving for those of us in the media who are usually on some sort of deadline. It works well. For the most part.
You see, there's a method to the madness, at least here in Calgary. As weird as it sounds, most media types get along really well with one another. There's this misconception that we're elbowing each other out of the way, tampering with each other's equipment and trying to yell and scream our questions over everyone else. The first two hardly ever happen (if at all) while the third does happen, especially when it comes to politicians. We're actually really polite. We let cameras get into as good of a position as possible, we let the TV reporters stand between the cameras, while the radio and print guys sort of fan off on each side. Hence why you always see me in the background. It's not that I like to be on TV, it's mainly for cross-promotional effect (get the logo on my jacket in the shot and people will hopefully listen to my radio station). Nifty, eh? It doesn't happen all the time (the order and cordial atmosphere), but it happens more often than not.
Now, not surprisingly, I have a few pet peeves when it comes to the scrum. In no particular order:
#1. The Political Supporter Scrum
This happens around election time or whenever there's a "good photo op". The party leader or the main speaker wants to have some of their supporters behind them. I understand the premise of it, but what they don't realize is that the TV cameras are almost always zoomed in. Which means the supporters are hardly ever in the shot. The big issue from my standpoint, is that it limits just how close we can get our microphones to the interviewee. Why? Because putting supporters behind you turns it from an almost full-circle around the interview to a semi-circle. And when you have multiple media outlets trying to get a mic in, it becomes a challenge. And that's when we break out the Gordie Howe elbows.
#2. The Overly Enthusiastic Mic Flash
Within the art of the scrum, there's the "Art of the Mic Placement". Over the years, it's come to my attention that a lot of people don't know where to hold the microphone near their interviewee. And chances are you've seen this on TV every so often. The mic flash (what the media outlets put on the microphone to let people see their logo) is in all sorts of ungodly spots around the interviewee's face. Some just don't know any better. Others have been told they need to boost ratings so "get that mic flash into everyone's shot, even if it means covering up most of the interviewee's face". Yes. I've seen it happen. The optimal position is 4"-6" down and away from the mouth of the interviewee. You get your clips and your recognition, while the interviewee isn't eating microphone.
#3. The Bored Reporter
How do you tell a reporter isn't really interested in the scrum they're taking part in? Watch their microphone. It bobs and weaves and wreaks havoc amongst all the other mics. The reporter might be taking a picture of the scrum to put up on Twitter, or they might be checking their email. Heck, I've seen some reporters take calls while in the midst of the scrum. It does look a little funny on TV. But where it becomes problematic is when their mic starts playing bumper cars with the others. Nothing like coming back to the station only to hear a clip like this: "I think we pla*bang*yed a good game*bang*. Their goal*bang*ie was stopping every*bang*thing and *bang* we just didn't get any bou*bang*nces." Not ideal for us radio folks.
#4. The Awful Audio Board
You'd be surprised how often this happens. Go to a news conference and instead of having a scrum for the announcement, the organizers have hired a "professional audio/video company", who have set up a podium and a single microphone, which goes to a little black box of sorts, which supplies everyone with an audio feed. Sounds good, right? Less stress on the arm, less microphones in the way, all that jazz. But then you listen to the audio and it's distorted, over-modulated, or just plain bad. The "professionals" have no idea what could be going wrong. These guys and gals supposedly do this many times a year. It's their set-up. yet they don't know what's wrong. So let this one be a lesson to all you PR folks out there. Invest in a good audio team if you want to go this route. Otherwise, we'll unplug from your feed and put the microphones on the podium. Even if you don't like that because "that's where the speech is supposed to go". (Bit of an inside joke of sorts: I had a "disagreement" with one PR rep for a high-ranking government official as he was adament that we don't put our mics on the podium, even though he failed to supply us with an audio box. So I told him that it'd be in his boss' best interests to rectify that situation if she wanted her speech in the news. Didn't happen. I'll let you guess which politician I'm talking about.)
I've been twisted up like a pretzel and been on my knees getting my mic into a scrum. I've held my arms in precarious positions for 15-20 minutes at a time and lost feeling in my limbs thanks to -40 temperatures. Never a dull moment while in the search for the big news stories of the day. I'm sure there's plenty of other scrum stories out there. So feel free to share in the comments. Until next time, my friends!
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Can't I Vote "For" A Candidate?
As I watched the results roll in to declare the new MP for Calgary-Centre, I couldn't help but feel a little at odds with how I approach elections as compared to others. And frankly, I'm not sure whether to be surprised, saddened or indifferent.
You see, for as long as I've been able to vote, I've voted for the individual candidate. I know that's sort of backwards in party politics, but it's still a firm belief I have. What does each candidate stand for? What does each think about a certain local issue? What will each candidate do for the riding outside of being "the voice"? Yet, in the last few elections (municipal, provincial and federal), I've heard less-and-less about what each stands for. What have I heard more of? It's become more of why I SHOULDN'T vote for the "other guys".
Take the last provincial election in Alberta. During the campaign, we heard much more about why we shouldn't vote for the PC's or the Wildrose. "They've been in power for too long and need to go." "They're bigots." "They're corrupt." "They're unproven." Sound familiar?
I've also been front and centre for the Calgary-Centre byelection. And the same can be said here. "Why would you vote for the Liberals?" "How can you support a candidate who doesn't go to forums?" Especially in this case, you saw a lot of "connecting the dots" between the local candidates and the parties they were representing. Some tried to paint Joan Crockett with the same brush as Rob Anders. Harvey Locke was implicated with the comments of Justin Trudeau and David McGuinty. It was never "this is why our candidate is the best". Even on the doorsteps (yes I live in Calgary-Centre), I had multiple run-ins with volunteers who could answer the reasons as to why I shouldn't vote for other candidates, but when I asked simple questions about where the candidates stood on specific issues, some had a tough time. I wish I could make this up.
Admittedly, this is a bit of an extension of one of my previous posts asking for better from ALL politicians/supporters. I know some didn't like that because it's "what opposition is for". And, yes, I understand it all. But it begs the question: do we actually vote FOR a candidate or AGAINST the others? Is it a matter of picking the "lesser of two evils"? How often do you hear "I'm only voting for X because I don't want Y to get in"?
Doesn't that scare anyone?
I know I ask a lot of questions. But I'm failing to see something in the grand scheme of recent elections and politics in Alberta (and beyond). Why is it so difficult to vote FOR a candidate?
You see, for as long as I've been able to vote, I've voted for the individual candidate. I know that's sort of backwards in party politics, but it's still a firm belief I have. What does each candidate stand for? What does each think about a certain local issue? What will each candidate do for the riding outside of being "the voice"? Yet, in the last few elections (municipal, provincial and federal), I've heard less-and-less about what each stands for. What have I heard more of? It's become more of why I SHOULDN'T vote for the "other guys".
Take the last provincial election in Alberta. During the campaign, we heard much more about why we shouldn't vote for the PC's or the Wildrose. "They've been in power for too long and need to go." "They're bigots." "They're corrupt." "They're unproven." Sound familiar?
I've also been front and centre for the Calgary-Centre byelection. And the same can be said here. "Why would you vote for the Liberals?" "How can you support a candidate who doesn't go to forums?" Especially in this case, you saw a lot of "connecting the dots" between the local candidates and the parties they were representing. Some tried to paint Joan Crockett with the same brush as Rob Anders. Harvey Locke was implicated with the comments of Justin Trudeau and David McGuinty. It was never "this is why our candidate is the best". Even on the doorsteps (yes I live in Calgary-Centre), I had multiple run-ins with volunteers who could answer the reasons as to why I shouldn't vote for other candidates, but when I asked simple questions about where the candidates stood on specific issues, some had a tough time. I wish I could make this up.
Admittedly, this is a bit of an extension of one of my previous posts asking for better from ALL politicians/supporters. I know some didn't like that because it's "what opposition is for". And, yes, I understand it all. But it begs the question: do we actually vote FOR a candidate or AGAINST the others? Is it a matter of picking the "lesser of two evils"? How often do you hear "I'm only voting for X because I don't want Y to get in"?
Doesn't that scare anyone?
I know I ask a lot of questions. But I'm failing to see something in the grand scheme of recent elections and politics in Alberta (and beyond). Why is it so difficult to vote FOR a candidate?
Friday, November 23, 2012
Life With A Microphone
It's been a tumultuous time in Calgary if you have any sort of "clout" in the world, in particular when it comes to sports. Whether you're behind a microphone or simply in the public eye, what you say and how you say it is always under the microscope. In light of the recent controversies surrounding one Calgary radio personality and one Stampeder player's tweets, some have asked me to weigh in on the topic. I won't get into the specifics of each case, but will rather reflect on the last 7+ years that I've been in radio and in the "public eye".
To say that I've never said anything that I've regretted would be an absolute lie. Rewind to my first year in radio. I was a rookie in Lloydminster taking part in the "Relay For Life" at Bud Miller Park. We were broadcasting live and, about an hour into the teams taking their laps, one of the hosts put me on-air. All fine and dandy until he asked me something along the lines of why I hadn't walked yet. Any sane person would have said "just manning the booth here until my teammates tap me in" or something like that. Instead, I said something along the lines of how I didn't feel like it right now. Yup. I was THAT guy. My face turned beat-red and, to this day, still bugs me.
And I haven't really stopped flubbing up. During last winter's World Junior Hockey Championship, I had another unfortunate incident. I was the "game-day host" (guy who gives away prizes and urges people to make noise) for the consolation game. If memory serves me right, it was between Denmark and Latvia. Following one of the promotions, I did what I normally do: invoke people to make noise. First I shouted "make some noise for Denmark!" Then the unthinkable. "Make some noise for..." Blank. My mind went absolutely blank. Looked up at the jerseys. Not helping. Looked up at the Jumbotron. Nope. Country's flag? No clue. I finished up with "let's get loud" and exited with my tail between my legs.
Those are just two examples. It happens. You're in a live setting and in the heat of the moment, things can be said. One of the biggest misconceptions about radio, in particular, is that it's all scripted. Not for most. Some guys are. But those are also the shows that bore you half-to-death. It's not an excuse for what I've said or what will likely say in the future. It's just a fact when you're supposed to be "on" all the time.
As for Twitter and Facebook, I've been pretty lucky to have not said anything too outrageous. I'm willing to bet I've deleted more entries before hitting "post" than I've actually posted. I always question myself as to whether I'd be willing to say what I tweet/status update on-the-air. If it passes that test, then it usually gets posted. The thing is, it's become super-easy for people to take things out of YOUR context. You see, you can't really gauge things like sarcasm in 140 characters. And if someone reads it the wrong way, you're in for a world of uncomfortable. But sometimes you forget that the internet is forever. You write the wrong thing or write in a way that someone doesn't like, and it's not like you're saying it to a group of friends. You're saying it to the world.
It's an interesting challenge to say the least. Can you walk a fine line without ever having part of your foot cross it?
To say that I've never said anything that I've regretted would be an absolute lie. Rewind to my first year in radio. I was a rookie in Lloydminster taking part in the "Relay For Life" at Bud Miller Park. We were broadcasting live and, about an hour into the teams taking their laps, one of the hosts put me on-air. All fine and dandy until he asked me something along the lines of why I hadn't walked yet. Any sane person would have said "just manning the booth here until my teammates tap me in" or something like that. Instead, I said something along the lines of how I didn't feel like it right now. Yup. I was THAT guy. My face turned beat-red and, to this day, still bugs me.
And I haven't really stopped flubbing up. During last winter's World Junior Hockey Championship, I had another unfortunate incident. I was the "game-day host" (guy who gives away prizes and urges people to make noise) for the consolation game. If memory serves me right, it was between Denmark and Latvia. Following one of the promotions, I did what I normally do: invoke people to make noise. First I shouted "make some noise for Denmark!" Then the unthinkable. "Make some noise for..." Blank. My mind went absolutely blank. Looked up at the jerseys. Not helping. Looked up at the Jumbotron. Nope. Country's flag? No clue. I finished up with "let's get loud" and exited with my tail between my legs.
Those are just two examples. It happens. You're in a live setting and in the heat of the moment, things can be said. One of the biggest misconceptions about radio, in particular, is that it's all scripted. Not for most. Some guys are. But those are also the shows that bore you half-to-death. It's not an excuse for what I've said or what will likely say in the future. It's just a fact when you're supposed to be "on" all the time.
As for Twitter and Facebook, I've been pretty lucky to have not said anything too outrageous. I'm willing to bet I've deleted more entries before hitting "post" than I've actually posted. I always question myself as to whether I'd be willing to say what I tweet/status update on-the-air. If it passes that test, then it usually gets posted. The thing is, it's become super-easy for people to take things out of YOUR context. You see, you can't really gauge things like sarcasm in 140 characters. And if someone reads it the wrong way, you're in for a world of uncomfortable. But sometimes you forget that the internet is forever. You write the wrong thing or write in a way that someone doesn't like, and it's not like you're saying it to a group of friends. You're saying it to the world.
It's an interesting challenge to say the least. Can you walk a fine line without ever having part of your foot cross it?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Can't We All Just Get Along?
I thought it was a simple enough few tweets. The first one started off with "Dear MLAs: we elected you to work together to make Alberta great, not to pick each other apart and fight on Twitter and in the legislature." I went on to say that I wasn't singling out any particular party, just a broad-based statement that seemed to resonate with more than a few people. It was retweeted a bunch of times and generated a few responses who wanted to echo those sentiments.
