As a fan of hockey, watching this circus known as the "CBA Negotiations" in the NHL has been about as fun as smashing my head against a concrete wall and stubbing my toes against table legs. This is a league that wants to increase its take in some pretty difficult markets, yet is the only "major league" that has dealt with multiple work stoppages. If the NHL does lockout its players again, it would be the third time since the 1994-1995 season. That year, we saw a shortened 48-game season. Then we had the complete loss of the 2004-2005 season. And now, who knows what 2012-2013 season. But here, my friends, are three of my bold predictions on what the next few months will look like:
#1. A Lockout Is Inevitable
Don't get your hopes up for the season starting on time. Why? Because we heard Commish Gary Bettman use the "L-word" before we even saw the two sides seriously meet. And I use the word "seriously" pretty loosely. If the NHL and the NHLPA were deadset on making sure this season went off without a hitch, we'd see the two sides meeting EVERY DAY. Instead, we're treated to these hour-long closed-door sessions, followed by reps coming out to the plethora of TV cameras and microphone flashes, only to say they're "far apart" and they'll meet again soon. We're less than a month away from Gary's proposed "lockout date". Take what you will from that.
#2. The Season Won't Be A Total Loss
My gut is telling me that this isn't going to be a long, drawn-out process like it was in 2004-2005. I'm thinking we'll see teams reporting back in mid-November. Why? Because there's one event that I don't think the NHL wants to lose and that's the upcoming Toronto vs. Detroit Winter Classic. That's going to be a massive draw with so much on the line. Having witnessed the Calgary event, it is a marketing DREAM and this one will be ten times bigger, with Original 6 teams, spinoff games, and of course, all the merchandise and buzz. The league would be foolish to try to postpone this thing until the 2013-2014 season.
#3. What Have We Learned?
An interesting thing has happened in recent weeks. I've seen a few polls done on who people blame for the labour uncertainty in the NHL. And for the first time, it seems as though your average, everyday person thinks its the owners and NOT the players. It appears they've realized that the players are doing what any other person would do. When someone offers you a boatload of money, you take it. The common theme (which I stated in my previous sports-related blog) in all of the NHL's work stoppages has been (to a certain extent) that the owners need the league to "save them from themselves". Instead of saying "no" to a multi-year, multi-millions contract to Jeff Finger, they sign these guys out of fear that someone else will do it. Right now, the problem is, no one will say "no" to an Ilya Kovalchuk-sized contract. And let's face it, if you, the reader, were offered a 17-year contract worth $100-million, would you say no to that?
As to how this becomes a "bold prediction", I'm going to say that fans are finally going to start turning off the NHL. They're sick of having to deal with labour shortages and publicity stunts and new marketing to try to attract them back. The longer these "CBA discussions" continue, the more the "on the bubble" fans will turn to the NBA, NFL or MLB to spend their money. Or in Canada, maybe we'll see some of the expendable income go to the CHL (WHL, OHL or QMJHL) or the CFL. But I can't see many fans wanting to shell out $100's for tickets, when each time a lockout happens, the value of those tickets goes DOWN. If memory serves me right, MLB got back on track fans-wise because they dropped the ticket prices almost right after the '94 strike. Will the same happen in the NHL this time around? You be the judge.
Am I off-base? Do you think we're heading for an extended work stoppage? Feel free to have your say in the comments section.
And don't worry, I promise this isn't a return to my sports-related blog. But this was one I wanted to get off my chest. We'll be back with more politics and common-sense ramblings in the days ahead.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
My Radio Life "Identity Crisis"
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.
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.
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.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Another Round On The House
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?
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?
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.
Monday, May 28, 2012
"The Transient"
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...
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...
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)