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.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)