And yet, it still conjured up a few responses from those not too happy with my supposed "words of wisdom". Responses like: "Do you understand the concept of Official Opposition. The word opposition doesn't mean kum ba yah" and "Maybe that's how you vote, but many of us want an opposition that keeps the PCAA on its toes". There was name-calling and even worse. It won't be repeated here.
By all means, I'm open to criticism and good ol' fashioned discussion. But that seems to be lacking when it comes to politics of late (aka civility). I'm not totally sure if it's always been like this or if the relative anonymity of Twitter and other social media have made people more, how do you say, defensive. You need to have a thick skin when it comes to tweeting about politics. Because if someone takes what you say the wrong way, they're not afraid to "voice their opinions" if you know what I mean.
Realistically, am I wrong with what I tweeted? I don't think so. It's non-partisan and aimed completely at all politicians (this goes for all three levels of government). The grand-standing that's done gets to be a bit much for many, judging by what I see in responses. It's not that people don't appreciate opposition or healthy discussion. But I swear, if you watched what happens with the #WRP and #PCAA hashtags on Twitter on a regular basis, you'd think that one party could say the sky is blue and the other would argue that it was red. Am I being facetious? Check it out and be the judge for yourself.
What I find kind of interesting is how starkly different their two feeds can actually be. The PCAA hashtag usually shows a bunch of tweets about how awesome it is to be in a community or about the funding announcement just made. The WRP hashtag can usually find an abundance of vitriol towards the governing Tories and how "41-years is enough". Not that either is a bad thing. What has grown more and more concerning (judging from the responses to my earlier tweet) is that these politicians and supporters are talking AT their constituents and not WITH them. Don't taxpayers want the exact opposite? Just some food for thought for any politicians out there reading this here blog. Don't get me wrong, some are very good at communicating. But others only use Twitter and Facebook as a way to pass along any message that is supporting their cause. Does that really get anything accomplished in the grand scheme of "winning more votes"? (that's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually curious if it works, because it doesn't with me)
Plain and simple, Albertans deserve better from all. Do we not want ALL MLAs working towards the common goal of a better province? Or do we want all the parties sitting in the sandbox, trying to build a magnificent sandcastle, only to find that they're only throwing sand and toys at one another, blaming each other for why it's not getting done?
And yet, it still conjured up a few responses from those not too happy with my supposed "words of wisdom". Responses like: "Do you understand the concept of Official Opposition. The word opposition doesn't mean kum ba yah" and "Maybe that's how you vote, but many of us want an opposition that keeps the PCAA on its toes". There was name-calling and even worse. It won't be repeated here.
By all means, I'm open to criticism and good ol' fashioned discussion. But that seems to be lacking when it comes to politics of late (aka civility). I'm not totally sure if it's always been like this or if the relative anonymity of Twitter and other social media have made people more, how do you say, defensive. You need to have a thick skin when it comes to tweeting about politics. Because if someone takes what you say the wrong way, they're not afraid to "voice their opinions" if you know what I mean.
Realistically, am I wrong with what I tweeted? I don't think so. It's non-partisan and aimed completely at all politicians (this goes for all three levels of government). The grand-standing that's done gets to be a bit much for many, judging by what I see in responses. It's not that people don't appreciate opposition or healthy discussion. But I swear, if you watched what happens with the #WRP and #PCAA hashtags on Twitter on a regular basis, you'd think that one party could say the sky is blue and the other would argue that it was red. Am I being facetious? Check it out and be the judge for yourself.
What I find kind of interesting is how starkly different their two feeds can actually be. The PCAA hashtag usually shows a bunch of tweets about how awesome it is to be in a community or about the funding announcement just made. The WRP hashtag can usually find an abundance of vitriol towards the governing Tories and how "41-years is enough". Not that either is a bad thing. What has grown more and more concerning (judging from the responses to my earlier tweet) is that these politicians and supporters are talking AT their constituents and not WITH them. Don't taxpayers want the exact opposite? Just some food for thought for any politicians out there reading this here blog. Don't get me wrong, some are very good at communicating. But others only use Twitter and Facebook as a way to pass along any message that is supporting their cause. Does that really get anything accomplished in the grand scheme of "winning more votes"? (that's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually curious if it works, because it doesn't with me)
Plain and simple, Albertans deserve better from all. Do we not want ALL MLAs working towards the common goal of a better province? Or do we want all the parties sitting in the sandbox, trying to build a magnificent sandcastle, only to find that they're only throwing sand and toys at one another, blaming each other for why it's not getting done?
Thursday, October 18, 2012
An Open Letter To Bullies
Dear bullies,
You didn't win.
Don't get me wrong. The battles sucked. But you lost the war.
I'll admit that I had it a lot easier than so many others including Amanda Todd. But seeing and hearing what she went through made me think back to a time when life wasn't so awesome. It made me think back to a time when I hated going to school because of you. I hated getting on the bus because of you. You made my life miserable. I remember the name-calling and the fights we used to get into.
Here's the thing though. You made fun of me and taunted me because I was smarter than you. I wasn't as physically fit as you. You were actually winning for a while, because I started to drop my grades on purpose. But then I became the "fat, dumb kid" instead of the "fat, smart kid". I'm kicking myself now for letting you have that little victory.
Like I said, I had it much easier than others though. I had (and still have) a super-supportive family, in a house where I could escape your tormenting, even if only for a while. They stood up for me, approaching you in school when teachers did nothing and your parents continued to claim that you "wouldn't do such a thing." It taught me some very valuable lessons like "you're the only one who can be responsible for your actions" and "treat others how you'd like to be treated." I can't imagine being a kid now, having to put up with the actions of people like you, on Facebook and all the other ways they stay connected.
We parted ways after I finished grade six. We went to different schools. That's where I made friends with people who liked me for me. Heck, we still hang out whenever we can. They were the positive influences in my life you could have been. But you couldn't be bothered. I could have been crediting you for helping me along this path I've gone. Instead, they deserve all the credit in the world for coming along for this crazy ride.
You deserve some kudos though. You're the example of the kinds of people I don't need in my life and the kinds of people that no one should feel the need or want to have in their lives. You helped shape the person I've become, as it soon became evident what kind of person I didn't want to become.
This is one of the many examples for kids out there that it does, in fact, get better. I don't wish ill-will for you. I only hope that you learned some valuable lessons along the way, just as I did. I'm sure you may have a wife, kids, or other loved ones, and I hope you realize that they don't deserve to be treated the way you treated me. You'll want karma to be on your side eventually. I can't control what happened then and can't control what happens to you now.
All I can control is what I took from our experience together:
You didn't win.
Sincerely,
Joe
You didn't win.
Don't get me wrong. The battles sucked. But you lost the war.
I'll admit that I had it a lot easier than so many others including Amanda Todd. But seeing and hearing what she went through made me think back to a time when life wasn't so awesome. It made me think back to a time when I hated going to school because of you. I hated getting on the bus because of you. You made my life miserable. I remember the name-calling and the fights we used to get into.
Here's the thing though. You made fun of me and taunted me because I was smarter than you. I wasn't as physically fit as you. You were actually winning for a while, because I started to drop my grades on purpose. But then I became the "fat, dumb kid" instead of the "fat, smart kid". I'm kicking myself now for letting you have that little victory.
Like I said, I had it much easier than others though. I had (and still have) a super-supportive family, in a house where I could escape your tormenting, even if only for a while. They stood up for me, approaching you in school when teachers did nothing and your parents continued to claim that you "wouldn't do such a thing." It taught me some very valuable lessons like "you're the only one who can be responsible for your actions" and "treat others how you'd like to be treated." I can't imagine being a kid now, having to put up with the actions of people like you, on Facebook and all the other ways they stay connected.
We parted ways after I finished grade six. We went to different schools. That's where I made friends with people who liked me for me. Heck, we still hang out whenever we can. They were the positive influences in my life you could have been. But you couldn't be bothered. I could have been crediting you for helping me along this path I've gone. Instead, they deserve all the credit in the world for coming along for this crazy ride.
You deserve some kudos though. You're the example of the kinds of people I don't need in my life and the kinds of people that no one should feel the need or want to have in their lives. You helped shape the person I've become, as it soon became evident what kind of person I didn't want to become.
This is one of the many examples for kids out there that it does, in fact, get better. I don't wish ill-will for you. I only hope that you learned some valuable lessons along the way, just as I did. I'm sure you may have a wife, kids, or other loved ones, and I hope you realize that they don't deserve to be treated the way you treated me. You'll want karma to be on your side eventually. I can't control what happened then and can't control what happens to you now.
All I can control is what I took from our experience together:
You didn't win.
Sincerely,
Joe
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Embargoes and Publication Bans
Ahhhh. Two things reporters love hearing. "Embargo". "Publication ban". Shutter. For those not knowing what these are, they're pretty self-explanitory. An embargo means we can't run the "story" until a specific time or day. A publication ban means we can't talk about a certain something within said "story". And in this digital age, you have to wonder if these two things need to become things of the past.
Let's start with the art of the embargo. While I do appreciate that certain situations merit an embargo, two recent incidents come to mind that really make one scratch their head. I'll try not to be too specific about each case as I don't want to throw anyone in particular under the bus.
In one situation, we were told during a media briefing that the embargo time would be 7am. Which is all well and good but the newspapers were not happy campers. And rightfully so. This style of embargo means that while everyone else gets to run the story at 7am, it won't be in your morning paper. Sure, it can go on the paper's website at 7am. But it puts the papers at a disadvantage, especially given the recent talk about the supposed demise of the "paper" part of their business (which is a different story for a different day).
In the other situation, we were told the embargo time is 10am. Which is all well and good until you open up the newspaper to find it splashed all over it simply because they printed the report which was under the embargo. I understand it's a business. But the time 10am rolls around, it's "old news" for other forms of media, especially radio. The question that comes up: why would we run a story for the first time at 10am when everyone's supposedly read the newspaper already?
Onto the ol' publication bans. You don't see this very often anymore outside of the justice system. Some are understandable, such as naming a young person as outlined in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Most times, information laid out in a bail hearing is also under a publication ban. You may ask why, but in most cases, the concern is that you could be "tainting a jury pool" by reporting on what's alleged before it actually goes to a trial. That's why you will sometimes see a "change of venue" application by a lawyer for someone who has a co-accused that's already gone through a trial.
Other bans can be wishy-washy at best. I once covered a court case where a lawyer tried to ban the media from getting access to the agreed statement of facts for a couple of days so that his client wouldn't have those facts splashed across the media. It was a child pornography case and it was said that he was "having issues" in jail. The lawyer was unsuccessful in his ban bid.
And then there are the absolutely complicated cases. Look no further than the legalities and publication ban issues that arose from the Medicine Hat triple-murder case. One of the issues was whether the media and public would be allowed into the voir dire (deciding what evidence will be allowed to be seen in the trial and what won't). Another was whether bloggers would be held to the same account that "traditional media" (print, radio, TV) outlets were, in particular around naming the girl accused in the case (which was regularly broken by online folks with no repercussions). The question even came up at one point about whether American outlets would have to abide by that ban as they don't have the same legal structuring as we do in Canada. It does put the "traditional media" at a bit of a disadvantage to be bound by rules that don't take the information super-highway into consideration.
There you have it. A little inside information for you. I truly believe the era of the "embargo" should be virtually dead. As much as you want to control the flow of information, there's only so much that can be done and in most cases, you're now doing yourself a disservice by trying to implement an embargo. Your best bet is to make the embargo across the board and accessible for all outlets as we've all become "instant messengers". As for publication bans, I'm sure we'll see more of them and, as I said, most make sense. But we do have to take a second look at some of them and say "is it really doing anyone any good by banning the information for some but not others." Because it can get complicated and, frankly, confusing.
Just some food for thought.
Let's start with the art of the embargo. While I do appreciate that certain situations merit an embargo, two recent incidents come to mind that really make one scratch their head. I'll try not to be too specific about each case as I don't want to throw anyone in particular under the bus.
In one situation, we were told during a media briefing that the embargo time would be 7am. Which is all well and good but the newspapers were not happy campers. And rightfully so. This style of embargo means that while everyone else gets to run the story at 7am, it won't be in your morning paper. Sure, it can go on the paper's website at 7am. But it puts the papers at a disadvantage, especially given the recent talk about the supposed demise of the "paper" part of their business (which is a different story for a different day).
In the other situation, we were told the embargo time is 10am. Which is all well and good until you open up the newspaper to find it splashed all over it simply because they printed the report which was under the embargo. I understand it's a business. But the time 10am rolls around, it's "old news" for other forms of media, especially radio. The question that comes up: why would we run a story for the first time at 10am when everyone's supposedly read the newspaper already?
Onto the ol' publication bans. You don't see this very often anymore outside of the justice system. Some are understandable, such as naming a young person as outlined in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Most times, information laid out in a bail hearing is also under a publication ban. You may ask why, but in most cases, the concern is that you could be "tainting a jury pool" by reporting on what's alleged before it actually goes to a trial. That's why you will sometimes see a "change of venue" application by a lawyer for someone who has a co-accused that's already gone through a trial.
