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...
Monday, May 28, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)