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?
Monday, June 18, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)