Other bans can be wishy-washy at best. I once covered a court case where a lawyer tried to ban the media from getting access to the agreed statement of facts for a couple of days so that his client wouldn't have those facts splashed across the media. It was a child pornography case and it was said that he was "having issues" in jail. The lawyer was unsuccessful in his ban bid.
And then there are the absolutely complicated cases. Look no further than the legalities and publication ban issues that arose from the Medicine Hat triple-murder case. One of the issues was whether the media and public would be allowed into the voir dire (deciding what evidence will be allowed to be seen in the trial and what won't). Another was whether bloggers would be held to the same account that "traditional media" (print, radio, TV) outlets were, in particular around naming the girl accused in the case (which was regularly broken by online folks with no repercussions). The question even came up at one point about whether American outlets would have to abide by that ban as they don't have the same legal structuring as we do in Canada. It does put the "traditional media" at a bit of a disadvantage to be bound by rules that don't take the information super-highway into consideration.
There you have it. A little inside information for you. I truly believe the era of the "embargo" should be virtually dead. As much as you want to control the flow of information, there's only so much that can be done and in most cases, you're now doing yourself a disservice by trying to implement an embargo. Your best bet is to make the embargo across the board and accessible for all outlets as we've all become "instant messengers". As for publication bans, I'm sure we'll see more of them and, as I said, most make sense. But we do have to take a second look at some of them and say "is it really doing anyone any good by banning the information for some but not others." Because it can get complicated and, frankly, confusing.
Just some food for thought.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Getting Into "The Biz"
Maybe we can call this a "must-read" for anyone just starting their careers or thinking about getting into media. But by the time this post is over, it might be less of a "must-read" and more of an "avoid at all costs" read. Let's see how this bad boy goes...
I remember when I first left Lethbridge College and wanted to get into the "real world". It actually took me three months to find that first job. And to say it was a painful wait would be an understatement (just ask my parents, who had to put up with me moping around the house for that three months). But finally, Lloydminster came calling and I never looked back.
The interesting part about this is that I never really expected to get into the big cities right off the hop. Don't get me wrong, I applied EVERYWHERE. Even did a few interviews and had a few news directors keep in touch over the years. But, after doing my practicum in Red Deer and listening to my teachers tell us over and over and over again, I knew the likelihood of getting a major market gig straight out of school was slim to nil. But you'd be surprised how many new journalism students think they are "the exception" and that they're going to bypass the small towns and cities to land that perfect gig.
I had a conversation with a young lady not too long ago about this actually. She was dead-set that she was going to get on CTV here in Calgary right off the hop. She figured she was better than everyone else in her class and went so far as to say she was already better than some of the reporters on most TV stations in Calgary. I was a little beside myself. Confidence is one thing; ridiculousness is another. I told her she'll likely have to start in a place like Lloydminster or Yorkton, work her way up to a Lethbridge or Regina, and then maybe in a few years she'd be able to get to a major market. Nope. The smallest she's willing to start at: Saskatoon. Good luck with that.
By no means am I saying don't have dreams, kids. All I'm saying is set realistic goals. Ask just about any reporter/anchor in Calgary about where they've been and they'll give you quite the list. I was actually pretty lucky to have been given a kick at the can after just over a year-and-a-half in the business (two stops). And believe it or not, after a while, I knew I wasn't ready.
It's one thing to BE in the market, it's another to be ready for it. For radio, the expectations and workload are insane. You have to be an expert in everything, from council and school board to crime and the court system to business and agriculture. When I went back to Medicine Hat in 2008, it really allowed me to brush up on some of that stuff that I was flying by the seat of my pants on earlier in my career. I was able to go to councils, school boards, courts, you name it, and do it at a much slower pace than what happens in Calgary. It also gave me a keen understanding of how to develop stories at a much slower pace. In my first stint in Calgary, I was pounding out stories left, right and centre, but I'm not 100% sure I knew what I was talking about half the time. Going back to the smaller city, it allowed me to understand the processes a lot better. When you understand the processes, you can more fully develop the stories as you have a better understanding of how everything affects everyone.
But the most important thing (to me) that you gain from working in the smaller centres is you get a better appreciation for not only the industry, but the way you connect with people. And you would be surprised how often that can come back to help you when you're sent out to a smaller town to do a story. You're able to throw on the "small town charm". But that also helps in the city, because people tend to gravitate to that as compared to the "hard-nosed reporter" that you can't say two words around because it might be on the news that night.
Two words come from this: trust and integrity. You can learn how to build both of those in a small market so that when you get to the big city, it's almost second nature to you. Or you can start in the big centre, and if you flub up, best of luck to you in picking up the pieces of your career. Think of it as a poor man's "traveling the world". You get to see some places you normally wouldn't get to see. And who knows, maybe you'll actually like it there and decide to stay a while.
I remember when I first left Lethbridge College and wanted to get into the "real world". It actually took me three months to find that first job. And to say it was a painful wait would be an understatement (just ask my parents, who had to put up with me moping around the house for that three months). But finally, Lloydminster came calling and I never looked back.
The interesting part about this is that I never really expected to get into the big cities right off the hop. Don't get me wrong, I applied EVERYWHERE. Even did a few interviews and had a few news directors keep in touch over the years. But, after doing my practicum in Red Deer and listening to my teachers tell us over and over and over again, I knew the likelihood of getting a major market gig straight out of school was slim to nil. But you'd be surprised how many new journalism students think they are "the exception" and that they're going to bypass the small towns and cities to land that perfect gig.
I had a conversation with a young lady not too long ago about this actually. She was dead-set that she was going to get on CTV here in Calgary right off the hop. She figured she was better than everyone else in her class and went so far as to say she was already better than some of the reporters on most TV stations in Calgary. I was a little beside myself. Confidence is one thing; ridiculousness is another. I told her she'll likely have to start in a place like Lloydminster or Yorkton, work her way up to a Lethbridge or Regina, and then maybe in a few years she'd be able to get to a major market. Nope. The smallest she's willing to start at: Saskatoon. Good luck with that.
By no means am I saying don't have dreams, kids. All I'm saying is set realistic goals. Ask just about any reporter/anchor in Calgary about where they've been and they'll give you quite the list. I was actually pretty lucky to have been given a kick at the can after just over a year-and-a-half in the business (two stops). And believe it or not, after a while, I knew I wasn't ready.
It's one thing to BE in the market, it's another to be ready for it. For radio, the expectations and workload are insane. You have to be an expert in everything, from council and school board to crime and the court system to business and agriculture. When I went back to Medicine Hat in 2008, it really allowed me to brush up on some of that stuff that I was flying by the seat of my pants on earlier in my career. I was able to go to councils, school boards, courts, you name it, and do it at a much slower pace than what happens in Calgary. It also gave me a keen understanding of how to develop stories at a much slower pace. In my first stint in Calgary, I was pounding out stories left, right and centre, but I'm not 100% sure I knew what I was talking about half the time. Going back to the smaller city, it allowed me to understand the processes a lot better. When you understand the processes, you can more fully develop the stories as you have a better understanding of how everything affects everyone.
But the most important thing (to me) that you gain from working in the smaller centres is you get a better appreciation for not only the industry, but the way you connect with people. And you would be surprised how often that can come back to help you when you're sent out to a smaller town to do a story. You're able to throw on the "small town charm". But that also helps in the city, because people tend to gravitate to that as compared to the "hard-nosed reporter" that you can't say two words around because it might be on the news that night.
Two words come from this: trust and integrity. You can learn how to build both of those in a small market so that when you get to the big city, it's almost second nature to you. Or you can start in the big centre, and if you flub up, best of luck to you in picking up the pieces of your career. Think of it as a poor man's "traveling the world". You get to see some places you normally wouldn't get to see. And who knows, maybe you'll actually like it there and decide to stay a while.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Small Town Kid In The Big City
It's always bittersweet going back to some of the smaller cities and towns I've lived in or had a past in when on assignment. On one hand, it's always nice to catch up with some of the people I haven't connected with in a while. On the other, I'm never there for something good. It's always bad news that I'm covering when I'm going somewhere out of the city.
It's a tough dilemma to be a part of. Being the small town kid in the big city has its challenges within city limits. Many people question where I'm actually from because of how many contacts I have in rural parts of the province. All I can say is that I'm "from Southern Alberta". You send me out to areas I've worked or lived before and it can be a little crazy because I'll probably know someone or know someone who knows someone.
I have three bones of contention when it comes to covering stories in rural parts of our fine province. In no particular order:
#1. Bad News Is The Only News
Why does it feel like the only time I'm in some of these centres is when it's bad news? The only time I ever went to Vulcan for a news story? Bunty Loose's murder. Claresholm? Triple-murder/suicide. Sparwood? Kienan Hebert's kidnapping. There's much more to these communities but unfortunately, we only ever seem to go out there when tragedy strikes. But do people in the "big city" truly care about those stories? It would be an interesting discussion that's for sure. Even something like the ongoing Events Centre debacle in Medicine Hat: should that be garnering attention in other parts of the province?
#2. How Media Is Perceived
It's always interesting being out in rural areas with the hard-nosed reporters. Some of them expect to be treated the same way that they're treated in the city. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. And some of those reporters don't like it. They want quotes NOW. This is one area where I'll give RCMP some leeway. A lot of the smaller detachments don't have the man-power to have a "media relations" person, let alone someone who has any sort of media training. So they tend to keep quiet until the Calgary or Edmonton offices come in to help out. Yet some reporters despise that. The same can be said with how we handle area residents. It's hard to explain but rural residents can be a little more weary of media than those in the city. They're simply not used to the cameras and attention. So, in many cases, you have to approach it a little differently. Again, it's not welcome with open arms by some reporters. And a "bad attitude" by one media outlet can ruin it, leading to a negative reputation for the entire batch. To my fellow reporters, I'm not saying "don't do your job", I'm just saying you might be best-served to proceed with caution as it, more times than not, will get you a lot further than throwing a little hissy fit.
#3. Take A Geography Class
This one really bugs me actually. Let's start with general directions. You would be shocked at the number of times I've heard someone say Medicine Hat is in "southwestern Alberta" or that Lethbridge is in "central Alberta". So there's that. Then there's proximity. We've had a wild summer of weather and at one point, I remember reading multiple tweets that a tornado had touched down "in Taber". Nope. It was eight miles south of Taber. Or the fire last November west of Lethbridge, when some media outlets said that the "west side of Lethbridge was being evacuated." Nope. Some rural residents west of Lethbridge were being forced from their homes. Word choice seems to go out the door when it comes to rural Alberta and I'm not exactly sure why. It always make me cringe to see us providing misleading or false information, because what it does is burns bridges as we gain a negative reputation as a whole (as much as some people don't want to think so). An "aside" as well on this one: someone should teach a class on how to pronounce the names of some of these communities. Boils down to doing some research but they don't call Irvine ER-VINE. It's ER-VIN. And Picture Butte is most certainly not PICTURE BUTT. It's PICTURE BYOOT.
By no means am I trying to throw anyone in particular under the bus with these. I'm simply writing about some observations noted in my time in Calgary. It'd be interesting to see how we, as the media, would be perceived if we made a few changes to the way we covered the rural areas. Would we lose listeners/viewers/readers by talking about tsome of the positives? Would our coverage change if we changed the way we approached those areas? Would we gain more respect from those rural communities? I have no idea. But it's certainly something I think is worthy of discussion.
It's a tough dilemma to be a part of. Being the small town kid in the big city has its challenges within city limits. Many people question where I'm actually from because of how many contacts I have in rural parts of the province. All I can say is that I'm "from Southern Alberta". You send me out to areas I've worked or lived before and it can be a little crazy because I'll probably know someone or know someone who knows someone.
I have three bones of contention when it comes to covering stories in rural parts of our fine province. In no particular order:
#1. Bad News Is The Only News
Why does it feel like the only time I'm in some of these centres is when it's bad news? The only time I ever went to Vulcan for a news story? Bunty Loose's murder. Claresholm? Triple-murder/suicide. Sparwood? Kienan Hebert's kidnapping. There's much more to these communities but unfortunately, we only ever seem to go out there when tragedy strikes. But do people in the "big city" truly care about those stories? It would be an interesting discussion that's for sure. Even something like the ongoing Events Centre debacle in Medicine Hat: should that be garnering attention in other parts of the province?
#2. How Media Is Perceived
It's always interesting being out in rural areas with the hard-nosed reporters. Some of them expect to be treated the same way that they're treated in the city. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. And some of those reporters don't like it. They want quotes NOW. This is one area where I'll give RCMP some leeway. A lot of the smaller detachments don't have the man-power to have a "media relations" person, let alone someone who has any sort of media training. So they tend to keep quiet until the Calgary or Edmonton offices come in to help out. Yet some reporters despise that. The same can be said with how we handle area residents. It's hard to explain but rural residents can be a little more weary of media than those in the city. They're simply not used to the cameras and attention. So, in many cases, you have to approach it a little differently. Again, it's not welcome with open arms by some reporters. And a "bad attitude" by one media outlet can ruin it, leading to a negative reputation for the entire batch. To my fellow reporters, I'm not saying "don't do your job", I'm just saying you might be best-served to proceed with caution as it, more times than not, will get you a lot further than throwing a little hissy fit.
