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
Thursday, October 18, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)