Here's my first non-news post. See what I did with the title? Hahaha! (for those of you not in media circles, reporters are sometimes given "beats" like city hall or crime, so I thought it was fitting that I was going off my beat to talk about music). Yup. I'm a nerd.
Anyways, most people know that I have two big loves of my life: news/sports and music. To say I'm in the right line of work would be an understatement. Anyways, I still listen to full albums. I still buy CDs (although I've purchased nearly 1,000 songs on iTunes too). I have an addiction. And the only cure: this list (you thought I was gonna say cowbell, didn't you?). Without further adieu:
#12. Meat Loaf - Hell In A Handbasket
I remember watching some sort of movie or documentary about how messed up his situation was. But one of my favorite songs growing up was "I Would Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" just because of how epic it sounded. Just like something out of a movie. And while this album doesn't have that same swagger, it's still really good. And it delves into some unknown terrain, including an interesting "Blue Sky/Mad Mad World/The Good God Is A Woman And She Don't Like Ugly". Yup. Partly a Tom Cochrane cover. We also have a tune with Trace Adkins, Mark McGrath and Lil Jon. Patti Russo also returns, which is NEVER a bad thing. It may be all over the map, but it's an enjoyable album. Favorite song: All Of Me
#11. Tremonti - All I Was
If you like hard rock/metal, this might be your album. You've probably never heard the band but you probably know the namesake. Mark Tremonti is the lead guitarist of Creed and Alter Bridge. Before you write this off as some sort of knock-off of either band, listen to the first single "You Waste Your Time". That's pretty much the album in a nutshell. It has some "softer" moments, but it's high-octane. You hear hints of this in his other two bands, but nothing full-on like this. Favorite song: So You're Afraid
#10. Offspring - Days Go By
To say there were a ton of "pop-punk" bands that came back in some way in 2012 would be an understatement. We had Eve 6, Lit, Green Day (x3) and a host of others. But none got my attention like this one. The first single "Days Go By" I found to be a pretty good driving song (always a key selling point). But the whole album is good. Sure, there are some "interesting" tunes like "Cruising California", but it's almost expected out of Offspring. A very good album that hits a nice happy medium between the "old school" stuff and the newer stuff. Favorite song: Secrets From The Underground
#9. Eric Church - Chief
I know what you're thinking. "Joe, you like rock, what the heck is a country album doing on your list?" Trust me. I'm almost as confused as you are. But let's look at one undisputable fact: this album is catchy as hell. The first song that caught my attention was "Homeboy" and thought it was pretty good. Then I bought "Springsteen" and I was a little more convinced. The weirdness of "Creepin'" was enough to make me buy the album. I appreciate good and catchy songwriting and it's on full display here. And yes, I realize it was released mid-2011. But many of the songs got big in 2012. And I didn't hear it until this year. And it's my list. So there... Favorite song: Homeboy
#8. Lostprophets - Weapons
Another one of those bands you're probably asking yourself "who?" Long story short, these guys have been around for a while (2001). They had some marginal success in the US but didn't make much of a blip on the Canadian radar. Part of the problem was they were hard to pigeonhole into a specific genre. They're sort of punk, sort of rock. All kinds of catchy though. This album is just solid from front to back and it kind of makes you want to go for a drive. I'm always posting live songs onto Facebook because this Welsh band seems to have a crazy following abroad. Overseas music festival anyone? Favorite song: A Song From Where I'm From
#7. Big Wreck - Albatross
Two "Big" re-emergences on the Canadian music scene this year: Big Wreck and Big Sugar (see what I did there?). Big Wreck is headed up by Ian Thornley, one of the best guitarists this country has produced. I was excited when I heard this album was coming out and it didn't disappoint. It's exactly what I expected. A little less "commercial" than what I thought but it has that trademark guitarwork and the band sounds tight. They might be one of my favorite acts to see live and this album would just add to what would surely be a wicked playlist. Favorite song: All Is Fair
#6. Stone Sour - House Of Gold And Bones (Part 1)
For those of you who don't know who Stone Sour is, think "tamer Slipknot". The lead singer is among the Slipknot members in this project. I'd say that Slipknot is a side-project for Stone Sour, but that'd offend a LOT of Slipknot fans. I'm a much-bigger Stone Sour fan. OK, that all out of the way, this is just a wicked album. You start off with a song like "Gone Sovereign" and you know what you're gonna get. But this album has many different levels to it. Corey Taylor (singer) does a phenomenal job with the lyrics and puts himself as one of the top vocalists in rock. Favorite song: Tired
#5. Halestorm - The Strange Case Of...