#3. Take A Geography Class
This one really bugs me actually. Let's start with general directions. You would be shocked at the number of times I've heard someone say Medicine Hat is in "southwestern Alberta" or that Lethbridge is in "central Alberta". So there's that. Then there's proximity. We've had a wild summer of weather and at one point, I remember reading multiple tweets that a tornado had touched down "in Taber". Nope. It was eight miles south of Taber. Or the fire last November west of Lethbridge, when some media outlets said that the "west side of Lethbridge was being evacuated." Nope. Some rural residents west of Lethbridge were being forced from their homes. Word choice seems to go out the door when it comes to rural Alberta and I'm not exactly sure why. It always make me cringe to see us providing misleading or false information, because what it does is burns bridges as we gain a negative reputation as a whole (as much as some people don't want to think so). An "aside" as well on this one: someone should teach a class on how to pronounce the names of some of these communities. Boils down to doing some research but they don't call Irvine ER-VINE. It's ER-VIN. And Picture Butte is most certainly not PICTURE BUTT. It's PICTURE BYOOT.
By no means am I trying to throw anyone in particular under the bus with these. I'm simply writing about some observations noted in my time in Calgary. It'd be interesting to see how we, as the media, would be perceived if we made a few changes to the way we covered the rural areas. Would we lose listeners/viewers/readers by talking about tsome of the positives? Would our coverage change if we changed the way we approached those areas? Would we gain more respect from those rural communities? I have no idea. But it's certainly something I think is worthy of discussion.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Some Bold NHL Lockout Predictions
As a fan of hockey, watching this circus known as the "CBA Negotiations" in the NHL has been about as fun as smashing my head against a concrete wall and stubbing my toes against table legs. This is a league that wants to increase its take in some pretty difficult markets, yet is the only "major league" that has dealt with multiple work stoppages. If the NHL does lockout its players again, it would be the third time since the 1994-1995 season. That year, we saw a shortened 48-game season. Then we had the complete loss of the 2004-2005 season. And now, who knows what 2012-2013 season. But here, my friends, are three of my bold predictions on what the next few months will look like:
#1. A Lockout Is Inevitable
Don't get your hopes up for the season starting on time. Why? Because we heard Commish Gary Bettman use the "L-word" before we even saw the two sides seriously meet. And I use the word "seriously" pretty loosely. If the NHL and the NHLPA were deadset on making sure this season went off without a hitch, we'd see the two sides meeting EVERY DAY. Instead, we're treated to these hour-long closed-door sessions, followed by reps coming out to the plethora of TV cameras and microphone flashes, only to say they're "far apart" and they'll meet again soon. We're less than a month away from Gary's proposed "lockout date". Take what you will from that.
#2. The Season Won't Be A Total Loss
My gut is telling me that this isn't going to be a long, drawn-out process like it was in 2004-2005. I'm thinking we'll see teams reporting back in mid-November. Why? Because there's one event that I don't think the NHL wants to lose and that's the upcoming Toronto vs. Detroit Winter Classic. That's going to be a massive draw with so much on the line. Having witnessed the Calgary event, it is a marketing DREAM and this one will be ten times bigger, with Original 6 teams, spinoff games, and of course, all the merchandise and buzz. The league would be foolish to try to postpone this thing until the 2013-2014 season.
#3. What Have We Learned?
An interesting thing has happened in recent weeks. I've seen a few polls done on who people blame for the labour uncertainty in the NHL. And for the first time, it seems as though your average, everyday person thinks its the owners and NOT the players. It appears they've realized that the players are doing what any other person would do. When someone offers you a boatload of money, you take it. The common theme (which I stated in my previous sports-related blog) in all of the NHL's work stoppages has been (to a certain extent) that the owners need the league to "save them from themselves". Instead of saying "no" to a multi-year, multi-millions contract to Jeff Finger, they sign these guys out of fear that someone else will do it. Right now, the problem is, no one will say "no" to an Ilya Kovalchuk-sized contract. And let's face it, if you, the reader, were offered a 17-year contract worth $100-million, would you say no to that?
As to how this becomes a "bold prediction", I'm going to say that fans are finally going to start turning off the NHL. They're sick of having to deal with labour shortages and publicity stunts and new marketing to try to attract them back. The longer these "CBA discussions" continue, the more the "on the bubble" fans will turn to the NBA, NFL or MLB to spend their money. Or in Canada, maybe we'll see some of the expendable income go to the CHL (WHL, OHL or QMJHL) or the CFL. But I can't see many fans wanting to shell out $100's for tickets, when each time a lockout happens, the value of those tickets goes DOWN. If memory serves me right, MLB got back on track fans-wise because they dropped the ticket prices almost right after the '94 strike. Will the same happen in the NHL this time around? You be the judge.
Am I off-base? Do you think we're heading for an extended work stoppage? Feel free to have your say in the comments section.
And don't worry, I promise this isn't a return to my sports-related blog. But this was one I wanted to get off my chest. We'll be back with more politics and common-sense ramblings in the days ahead.
#1. A Lockout Is Inevitable
Don't get your hopes up for the season starting on time. Why? Because we heard Commish Gary Bettman use the "L-word" before we even saw the two sides seriously meet. And I use the word "seriously" pretty loosely. If the NHL and the NHLPA were deadset on making sure this season went off without a hitch, we'd see the two sides meeting EVERY DAY. Instead, we're treated to these hour-long closed-door sessions, followed by reps coming out to the plethora of TV cameras and microphone flashes, only to say they're "far apart" and they'll meet again soon. We're less than a month away from Gary's proposed "lockout date". Take what you will from that.
#2. The Season Won't Be A Total Loss
My gut is telling me that this isn't going to be a long, drawn-out process like it was in 2004-2005. I'm thinking we'll see teams reporting back in mid-November. Why? Because there's one event that I don't think the NHL wants to lose and that's the upcoming Toronto vs. Detroit Winter Classic. That's going to be a massive draw with so much on the line. Having witnessed the Calgary event, it is a marketing DREAM and this one will be ten times bigger, with Original 6 teams, spinoff games, and of course, all the merchandise and buzz. The league would be foolish to try to postpone this thing until the 2013-2014 season.
#3. What Have We Learned?
An interesting thing has happened in recent weeks. I've seen a few polls done on who people blame for the labour uncertainty in the NHL. And for the first time, it seems as though your average, everyday person thinks its the owners and NOT the players. It appears they've realized that the players are doing what any other person would do. When someone offers you a boatload of money, you take it. The common theme (which I stated in my previous sports-related blog) in all of the NHL's work stoppages has been (to a certain extent) that the owners need the league to "save them from themselves". Instead of saying "no" to a multi-year, multi-millions contract to Jeff Finger, they sign these guys out of fear that someone else will do it. Right now, the problem is, no one will say "no" to an Ilya Kovalchuk-sized contract. And let's face it, if you, the reader, were offered a 17-year contract worth $100-million, would you say no to that?
As to how this becomes a "bold prediction", I'm going to say that fans are finally going to start turning off the NHL. They're sick of having to deal with labour shortages and publicity stunts and new marketing to try to attract them back. The longer these "CBA discussions" continue, the more the "on the bubble" fans will turn to the NBA, NFL or MLB to spend their money. Or in Canada, maybe we'll see some of the expendable income go to the CHL (WHL, OHL or QMJHL) or the CFL. But I can't see many fans wanting to shell out $100's for tickets, when each time a lockout happens, the value of those tickets goes DOWN. If memory serves me right, MLB got back on track fans-wise because they dropped the ticket prices almost right after the '94 strike. Will the same happen in the NHL this time around? You be the judge.
Am I off-base? Do you think we're heading for an extended work stoppage? Feel free to have your say in the comments section.
And don't worry, I promise this isn't a return to my sports-related blog. But this was one I wanted to get off my chest. We'll be back with more politics and common-sense ramblings in the days ahead.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
My Radio Life "Identity Crisis"
I'd like to preface this post by saying I love my job. It's not very often where you find a career where no two days are exactly the same. In the midst of a single day, I can go from covering court and crime to city council and education meetings to covering a sporting event. And the range of people I get to meet and interview is sort of surreal sometimes. That all said, every so often I get what I call my "radio life identity crisis". And this "crisis" is two-fold.
The first fold has to do with being unbiased. As I've said in this blog before, we reporters aren't supposed to show our true colours. We're supposed to be able to interview anyone without perceived bias. Which can be tough, as I happen to be pretty opinionated (obviously). That's not to say I'm not open to hearing anyone else's arguments. Most of the time I just try to give people something else to think about (also known as being the devil's advocate). That might come from my years of listening and then working for a news-talk station. But isn't it my job to get people talking about a certain topic? I'm not a fan of being an extension of a PR machine. I know it sometimes comes across as being confrontational, but reporters are constantly questioned about whether we're asking "the tough questions". So isn't it in our best interest to be the devil's advocate more often than not? Just some food for thought.
Now, the other fold of my "crisis" is a little more complex. It has to do with being "entertaining". I was asked to do the news for our classic rock station a couple of weeks back and, while it wasn't overly intensive work, it had me thinking back to my days as a "co-host/newsie". It's where my first two jobs in this industry were, getting to be not only the guy that brought you the news but also brought you some fun.
Being "entertaining" had a lot of facets to it. It was more than just going on the radio and talking about things that made you (the listener) listen every day. Some of my favorite memories in radio happened off the air, hosting different events and being part of different functions, whether they be parades, barbeques or "patio parties". I've been lucky in hosting Flames/Hitmen games for the last couple of years, which have eased that "crisis" a bit. The summer is always a little tougher with no hockey as there's always that part of me that wants to have fun.
It's an interesting combination. Is there a healthy balance for a news person to be both informative AND entertaining? Does a news person lose any credibility by having a little bias or having an "entertaining" side? Is there room in this world for an "entertainer" to have an informative side? Here's an example: I post a little bit of everything on Twitter (@joemcfarland for those interested). Most of it is "news-related" stuff. But I'll also tweet stuff about my slo-pitch team, the concerts I go to, and just random thoughts I have through the course of the day. Do you think the non-news stuff has hurt my credibility as a news reporter? Am I taken less seriously? Or on the flipside, am I taken more seriously because it shows I am "human"?
I have a hunger. It's a hunger to be informative and entertaining. It's what gets people talking. When I go on the air, I want to be talking about what everyone is talking about around the water cooler. On the flipside, I want to be the one people are talking about ("did you hear what Joe said on the radio today about what happened in court?"). That might sound egotistical. But if people are talking about a certain topic because I was the one that they heard it from, then I've done my job. It's how I judge my news stories. If I look at it and say "no one's going to be talking about this", then time to go back to the drawing board. But if my gut tells me "this will get people talking", then away we go.
My on-air mantra is: don't be background noise. Be the reason people turn UP the radio.
The first fold has to do with being unbiased. As I've said in this blog before, we reporters aren't supposed to show our true colours. We're supposed to be able to interview anyone without perceived bias. Which can be tough, as I happen to be pretty opinionated (obviously). That's not to say I'm not open to hearing anyone else's arguments. Most of the time I just try to give people something else to think about (also known as being the devil's advocate). That might come from my years of listening and then working for a news-talk station. But isn't it my job to get people talking about a certain topic? I'm not a fan of being an extension of a PR machine. I know it sometimes comes across as being confrontational, but reporters are constantly questioned about whether we're asking "the tough questions". So isn't it in our best interest to be the devil's advocate more often than not? Just some food for thought.
Now, the other fold of my "crisis" is a little more complex. It has to do with being "entertaining". I was asked to do the news for our classic rock station a couple of weeks back and, while it wasn't overly intensive work, it had me thinking back to my days as a "co-host/newsie". It's where my first two jobs in this industry were, getting to be not only the guy that brought you the news but also brought you some fun.
Being "entertaining" had a lot of facets to it. It was more than just going on the radio and talking about things that made you (the listener) listen every day. Some of my favorite memories in radio happened off the air, hosting different events and being part of different functions, whether they be parades, barbeques or "patio parties". I've been lucky in hosting Flames/Hitmen games for the last couple of years, which have eased that "crisis" a bit. The summer is always a little tougher with no hockey as there's always that part of me that wants to have fun.
It's an interesting combination. Is there a healthy balance for a news person to be both informative AND entertaining? Does a news person lose any credibility by having a little bias or having an "entertaining" side? Is there room in this world for an "entertainer" to have an informative side? Here's an example: I post a little bit of everything on Twitter (@joemcfarland for those interested). Most of it is "news-related" stuff. But I'll also tweet stuff about my slo-pitch team, the concerts I go to, and just random thoughts I have through the course of the day. Do you think the non-news stuff has hurt my credibility as a news reporter? Am I taken less seriously? Or on the flipside, am I taken more seriously because it shows I am "human"?
I have a hunger. It's a hunger to be informative and entertaining. It's what gets people talking. When I go on the air, I want to be talking about what everyone is talking about around the water cooler. On the flipside, I want to be the one people are talking about ("did you hear what Joe said on the radio today about what happened in court?"). That might sound egotistical. But if people are talking about a certain topic because I was the one that they heard it from, then I've done my job. It's how I judge my news stories. If I look at it and say "no one's going to be talking about this", then time to go back to the drawing board. But if my gut tells me "this will get people talking", then away we go.
My on-air mantra is: don't be background noise. Be the reason people turn UP the radio.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
This Is Your Last Warning
One of the stories dominating the news in Calgary lately has been the high streamflow of the Bow and Elbow Rivers. It's become an almost daily happening, talking about warnings and advisories by all sorts of government departments. And almost as often, we're talking about rescues. As reporters, it almost feels like we're bashing our heads against a brick wall.
Granted, some say the majority of people listen to the advice. But what is it about that small minority? Are they willingly going against the grain or are they simply not informed? The question that's being raised now: is it time to fine/bill those who go into the water for a joyride and later need to be rescued?
I'm not going to wade into that discussion too much. The fact is that rescue teams are trained to do exactly that: rescue. They're generally working when they're called out to help you, so they're being paid anyways. So I'm not sure if you can put a dollar figure next to that. On the flipside, you're putting those rescuers in harm's way. So maybe a lofty fine is needed on the off-chance you need some help. But then how much does that really affect the way some people approach what they're going to do? One could argue fines for speeding (aka photo radar) and distracted driving haven't fixed the problem at all. It all boils down to personal choice.
But a friend on Twitter reminded me of a similar issue that popped up a while back. It was the middle of winter and every single weather service and media outlet was telling people to stay off the roads. The AMA's road conditions website had everything in "red" in Southern Alberta, basically meaning don't even bother trying to head out on a major highway.
If memory serves me right, a gentleman decided to go against the warnings. He headed out with his dog for a drive between Medicine Hat and Calgary. His first sign that he should turn around should have been the fact that he was going about 50km/h on the Trans-Canada Highway. But he plodded on, eventually hitting the ditch. The trouble: he was wearing shorts in -30 temperatures with an ugly windchill factor to boot and he had no supplies (aka blankets or pants). He called RCMP and tow trucks trying to get help, but they were obviously inundated with other calls. One officer even said the tow trucks didn't want to go on the highway for a while because they'd drive a few feet, get out of the vehicle, walk for a bit to make sure they weren't missing anything, go back to their vehicles and drive a little further. In other words, visibility was about as close to zero as you can get.
The man finally did get some help from a passing motorist. He claims he nearly froze to death and his dog suffered some pretty serious frostbite. He was later quoted as saying the RCMP nearly killed him and that there wasn't any advance warning of the storm. Ahhh. The old blame game that this blog has spoken of on occasion.
There are some interesting parallels between the issue around water safety and the warnings/advisories regarding winter driving. We, reporters, can warn you until our faces turn red. We're not doing it to be party-poopers. We're not doing it just to hear the sound of our own voices. We do it because someone obviously feels lives can be put in danger if the warnings aren't aired. And the last thing we want to do is go out to where the story is about your death.
Granted, some say the majority of people listen to the advice. But what is it about that small minority? Are they willingly going against the grain or are they simply not informed? The question that's being raised now: is it time to fine/bill those who go into the water for a joyride and later need to be rescued?
I'm not going to wade into that discussion too much. The fact is that rescue teams are trained to do exactly that: rescue. They're generally working when they're called out to help you, so they're being paid anyways. So I'm not sure if you can put a dollar figure next to that. On the flipside, you're putting those rescuers in harm's way. So maybe a lofty fine is needed on the off-chance you need some help. But then how much does that really affect the way some people approach what they're going to do? One could argue fines for speeding (aka photo radar) and distracted driving haven't fixed the problem at all. It all boils down to personal choice.
But a friend on Twitter reminded me of a similar issue that popped up a while back. It was the middle of winter and every single weather service and media outlet was telling people to stay off the roads. The AMA's road conditions website had everything in "red" in Southern Alberta, basically meaning don't even bother trying to head out on a major highway.
If memory serves me right, a gentleman decided to go against the warnings. He headed out with his dog for a drive between Medicine Hat and Calgary. His first sign that he should turn around should have been the fact that he was going about 50km/h on the Trans-Canada Highway. But he plodded on, eventually hitting the ditch. The trouble: he was wearing shorts in -30 temperatures with an ugly windchill factor to boot and he had no supplies (aka blankets or pants). He called RCMP and tow trucks trying to get help, but they were obviously inundated with other calls. One officer even said the tow trucks didn't want to go on the highway for a while because they'd drive a few feet, get out of the vehicle, walk for a bit to make sure they weren't missing anything, go back to their vehicles and drive a little further. In other words, visibility was about as close to zero as you can get.
The man finally did get some help from a passing motorist. He claims he nearly froze to death and his dog suffered some pretty serious frostbite. He was later quoted as saying the RCMP nearly killed him and that there wasn't any advance warning of the storm. Ahhh. The old blame game that this blog has spoken of on occasion.
There are some interesting parallels between the issue around water safety and the warnings/advisories regarding winter driving. We, reporters, can warn you until our faces turn red. We're not doing it to be party-poopers. We're not doing it just to hear the sound of our own voices. We do it because someone obviously feels lives can be put in danger if the warnings aren't aired. And the last thing we want to do is go out to where the story is about your death.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Another Round On The House
Hey Alberta! Get ready for some changes to your friendly, neighborhood impaired driving laws.
Transportation Minister Ric McIver laid out the ground rules on Monday. The legal limit isn't changing, but the penalties are. And they're not sitting well with some people.
Here's the basics: starting July 1st, if you provide a breath sample that registers over .08, your vehicle will be impounded for 72 hours (up from the previous 24 hours) and you lose your license indefinitely. What does "indefinitely" mean? It means until the process is done making its way through the court system. Which could be awhile, especially if you've seen some of the waits people are going through to set trial dates (AT LEAST six months).
The #1 question on everyone's mind: isn't this "guilty until proven innocent?" I'll let you be the judge of that. But McIver did reply to one of our questions by saying it's exactly the same way as how you're treated with any other criminal code offense. You're taken into custody (aka your freedoms are taken away) and you make your way into our justice system. Fair enough analogy. But I can already tell you what's going to be on the front page of your local newspaper within a week or two of these new rules going into effect: someone claiming they've been fired after losing their license, where driving was integral to their job. And you know what? That same person is probably going to claim that they are innocent. It might be a badly-calibrated breathalyzer or the officer didn't have reason to pull the person over in the first place. Whatever the case may be, it wasn't their fault they were caught.
Yup. I went there. "They were caught." It's the only reason anyone ever really starts complaining when it comes to impaired driving. Covering docket courts for a few years, you get a really good idea about all the excuses out there for why someone was out drinking and driving. McIver spent 20+ minutes up at the podium and I was waiting for him to say one thing that he never said: "if you don't want to get your license taken away, don't drink and drive." That's what this boils down to. Here's another way of looking at it: for years we've been bombarded with the "don't drink and drive" message yet people still did it and, for the most part, it was "don't drink and drive unless you've only had a couple and, in which case, you're free to go." This is taking a harder line approach to it.
Now, it's my understanding that starting in September is when you can replace the .08 with a .05. Blow over .05 and you're into that "No License, No Car, No Mercy" situation. Again, it's the province playing hard ball. McIver's not afraid of any constitutional challenges.
Here's where things get a little murky. What happens if John Smith gets pulled over and is charged, yet is found NOT GUILTY in the criminal courts? McIver was asked if there'd be any compensation for, let's say, loss of job. No dice apparently. My guess it's THAT part that's not going to fly with a few people. You know the province's opposition parties are going to jump all over this legislation like flies on...well...ya know. They're going to say that the problem isn't the .08 or the penalties, the problem is enforcement. "We need more officers on the street catching these menaces." And we all know that groups like MADD will be happy the province is moving closer to a "zero tolerance" policy. It's a "good step" they will say.
But let's cut the posturing and hoopla. Brass tax: it's ultimately up to individual drivers to take that step in not drinking and driving IN THE FIRST PLACE. Remember how much everyone groaned when seatbelts became mandatory? It was such an inconvenience they said. Yet, I was speaking with Cst. Jim Lebedeff of the Calgary Police Service a while back and, if memory serves me right, he said more than 92% of Albertans buckle up. We got over it. So why is it that Albertans continue to cry rivers over something like drinking and driving?
Transportation Minister Ric McIver laid out the ground rules on Monday. The legal limit isn't changing, but the penalties are. And they're not sitting well with some people.
Here's the basics: starting July 1st, if you provide a breath sample that registers over .08, your vehicle will be impounded for 72 hours (up from the previous 24 hours) and you lose your license indefinitely. What does "indefinitely" mean? It means until the process is done making its way through the court system. Which could be awhile, especially if you've seen some of the waits people are going through to set trial dates (AT LEAST six months).
The #1 question on everyone's mind: isn't this "guilty until proven innocent?" I'll let you be the judge of that. But McIver did reply to one of our questions by saying it's exactly the same way as how you're treated with any other criminal code offense. You're taken into custody (aka your freedoms are taken away) and you make your way into our justice system. Fair enough analogy. But I can already tell you what's going to be on the front page of your local newspaper within a week or two of these new rules going into effect: someone claiming they've been fired after losing their license, where driving was integral to their job. And you know what? That same person is probably going to claim that they are innocent. It might be a badly-calibrated breathalyzer or the officer didn't have reason to pull the person over in the first place. Whatever the case may be, it wasn't their fault they were caught.
Yup. I went there. "They were caught." It's the only reason anyone ever really starts complaining when it comes to impaired driving. Covering docket courts for a few years, you get a really good idea about all the excuses out there for why someone was out drinking and driving. McIver spent 20+ minutes up at the podium and I was waiting for him to say one thing that he never said: "if you don't want to get your license taken away, don't drink and drive." That's what this boils down to. Here's another way of looking at it: for years we've been bombarded with the "don't drink and drive" message yet people still did it and, for the most part, it was "don't drink and drive unless you've only had a couple and, in which case, you're free to go." This is taking a harder line approach to it.
Now, it's my understanding that starting in September is when you can replace the .08 with a .05. Blow over .05 and you're into that "No License, No Car, No Mercy" situation. Again, it's the province playing hard ball. McIver's not afraid of any constitutional challenges.
Here's where things get a little murky. What happens if John Smith gets pulled over and is charged, yet is found NOT GUILTY in the criminal courts? McIver was asked if there'd be any compensation for, let's say, loss of job. No dice apparently. My guess it's THAT part that's not going to fly with a few people. You know the province's opposition parties are going to jump all over this legislation like flies on...well...ya know. They're going to say that the problem isn't the .08 or the penalties, the problem is enforcement. "We need more officers on the street catching these menaces." And we all know that groups like MADD will be happy the province is moving closer to a "zero tolerance" policy. It's a "good step" they will say.
But let's cut the posturing and hoopla. Brass tax: it's ultimately up to individual drivers to take that step in not drinking and driving IN THE FIRST PLACE. Remember how much everyone groaned when seatbelts became mandatory? It was such an inconvenience they said. Yet, I was speaking with Cst. Jim Lebedeff of the Calgary Police Service a while back and, if memory serves me right, he said more than 92% of Albertans buckle up. We got over it. So why is it that Albertans continue to cry rivers over something like drinking and driving?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
The Public Relations Battle
I have to be careful how I write this next entry. Don't want to make any PR flack upset with me. But let's face it: the media's relationship with public relations teams can be...challenging. And I'm sure the public relations teams thoughts of the media aren't exactly peachy either. Dare I say: love/hate.
Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic PR people out there. I'd argue the majority are actually pretty good. But there are also some that we, as reporters, hate dealing with. It's not even that they're bad people. Sometimes, it's just a matter of "policy" that gets in the way.
Let me give you an example. I hear it all the time how, in the old days, you could call up anyone to get comment on something and there would be no repercussions for doing so. Those same people you used to call now say that the reporter must "call the media relations team" first and they will set up the interview. In some cases, that same team will ask for your questions before you're even allowed to ask. Which is kind of difficult as a lot of time, our questions will be based on what the answer is to the question before. You see, I've always viewed an "interview" as a "conversation". The "story" is what comes out of that conversation. Pretty simple stuff.
When dealing with some PR people, the response to my questions can sometimes be funny. My favorite line is "I don't see how that's a story". You might as well be saying "you have no idea how much of a story this will become if you dig deep enough". My approach is pretty simple: if people are talking about it, it's probably worth checking into. The general lack of understanding of radio is sometimes baffling too. The line is always "when's your deadline?" Ummmm...how about "now"? Radio is about as instant as you can get. When you have legitimate breaking news, radio is where people turn to for facts-based news (no disrespect to social media here, but rumours spread like wildfire there, whereas traditional media still has its checks and balances, but that's a different story for a different day). So by delaying your response, you're only making it more difficult for our listeners (aka people affected by the situation) to get the information they need.
An interesting example of this is rural RCMP detachments. I had one situation a few years ago where listeners told us about a plane crash. We called to confirm it but the spokesperson at the time (who is no longer employed by the RCMP) told us "I don't know what you're talking about." So we went to the area where we were told it happened. As we entered the scene, guess who happened to be there? The officer/flack. She was a little more forthcoming with information at that point. I will say the situation with the RCMP has been a lot better in Southern Alberta since then with Patrick Webb (who just recently retired). We also have situations where the team will say "a release is being emailed". That's all well and good but, for radio purposes, we'd like to get some audio. And you know, ask some questions. There is a fine line between getting the information out there and controlling the message.