Full disclosure here: I have a full-on crush on Lzzy Hale. She's not only gorgeous but she plays guitar and has an unbelievable voice. This album has a few too many ballad-like songs for my liking, but the rockers absolutely melt your face. The first song "Love Bites (So Do I)" is exactly that. "Freak Like Me" also ranks right up there. But I'm going to spoil the "favorite song" part of this one. Because "American Boys" showcases a lot of what this band is all about. A catchy riff, solid rhythms and Hale's phenomenal voice. Check it out. Favorite song: American Boys
#4. Gaslight Anthem - Handwritten
This was one of those albums that you listen to for the first time and I couldn't get into it. But the more I listened, the more I liked it. Then I saw them live and that upped the ante even more. These guys are obviously very talented and write some very good songs. While it's not as "heavy" as I typically go, I can't deny good songwriting. Their cover of "Sliver" is something to behold and I've really taken to "You Got Lucky". But again, this is one of those "front to back" kinds of good albums. Favorite song: Handwritten
#3. Thousand Foot Krutch - The End Is Where We Begin
In "The Introduction", the voice says "if you don't stand for something, you might fall for anything". And in that moment, I realized this album was going to blow my mind. And I was right. It's only been in the last couple of years that I've really started to pay attention to TFK. This album is the catchiest they've put out, but in a weird way, it's also one of the heaviest. "Let The Sparks Fly" is one of those driving songs. But two songs really stand out for me. One is "Be Somebody", one of the sappy tunes that really resonated with me over the course of the year. "War of Change" has been my favorite since day one though. Starts slow and lighter, then kicks into high gear with a solid chorus. Favorite song: War of Change
#2. Shinedown - Amaryllis
No one will probably be surprised by this. Managed to see these guys live for the first time this past year and it was as good as I thought it'd be. But this album has had my attention since before it even dropped. "Bully" hit right around the time the issue hit the mainstream and struck a lot of chords. One of the things about this band is their message, which is generally positive. Nowhere is that more evident than in "Amaryllis" and "Unity". I've really become a fan of "Enemies" and "Adrenaline" for the "straight-up rock" aspect of it. Brent Smith is among my top two or three vocalists in rock right now and the rest of the band works extremely well together. In any other year, this would have been my #1 album. But it came the same year as the behemoth that you're about to read about. Favorite song: Amaryllis
#1. Slash featuring Myles Kennedy and the Conspirators - Apocalyptic Love
I recently watched a "making of" this record and what amazes me is that you have all these different talents coming together to making a straight-up rock record. From Slash, you wouldn't expect anything less. But it's the other part of the band that really works together. I've always been a fan of Myles Kennedy, with his work with Mayfield Four and then Alter Bridge. Todd Kerns is on bass (formerly of Age of Electric and Static in Stereo) and drummer Brent Fitz has been all over the place, including Theory of a Deadman, Econoline Crush and a session musician for a ton of other artists (I think Vince Neil's among them). I don't know if there's a weak song on this album. To tell you the truth, one of my "least favorites" (if you want to call it that) is the single "You're a Lie". The harmonies in the chorus for "No More Heroes" coupled with the guitar is awesome. "Standing In The Sun" has a cool groove to it. And to spoil the "favorite" part once again, is "Crazy Life". It has a stellar guitar part right off the top, we have a little cowbell and it has this rhythm to it that makes me wanna go to a lake and pin the volume to 11. Do yourself a favor and buy this whole CD (or the whole album on iTunes). You won't be disappointed.
There you have it. My "Top 12 albums of '12". Feel free to add your two cents. Maybe I missed an album somewhere in the midst. But here's hoping that we get the "Rise of Rock and Roll" in 2013!
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Sunday, December 30, 2012
The Art of "The Scrum"
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)