Now here's where things get a little shaky. Can we call out an organization for having shotty media relations practices? To a certain extent perhaps. On election night, the Wildrose Party had a "lottery" to determine order of one-on-one interviews with leader Danielle Smith after the votes were tallied. We were under the impression this would happen win or lose. But when they lost, we were suddenly told that the one-on-ones would only happen if they won. They even said they wouldn't put her into a "scrum" (those situations where you see a bunch of microphones in front of someone's face and me in the background of the TV shots looking serious). A few of us went on-air/online to point this out and half an hour later, an impromptu scrum was held. But in the past, there's been similar situations, then when you call them a few weeks later to talk about another story, they say they're not granting the interview request because of what you've said.
It can be like walking on eggshells sometimes. Some call it "playing the game". But both sides of this argument need to understand one thing: we need each other. Public/media relations people need the media to get "the message" out there and in a timely fashion. And media needs public/media relations people in order to get the information and, eventually, the story. It's our listeners/viewers/readers (aka people affected by what's going on) that will win once everyone figures all of this out.
Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic PR people out there. I'd argue the majority are actually pretty good. But there are also some that we, as reporters, hate dealing with. It's not even that they're bad people. Sometimes, it's just a matter of "policy" that gets in the way.
Let me give you an example. I hear it all the time how, in the old days, you could call up anyone to get comment on something and there would be no repercussions for doing so. Those same people you used to call now say that the reporter must "call the media relations team" first and they will set up the interview. In some cases, that same team will ask for your questions before you're even allowed to ask. Which is kind of difficult as a lot of time, our questions will be based on what the answer is to the question before. You see, I've always viewed an "interview" as a "conversation". The "story" is what comes out of that conversation. Pretty simple stuff.
When dealing with some PR people, the response to my questions can sometimes be funny. My favorite line is "I don't see how that's a story". You might as well be saying "you have no idea how much of a story this will become if you dig deep enough". My approach is pretty simple: if people are talking about it, it's probably worth checking into. The general lack of understanding of radio is sometimes baffling too. The line is always "when's your deadline?" Ummmm...how about "now"? Radio is about as instant as you can get. When you have legitimate breaking news, radio is where people turn to for facts-based news (no disrespect to social media here, but rumours spread like wildfire there, whereas traditional media still has its checks and balances, but that's a different story for a different day). So by delaying your response, you're only making it more difficult for our listeners (aka people affected by the situation) to get the information they need.
An interesting example of this is rural RCMP detachments. I had one situation a few years ago where listeners told us about a plane crash. We called to confirm it but the spokesperson at the time (who is no longer employed by the RCMP) told us "I don't know what you're talking about." So we went to the area where we were told it happened. As we entered the scene, guess who happened to be there? The officer/flack. She was a little more forthcoming with information at that point. I will say the situation with the RCMP has been a lot better in Southern Alberta since then with Patrick Webb (who just recently retired). We also have situations where the team will say "a release is being emailed". That's all well and good but, for radio purposes, we'd like to get some audio. And you know, ask some questions. There is a fine line between getting the information out there and controlling the message.
Now here's where things get a little shaky. Can we call out an organization for having shotty media relations practices? To a certain extent perhaps. On election night, the Wildrose Party had a "lottery" to determine order of one-on-one interviews with leader Danielle Smith after the votes were tallied. We were under the impression this would happen win or lose. But when they lost, we were suddenly told that the one-on-ones would only happen if they won. They even said they wouldn't put her into a "scrum" (those situations where you see a bunch of microphones in front of someone's face and me in the background of the TV shots looking serious). A few of us went on-air/online to point this out and half an hour later, an impromptu scrum was held. But in the past, there's been similar situations, then when you call them a few weeks later to talk about another story, they say they're not granting the interview request because of what you've said.
It can be like walking on eggshells sometimes. Some call it "playing the game". But both sides of this argument need to understand one thing: we need each other. Public/media relations people need the media to get "the message" out there and in a timely fashion. And media needs public/media relations people in order to get the information and, eventually, the story. It's our listeners/viewers/readers (aka people affected by what's going on) that will win once everyone figures all of this out.
Monday, May 28, 2012
"The Transient"
I'm tired of moving. No, I'm not contemplating another move. In fact, the next time that happens better be when a house or condo is purchased. But the past couple of weeks have rendered a few interesting conversations where the main talking point is about moving/switching jobs.
This is always one of those questions we get as reporters: where all have you lived? I've been pretty lucky. Since graduating at Lethbridge College in April '05, I've lived in three cities. The bad part is that I've lived in two of those cities twice. I've worked in Lloydminster (CKSA/LloydFM July '05-July '06), Medicine Hat (CHAT/MY96, July '06-March '07), Calgary (QR77/Country 105/Q107, March '07-May '08), Medicine Hat (CJCY, May '08-August '10) and Calgary (QR/Country/Q, August '10-now). I also moved within city limits during two of those stints. Let's just say my belongings are a little travel-weary.
A friend of mine is making a move soon and she's concerned about not having a lot of time (2 weeks) between her current job and her soon-to-be job. So I thought I'd share one of my horror stories of moving. It happened while moving from Lloyd to Medicine Hat. I was working mornings and my last day was on a Friday. That afternoon, I packed up what I could and made the trek down to the farm, where some of my stuff would stay for a while. At about 5am Saturday, I got into my dad's truck and started the trek back up to Lloyd to pick up the rest of my stuff. About ten minutes from the farm, I hit a deer. Didn't do a lot of damage but enough that I had to turn around and grab my own truck ('69 Chevy with no AC for those hot SE Alberta days in July) and ventured up to Lloyd again. Grabbed my stuff, cleaned my apartment and made the 5(ish) hour drive down Highway 41 to Medicine Hat. Arrived at about 9pm. Slept on a couch and woke up at 5am on Sunday to train for my new job doing morning news on MY96. You guessed it. Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for my first show on the Monday. I'll NEVER do that again. Ever. But it does go to show that nothing is impossible!
And once you make the move, then it is time to get to work. You have to know everything about your new surroundings as quickly as possible. Learn the names of all the communities, get to know some of the business types, take in a few sporting events. The move I think about it, the more the first years of my career were an absolute blur. As much as you think you're on top of the game, it's not until later that you realize you might have been a step behind.
When you leave for bigger and better things, it's hard not to take a look back. I wouldn't be too surprised to hear some reporters say they still check up on some of the communities they once worked in. I know for me, it still gets me furled up thinking about the debacle that has become the new Events Centre for Medicine Hat. And I'm always a little curious about different stories I remember talking about in Lloyd. We, reporters, are a transient bunch. We leave a piece of our hearts in each place we work. And sometimes we leave a little more, like couches and lamps...
This is always one of those questions we get as reporters: where all have you lived? I've been pretty lucky. Since graduating at Lethbridge College in April '05, I've lived in three cities. The bad part is that I've lived in two of those cities twice. I've worked in Lloydminster (CKSA/LloydFM July '05-July '06), Medicine Hat (CHAT/MY96, July '06-March '07), Calgary (QR77/Country 105/Q107, March '07-May '08), Medicine Hat (CJCY, May '08-August '10) and Calgary (QR/Country/Q, August '10-now). I also moved within city limits during two of those stints. Let's just say my belongings are a little travel-weary.
A friend of mine is making a move soon and she's concerned about not having a lot of time (2 weeks) between her current job and her soon-to-be job. So I thought I'd share one of my horror stories of moving. It happened while moving from Lloyd to Medicine Hat. I was working mornings and my last day was on a Friday. That afternoon, I packed up what I could and made the trek down to the farm, where some of my stuff would stay for a while. At about 5am Saturday, I got into my dad's truck and started the trek back up to Lloyd to pick up the rest of my stuff. About ten minutes from the farm, I hit a deer. Didn't do a lot of damage but enough that I had to turn around and grab my own truck ('69 Chevy with no AC for those hot SE Alberta days in July) and ventured up to Lloyd again. Grabbed my stuff, cleaned my apartment and made the 5(ish) hour drive down Highway 41 to Medicine Hat. Arrived at about 9pm. Slept on a couch and woke up at 5am on Sunday to train for my new job doing morning news on MY96. You guessed it. Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for my first show on the Monday. I'll NEVER do that again. Ever. But it does go to show that nothing is impossible!
And once you make the move, then it is time to get to work. You have to know everything about your new surroundings as quickly as possible. Learn the names of all the communities, get to know some of the business types, take in a few sporting events. The move I think about it, the more the first years of my career were an absolute blur. As much as you think you're on top of the game, it's not until later that you realize you might have been a step behind.
When you leave for bigger and better things, it's hard not to take a look back. I wouldn't be too surprised to hear some reporters say they still check up on some of the communities they once worked in. I know for me, it still gets me furled up thinking about the debacle that has become the new Events Centre for Medicine Hat. And I'm always a little curious about different stories I remember talking about in Lloyd. We, reporters, are a transient bunch. We leave a piece of our hearts in each place we work. And sometimes we leave a little more, like couches and lamps...
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Removing The "Human Element"
You never forget your first.
No. Not THAT. I'm talking about murders, trials and dead bodies. Some of the things that you see as a reporter can be good or indifferent. But in some cases, it's bad. So bad, in fact, that I've said it before and I'll say it again: "I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy."
What made me think of this topic was the murder trial which I began covering today. It's the case of two men accused in an alleged murder-for-hire plot which played out in Calgary in January 2006. It happened just before I moved to the city the first time. During my training, this case was at the preliminary hearing phase. It became the first trial I ever covered in Calgary from start-to-finish, and if memory serves me right, the jury came back with its verdict on a Saturday. It was also the first time I was subjected to crime scene photos and video. You get to see everything as nothing has been touched by police yet.
In this particular case, it opens up with some distant video and you can make out a body. By the end, you're getting visuals of the dead man from every possible angle. The gunshot wounds, the puddle of blood the body is in, the lifeless look in his face. For a rookie reporter, it was daunting. But you have to put the "human element" in the back of your mind and report the story.
I'll admit I haven't spent a LOT of years (seven) in this business, but you have a ton of these moments. The images that will stick with me the most are from the Medicine Hat triple-murder case. It didn't really register with me until seeing the pictures of the little boy with his throat slashed, his body lying on his bed. And I've been to fatal crashes and all sorts of murder scenes where you're literally a few yards from the bodies. Nothing hit me quite like that.
It sounds bad, but as a reporter, you have to take out the "human element". I tend to think of these situations as being a bad movie or TV show. Otherwise, it can be really tough to not lose your mind thinking about some of the things you have to see on a day-to-day basis. I can't imagine being a first-responder in situations like these, being subjected to these situations on a daily basis (or more). The only thing I can think is that you have to find some sort of healthy balance to maintain your sanity. You hug your loved ones just a little harder and tell them you love them just one more time.
No. Not THAT. I'm talking about murders, trials and dead bodies. Some of the things that you see as a reporter can be good or indifferent. But in some cases, it's bad. So bad, in fact, that I've said it before and I'll say it again: "I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy."
What made me think of this topic was the murder trial which I began covering today. It's the case of two men accused in an alleged murder-for-hire plot which played out in Calgary in January 2006. It happened just before I moved to the city the first time. During my training, this case was at the preliminary hearing phase. It became the first trial I ever covered in Calgary from start-to-finish, and if memory serves me right, the jury came back with its verdict on a Saturday. It was also the first time I was subjected to crime scene photos and video. You get to see everything as nothing has been touched by police yet.
In this particular case, it opens up with some distant video and you can make out a body. By the end, you're getting visuals of the dead man from every possible angle. The gunshot wounds, the puddle of blood the body is in, the lifeless look in his face. For a rookie reporter, it was daunting. But you have to put the "human element" in the back of your mind and report the story.
I'll admit I haven't spent a LOT of years (seven) in this business, but you have a ton of these moments. The images that will stick with me the most are from the Medicine Hat triple-murder case. It didn't really register with me until seeing the pictures of the little boy with his throat slashed, his body lying on his bed. And I've been to fatal crashes and all sorts of murder scenes where you're literally a few yards from the bodies. Nothing hit me quite like that.
It sounds bad, but as a reporter, you have to take out the "human element". I tend to think of these situations as being a bad movie or TV show. Otherwise, it can be really tough to not lose your mind thinking about some of the things you have to see on a day-to-day basis. I can't imagine being a first-responder in situations like these, being subjected to these situations on a daily basis (or more). The only thing I can think is that you have to find some sort of healthy balance to maintain your sanity. You hug your loved ones just a little harder and tell them you love them just one more time.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Taking Some Responsibility
As a reporter, you try to keep yourself as unbiased as possible. You're supposed to think of everyone as innocent until proven guilty. You're supposed to give everyone the benefit of the doubt but at the same time you can't be afraid to ask the tough questions. Yet the one question that continually rises in my head is: when will some people simply take responsibility for their actions?
The one area where this aggravates me more than usual is through our criminal justice system. You can't blame the police as they do all they can (in most cases) to gather enough evidence and bring it to the Crown, who will put its best case together in hopes of laying appropriate charges which will result in the highest likelihood of conviction. The judges are also bound by the Criminal Code of Canada and, once convicted, sentences are likely going to fall in a range set out through previous cases. I get it.
What bugs me more than anything is watching the sense of entitlement some criminals have in using the system to their benefit. I've covered my fair share of trials in my short career but it never ceases to amaze me at how often those found guilty will appeal. They either don't like the charge they were found guilty of or they don't like the sentence. So they bog down the justice system even more by putting the case through the ringer again. And it's usually based on some wording the judge used or some sort of "out there" hypothesis which the defense believes wasn't taken into consideration. Even though the evidence clearly shows the person convicted was responsible. But they've sunk a ton of money into lawyers, so what's another few years of dragging the case through the system one more time? Let's subject the families, friends and witnesses through the pains and struggles one more time, just to see if you can get a six-year sentence instead of a seven-year sentence.
One case that has always bugged me is Daniel Tschetter. Here's an interested piece I found:
http://www.cochraneeagle.com/2009/03/tschetter-laments-media-coverage-of-lethal-crash-trial/
He was behind the wheel of a cement truck which slammed into the back of a car on Macleod Trail in Calgary's south end in 2007, killing five people inside. Witnesses say they saw Tschetter get out of his cab, hop onto the back and throw something into the mixer. They say it was a vodka bottle. He was eventually convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to about six years in prison. You read that right: six years. For killing five people. And yet, if you read the article I've posted above, it's the "media's fault" for him being portrayed poorly. Right.
Here's a recent story which has my blood boiling:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/05/05/10-year-olds-death-crushes-community
What boggles my mind about this one is that people know who did this. There was supposedly more than one person in the offending vehicle. Instead of manning up and taking responsibility (or at least coming forward with their story), people are staying silent. A 10-year-old girl is dead and people are trying to protect the person who is responsible. Disgusting.
I get it. Not everyone has a great moral compass. Some people have reputations and egos on the line. But let me ask: when will we start taking responsibility for our actions?
The one area where this aggravates me more than usual is through our criminal justice system. You can't blame the police as they do all they can (in most cases) to gather enough evidence and bring it to the Crown, who will put its best case together in hopes of laying appropriate charges which will result in the highest likelihood of conviction. The judges are also bound by the Criminal Code of Canada and, once convicted, sentences are likely going to fall in a range set out through previous cases. I get it.
What bugs me more than anything is watching the sense of entitlement some criminals have in using the system to their benefit. I've covered my fair share of trials in my short career but it never ceases to amaze me at how often those found guilty will appeal. They either don't like the charge they were found guilty of or they don't like the sentence. So they bog down the justice system even more by putting the case through the ringer again. And it's usually based on some wording the judge used or some sort of "out there" hypothesis which the defense believes wasn't taken into consideration. Even though the evidence clearly shows the person convicted was responsible. But they've sunk a ton of money into lawyers, so what's another few years of dragging the case through the system one more time? Let's subject the families, friends and witnesses through the pains and struggles one more time, just to see if you can get a six-year sentence instead of a seven-year sentence.
One case that has always bugged me is Daniel Tschetter. Here's an interested piece I found:
http://www.cochraneeagle.com/2009/03/tschetter-laments-media-coverage-of-lethal-crash-trial/
He was behind the wheel of a cement truck which slammed into the back of a car on Macleod Trail in Calgary's south end in 2007, killing five people inside. Witnesses say they saw Tschetter get out of his cab, hop onto the back and throw something into the mixer. They say it was a vodka bottle. He was eventually convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to about six years in prison. You read that right: six years. For killing five people. And yet, if you read the article I've posted above, it's the "media's fault" for him being portrayed poorly. Right.
Here's a recent story which has my blood boiling:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/05/05/10-year-olds-death-crushes-community
What boggles my mind about this one is that people know who did this. There was supposedly more than one person in the offending vehicle. Instead of manning up and taking responsibility (or at least coming forward with their story), people are staying silent. A 10-year-old girl is dead and people are trying to protect the person who is responsible. Disgusting.
I get it. Not everyone has a great moral compass. Some people have reputations and egos on the line. But let me ask: when will we start taking responsibility for our actions?
Monday, May 7, 2012
The Blame Game Continues
There's no such thing as an "accident".
Those words, from a driver's education teacher a few years back, continue to echo in my head. Especially when we start the discussion over Highway 63 heading to Fort McMurray. The political hot potato hasn't been passed around more often than it has in the last ten days, since a fiery crash killed seven people.
By no means am I trying to diminish the true tragedy of another death on the highway. But let's have a full discussion over this roadway. Let's not rush to the "twin it" argument that has been resonating across the province. That may very well be the solution but I have some reservations about blaming the road for all the problems. In fact, I've never been a fan of calling any road "dangerous". At what point do we turn the blame on the drivers?
We just received statistics from RCMP that they pulled over and charged nearly 700 drivers on Highway 63 in a four-day span (last Thursday to Sunday). That's more than twice what they usually see. More than 500 of those were for speeding while another 90(ish) were for "hazardous operation" like dangerous driving. For a two-lane highway, these numbers are mind-boggling. It's quite obvious that drivers aren't getting the message. And they won't. Call me a pessimist, but as my reply to a question on Twitter about this very issue alludes to: "time is money". These drivers obviously don't care about speed limits because they feel invincible. They also realize that the chances of getting pulled over aren't great, so getting home a few minutes earlier will mean a few more dollars in the bank or a little more time with their loved ones or whatever the case may be.
I pose this question to you: do you think that speeding will decrease with the twinning of Highway 63? I will say no. In fact, I believe the numbers will increase if you twin the roadway. Think about it for a second: you now don't have to worry about on-coming traffic when you try to pass that semi that has slowed down because of power loss going up a hill or that camper that isn't made for a 110km/h pace of traffic. Those who speed will speed, regardless of what you do.
The only thing twinning the roadway will solve will be decreasing the number of head-on crashes we see. And with the amount of traffic that takes that highway, that in itself is a good idea, because we've seen the stats on the number of fatalities. We've seen the pictures and videos. We've heard the horror stories. The roadway is too congested for two lanes. I think we can all accept that.
But, as some would say, we "can't fix stupid". That's ultimately the issue we're trying to solve. Do we increase the fines for speeding? More demerits? Do we start fining the companies as well as the drivers for those caught speeding in company vehicles? Driver error is one thing. But ignorance is another. People are too concerned about getting to where they need to go that they don't think that they're putting their own lives in their own hands, let alone the lives of everyone else on the road. It would be interesting to see how many distracted driving tickets would be handed out on that highway.
Going back to that first line of this blog entry: there's no such thing as an "accident". The driving instructor explained to the class that all "accidents" in vehicles are avoidable. Everyone needs to do their part in taking responsibility for their own actions. Yet, responsibility is something many are too quick to toss into another person's lap. And in many cases along Highway 63, it's ending in tragedy.
Those words, from a driver's education teacher a few years back, continue to echo in my head. Especially when we start the discussion over Highway 63 heading to Fort McMurray. The political hot potato hasn't been passed around more often than it has in the last ten days, since a fiery crash killed seven people.
By no means am I trying to diminish the true tragedy of another death on the highway. But let's have a full discussion over this roadway. Let's not rush to the "twin it" argument that has been resonating across the province. That may very well be the solution but I have some reservations about blaming the road for all the problems. In fact, I've never been a fan of calling any road "dangerous". At what point do we turn the blame on the drivers?
We just received statistics from RCMP that they pulled over and charged nearly 700 drivers on Highway 63 in a four-day span (last Thursday to Sunday). That's more than twice what they usually see. More than 500 of those were for speeding while another 90(ish) were for "hazardous operation" like dangerous driving. For a two-lane highway, these numbers are mind-boggling. It's quite obvious that drivers aren't getting the message. And they won't. Call me a pessimist, but as my reply to a question on Twitter about this very issue alludes to: "time is money". These drivers obviously don't care about speed limits because they feel invincible. They also realize that the chances of getting pulled over aren't great, so getting home a few minutes earlier will mean a few more dollars in the bank or a little more time with their loved ones or whatever the case may be.
I pose this question to you: do you think that speeding will decrease with the twinning of Highway 63? I will say no. In fact, I believe the numbers will increase if you twin the roadway. Think about it for a second: you now don't have to worry about on-coming traffic when you try to pass that semi that has slowed down because of power loss going up a hill or that camper that isn't made for a 110km/h pace of traffic. Those who speed will speed, regardless of what you do.
The only thing twinning the roadway will solve will be decreasing the number of head-on crashes we see. And with the amount of traffic that takes that highway, that in itself is a good idea, because we've seen the stats on the number of fatalities. We've seen the pictures and videos. We've heard the horror stories. The roadway is too congested for two lanes. I think we can all accept that.
But, as some would say, we "can't fix stupid". That's ultimately the issue we're trying to solve. Do we increase the fines for speeding? More demerits? Do we start fining the companies as well as the drivers for those caught speeding in company vehicles? Driver error is one thing. But ignorance is another. People are too concerned about getting to where they need to go that they don't think that they're putting their own lives in their own hands, let alone the lives of everyone else on the road. It would be interesting to see how many distracted driving tickets would be handed out on that highway.
Going back to that first line of this blog entry: there's no such thing as an "accident". The driving instructor explained to the class that all "accidents" in vehicles are avoidable. Everyone needs to do their part in taking responsibility for their own actions. Yet, responsibility is something many are too quick to toss into another person's lap. And in many cases along Highway 63, it's ending in tragedy.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Sensitive In A Dangerous Time
I remember the story like it was yesterday. I remember his name (though I won't use it). I remember what he looks like. And I remember how it was a shock to a city of 60,000 people.
Back in 2009, the young man was charged with the armed robbery of a Medicine Hat convenience store. If memory serves me right it happened late-afternoon, so it obviously had a few people in disbelief as that kind of thing just "doesn't happen" in their community. His name was released as soon as the arrest was made and everyone went about their business.
As our newsroom did with all crime stories that we named the suspect in, we followed the case in court. I remember the first court appearance the young man made and I knew something wasn't right. His mother was sitting in the front row (as she did through most of the court appearances I witnessed). He walked in and despite being 25-years-old, he looked much older. He looked ashamed. And right from the beginning, lawyers were treating it differently. This was sensitive. We knew he had mental health issues. He had a learning disability.
I left Medicine Hat before the case came to a conclusion in court but a quick search on my old station's archive uncovered that the young man was deemed unfit to stand trial as he wouldn't have been able to properly deal with the situation. The unfortunate thing is that we see this situation unfold when covering crime and courts, more often than you would think. Sometimes it's the suspect. Sometimes it's the complainant.
This begs an interesting question: how do you strike a balance between keeping everyone informed about what has deeply affected their community versus being sensitive to the fact that the person may not totally understand what they have done and it may not do them any good to have their name all over the radio/TV/newspaper/internet? Since that first court appearance, I was uneasy using his name in our news reports simply for that reason. But at the same time, in the end, his name was cleared in a roundabout way. And people became a little more understanding of his situation.
Another example would be Randall Hopley. He was accused of kidnapping Kienan Hebert in Sparwood last fall. Some have called into question whether he may have a learning disability of some kind. The way RCMP handled their message through the media to Hopley had me questioning it from the on-set. It was never "we are going to get you". It was always "we know you have a story to tell, so bring Kienan home and we will help tell your story". Almost as if they were speaking to a child.
Should we be seeing these "criminals" as villains? Or should they be looked at as people who need help? Again, does it do anyone any good to continue putting them into the spotlight when, in many cases, they have needs far beyond a jail cell.
And it's a difficult balance to strike even when a situation is playing out. Take a look at when a kid says someone tried to pull them into a van. Police are working off the best information they have and they pass it on to the media, who gets it out there. Hours and days are spent searching for a suspect or a vehicle or any kind of lead that will get them an arrest and let people rest a little easier at night. But after a while, we hear the story was made up by the young boy or girl. You need to err on the side of caution and I get that. But the question has been raised in many newsrooms: how serious do we take these situations? A community needs to know something may have happened. There will undoubtedly be discomfort felt by residents letting their kids go out and play. You have to give the complainant the benefit of the doubt. But the sad reality is it's almost a case of "the boy who cried wolf". Who do you believe?
I don't think there is a solid answer to any of the questions raised here. I do believe though, that in all cases, don't judge any book by its cover. Let all the facts get out there before anyone is made out to be the "villain".
Back in 2009, the young man was charged with the armed robbery of a Medicine Hat convenience store. If memory serves me right it happened late-afternoon, so it obviously had a few people in disbelief as that kind of thing just "doesn't happen" in their community. His name was released as soon as the arrest was made and everyone went about their business.
As our newsroom did with all crime stories that we named the suspect in, we followed the case in court. I remember the first court appearance the young man made and I knew something wasn't right. His mother was sitting in the front row (as she did through most of the court appearances I witnessed). He walked in and despite being 25-years-old, he looked much older. He looked ashamed. And right from the beginning, lawyers were treating it differently. This was sensitive. We knew he had mental health issues. He had a learning disability.
I left Medicine Hat before the case came to a conclusion in court but a quick search on my old station's archive uncovered that the young man was deemed unfit to stand trial as he wouldn't have been able to properly deal with the situation. The unfortunate thing is that we see this situation unfold when covering crime and courts, more often than you would think. Sometimes it's the suspect. Sometimes it's the complainant.
This begs an interesting question: how do you strike a balance between keeping everyone informed about what has deeply affected their community versus being sensitive to the fact that the person may not totally understand what they have done and it may not do them any good to have their name all over the radio/TV/newspaper/internet? Since that first court appearance, I was uneasy using his name in our news reports simply for that reason. But at the same time, in the end, his name was cleared in a roundabout way. And people became a little more understanding of his situation.
Another example would be Randall Hopley. He was accused of kidnapping Kienan Hebert in Sparwood last fall. Some have called into question whether he may have a learning disability of some kind. The way RCMP handled their message through the media to Hopley had me questioning it from the on-set. It was never "we are going to get you". It was always "we know you have a story to tell, so bring Kienan home and we will help tell your story". Almost as if they were speaking to a child.
Should we be seeing these "criminals" as villains? Or should they be looked at as people who need help? Again, does it do anyone any good to continue putting them into the spotlight when, in many cases, they have needs far beyond a jail cell.
And it's a difficult balance to strike even when a situation is playing out. Take a look at when a kid says someone tried to pull them into a van. Police are working off the best information they have and they pass it on to the media, who gets it out there. Hours and days are spent searching for a suspect or a vehicle or any kind of lead that will get them an arrest and let people rest a little easier at night. But after a while, we hear the story was made up by the young boy or girl. You need to err on the side of caution and I get that. But the question has been raised in many newsrooms: how serious do we take these situations? A community needs to know something may have happened. There will undoubtedly be discomfort felt by residents letting their kids go out and play. You have to give the complainant the benefit of the doubt. But the sad reality is it's almost a case of "the boy who cried wolf". Who do you believe?
I don't think there is a solid answer to any of the questions raised here. I do believe though, that in all cases, don't judge any book by its cover. Let all the facts get out there before anyone is made out to be the "villain".
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
#ABVote 2012: An Autopsy
I'm the first to admit I became a little "fired up" during Alberta's provincial election campaign. I tweeted a few things that set off a few supporters from the different parties. Just a few hours after the election wrapped up, I took to Facebook to post a little note about a few observations around #ABvote. I've decided to give you a little inside look at what I was thinking less than 24-hours after the PC's knocked off the Wildrose in what many considered to be a "shocker". Here's the note:
*****
We are only a few hours removed from what was supposed to be an historic vote. The winds of change were blowing. Things would be different this time around. The polls told us the upstart Wildrose Party would make significant gains. Some went so far as to say they would unseat the ruling PCs, maybe even with a majority. The PCs were riding a little momentum, having not been under the microscope thanks to some controversial comments and a blog by a Wildrose candidate. Some thought the PCs had slid too far to the left and would end up splitting the vote with the Liberals and NDP, giving the Wildrose even more seats. But then something happened. Monday happened.
My mind is a little baffled. I'll admit this whole election was a gong-show from minute number one. For the life of us, we couldn't seem to talk about the real issues. We were stuck in this revolving door of ridiculousness. And it wasn't anyone's fault outside of the individual candidates. You can blame the "lamestream media" I suppose. But we have to report on the positives and negatives. And to me, judging from what I've seen from many, is that the negatives worried more than a few. The negativity really rubbed people the wrong way. That might have turned a few people off, hence why we didn't have a 60% or 70% voter turnout. But I'll get into that in a second.
Here's some observations/hypotheses I have when it comes to what happened tonight:
#1. Voter Turnout
The advance polls saw lots of growth. But when all was said and done, Alberta went from 41%(ish) in 2008 to a whopping 55%(ish) in 2012. Hardly anything to write home about. Why is this number so low? In my humble opinion, welcome to Alberta. And I'm not saying it's the "old guard" not voting. How many people do we have from other provinces and countries who just don't care about politics here? They're here to make their quick money in the oilsands and then take off. For lack of better term, they are transient. I was one of those people just a few years back. I was living in Lloydminster during a federal election and I decided not to vote. Not because I didn't care. But because I didn't feel like I should have a say in an election and help decide the fate of a riding that I wasn't going to be living in for very long. And let's face it: getting educated about politics in a new province isn't top of mind for most. There's also the feeling out there that "all politicians are bad". That likely plays into the thoughts of many others in any province, including Alberta.
#2. The Polls
Every poll had the Wildrose with a lead. Sometimes strong, sometimes not so much. But I think we can officially say that the old school poll is dead. We should have seen this coming after the last municipal election in Calgary. Naheed Nenshi was in third in almost every poll done. Sometimes fourth. But somewhere along the line he managed to pull in a lot of supporters to get the win. Or maybe he had them all along. You see, polls are done with people who have land lines. And if you're like me, you rely solely on a cellphone. Or in my case, two of them. So right there the pollsters are not counting a good chunk of the population under the age of 35 who has decided to do away with the landline. The other thing polls do is give you a sense of the "popular vote". Which is all well and good but so many people try to turn that into a breakdown of seats, which is impossible. All night long we saw the PC's with 45%(ish) support and the Wildrose with 35%(ish). But did that end up resulting in that same split in seat totals? Not a chance. We media types will likely be taking a good hard look at our "poll practices" in the coming days to decide whether or not we should continue airing/printing these relics in the future.
#3. Candidates vs. Leaders
I don't think there's any secret that Danielle Smith has a lot of people enticed with the idea of change in Alberta. But does anyone know anything about her candidates? Probably not. And that's where some of the problem for her party probably came from. You, the average voter, went to the polls and grabbed your ballot and looked at the names and realized that Danielle's name wasn't on the list. And neither was Alison Redford's, Raj Sherman's, Brian Mason's, or Glenn Taylor's. You had a bunch of people that you saw signs for but that was probably about it. So you saw a name, likely with the PC banner, who you recognized and thought "they didn't do that bad of a job as MY MLA" and went about your business. It happens. The Wildrose had a number of untested candidates. Some had never run for political office before. And that can be scary. Old habits die hard. But beyond that, it lead to what some people called "scare tactics". I refer to it as "voter apprehension".
So there you have it. Just a few thoughts on what turned out to be a very bizarre election campaign. I can honestly say I've never covered anything like it. One thing I will say, I hope this election started to get people talking about provincial politics again. Who knows. Maybe we'll have a real race on election night in 2016.
*****
One other thing I will add is that I'm a nerd and on the morning of the election I went riding-by-riding and predicted a Tory minority. I had the Wildrose winning a few more seats in Calgary and around Red Deer and had the Alberta Party getting two seats.
In a future post, I will discuss a big point of contention in my eyes: the "big, bad media". It was amazing to see how many people blamed the media for what happened on election night. The media's also been blamed for the Occupy movement dying and a host of other things. So I hope to put some of the myths to bed next time around. Until then, my friends: stay classy.
*****
We are only a few hours removed from what was supposed to be an historic vote. The winds of change were blowing. Things would be different this time around. The polls told us the upstart Wildrose Party would make significant gains. Some went so far as to say they would unseat the ruling PCs, maybe even with a majority. The PCs were riding a little momentum, having not been under the microscope thanks to some controversial comments and a blog by a Wildrose candidate. Some thought the PCs had slid too far to the left and would end up splitting the vote with the Liberals and NDP, giving the Wildrose even more seats. But then something happened. Monday happened.
My mind is a little baffled. I'll admit this whole election was a gong-show from minute number one. For the life of us, we couldn't seem to talk about the real issues. We were stuck in this revolving door of ridiculousness. And it wasn't anyone's fault outside of the individual candidates. You can blame the "lamestream media" I suppose. But we have to report on the positives and negatives. And to me, judging from what I've seen from many, is that the negatives worried more than a few. The negativity really rubbed people the wrong way. That might have turned a few people off, hence why we didn't have a 60% or 70% voter turnout. But I'll get into that in a second.
Here's some observations/hypotheses I have when it comes to what happened tonight:
#1. Voter Turnout
The advance polls saw lots of growth. But when all was said and done, Alberta went from 41%(ish) in 2008 to a whopping 55%(ish) in 2012. Hardly anything to write home about. Why is this number so low? In my humble opinion, welcome to Alberta. And I'm not saying it's the "old guard" not voting. How many people do we have from other provinces and countries who just don't care about politics here? They're here to make their quick money in the oilsands and then take off. For lack of better term, they are transient. I was one of those people just a few years back. I was living in Lloydminster during a federal election and I decided not to vote. Not because I didn't care. But because I didn't feel like I should have a say in an election and help decide the fate of a riding that I wasn't going to be living in for very long. And let's face it: getting educated about politics in a new province isn't top of mind for most. There's also the feeling out there that "all politicians are bad". That likely plays into the thoughts of many others in any province, including Alberta.
#2. The Polls
Every poll had the Wildrose with a lead. Sometimes strong, sometimes not so much. But I think we can officially say that the old school poll is dead. We should have seen this coming after the last municipal election in Calgary. Naheed Nenshi was in third in almost every poll done. Sometimes fourth. But somewhere along the line he managed to pull in a lot of supporters to get the win. Or maybe he had them all along. You see, polls are done with people who have land lines. And if you're like me, you rely solely on a cellphone. Or in my case, two of them. So right there the pollsters are not counting a good chunk of the population under the age of 35 who has decided to do away with the landline. The other thing polls do is give you a sense of the "popular vote". Which is all well and good but so many people try to turn that into a breakdown of seats, which is impossible. All night long we saw the PC's with 45%(ish) support and the Wildrose with 35%(ish). But did that end up resulting in that same split in seat totals? Not a chance. We media types will likely be taking a good hard look at our "poll practices" in the coming days to decide whether or not we should continue airing/printing these relics in the future.
#3. Candidates vs. Leaders
I don't think there's any secret that Danielle Smith has a lot of people enticed with the idea of change in Alberta. But does anyone know anything about her candidates? Probably not. And that's where some of the problem for her party probably came from. You, the average voter, went to the polls and grabbed your ballot and looked at the names and realized that Danielle's name wasn't on the list. And neither was Alison Redford's, Raj Sherman's, Brian Mason's, or Glenn Taylor's. You had a bunch of people that you saw signs for but that was probably about it. So you saw a name, likely with the PC banner, who you recognized and thought "they didn't do that bad of a job as MY MLA" and went about your business. It happens. The Wildrose had a number of untested candidates. Some had never run for political office before. And that can be scary. Old habits die hard. But beyond that, it lead to what some people called "scare tactics". I refer to it as "voter apprehension".
So there you have it. Just a few thoughts on what turned out to be a very bizarre election campaign. I can honestly say I've never covered anything like it. One thing I will say, I hope this election started to get people talking about provincial politics again. Who knows. Maybe we'll have a real race on election night in 2016.
*****
One other thing I will add is that I'm a nerd and on the morning of the election I went riding-by-riding and predicted a Tory minority. I had the Wildrose winning a few more seats in Calgary and around Red Deer and had the Alberta Party getting two seats.
In a future post, I will discuss a big point of contention in my eyes: the "big, bad media". It was amazing to see how many people blamed the media for what happened on election night. The media's also been blamed for the Occupy movement dying and a host of other things. So I hope to put some of the myths to bed next time around. Until then, my friends: stay classy.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Welcome To The Madness
Well well well! So we meet again. Long time no see. It was almost a year ago that my last post was written in the ol' "Bald Avenger" blog. A sports-related blog which had a few readers but really hit the back-burner. The idea of a news/sports/anything-related blog had been bandied about for a while and after some careful consideration, it's been decided. "The Bald Avenger" has left us for greener pastures. In his spot, please welcome "The Vulture".
A little history on "The Vulture". It's a nickname I've sort of accepted after covering a court case in Calgary a few months back. The family of one of the people charged in a local murder didn't like the fact that the media was in the room for the woman's sentencing. I overheard one of them say "the vultures are circling". Which is all well and good. I posted the quote on Twitter and a couple of days later, it was a name that stuck.
Moving on. What can you expect to see in this blog? A little bit of everything. One of my first posts will likely be about the recent provincial election in Alberta. We may talk about crime. We may talk about issues in other cities I've been fortunate enough to work in during my illustrious career in broadcasting. We may talk about sports. We may talk about what it's like being a "big, bad" reporter. But I also want to allow this to be another conduit for you to ask questions and get answers about some of the things that I see on a day-to-day basis. So if you would like to see me write about a particular subject, feel free to leave a comment on the page and I'll do my best to accomodate you.
How often will I be posting? I would like to do it as often as possible. Once every few days maybe? Depends on when the inspiration visits. The more people who read it, the more often I'll likely post to keep all of you hooked.
There you have it, my friends. Welcome to the start of what could become a beautiful relationship. You. Me. This computer screen. Welcome to the madness!
A little history on "The Vulture". It's a nickname I've sort of accepted after covering a court case in Calgary a few months back. The family of one of the people charged in a local murder didn't like the fact that the media was in the room for the woman's sentencing. I overheard one of them say "the vultures are circling". Which is all well and good. I posted the quote on Twitter and a couple of days later, it was a name that stuck.
Moving on. What can you expect to see in this blog? A little bit of everything. One of my first posts will likely be about the recent provincial election in Alberta. We may talk about crime. We may talk about issues in other cities I've been fortunate enough to work in during my illustrious career in broadcasting. We may talk about sports. We may talk about what it's like being a "big, bad" reporter. But I also want to allow this to be another conduit for you to ask questions and get answers about some of the things that I see on a day-to-day basis. So if you would like to see me write about a particular subject, feel free to leave a comment on the page and I'll do my best to accomodate you.
How often will I be posting? I would like to do it as often as possible. Once every few days maybe? Depends on when the inspiration visits. The more people who read it, the more often I'll likely post to keep all of you hooked.
There you have it, my friends. Welcome to the start of what could become a beautiful relationship. You. Me. This computer screen. Welcome to the madness!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)