It's been an interesting few weeks in Toronto. I don't think I need to go through it play-by-play and blow-by-blow. But it's created a bizarre conundrum for those of us media types outside of Toronto: how much time should we devote to Rob Ford coverage?
It had the opportunity to anchor a few newscasts over the last week and I made the point of not including a Rob Ford story in a couple of newscasts, even joking on Facebook and Twitter that I did something "un-Canadian" by doing that. By that point in the day (late afternoon), there was nothing "new" to the story as Ford hadn't spoken to the media since 8am. My posts came with a mixed reaction. Some loved the fact that a Calgary radio station went an entire six minutes without talking about Toronto's mayor. Others hated it because they want to hear the latest, regardless of how small the story is.
Frankly, I can see both sides of this argument. On one hand, if you don't live in Toronto, how does this really affect you? You didn't vote for or against Ford. He's not making any decisions directly impacting you. And are we going to have put up with hearing the breath-by-breath from Ford until he either steps down or the next municipal election in Ontario? It's no wonder some people are quite tired of hearing about this story and want to move on.
On the other hand, this is a story that EVERYONE is talking about. It was on SNL last night. It's the fodder on all the late-night talk shows. Every news outlet is spending time on this story. It is the water-cooler talk of the country, as this IS the mayor of Canada's largest city. So it would be ill-advised to throw up your hands and avoid the story completely as it would appear that you're not in tune with what's going on in the world and what's being talked about.
I know I say this a lot, but I do believe there's a delicate balance that can be reached. A city like Calgary or Edmonton probably doesn't need the play-by-play and in-depth coverage every hour on the hour. But we are in the business of broadcasting news, information and stories that you are and will be talking about, so we will continue to talk about this saga as it continues to unfold...
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Living in a Post-Conservative World
Took me a lot longer than I'd hoped to be back on the blogging train. It has been an intense couple of months acclimatizing to my new role. Looking forward to seeing things calm down again and we can get back to some semi-sense of normalcy.
A little while ago, I asked people on Facebook what they would want to see me blog about and I had a number of options thrown at me. The one that seemed to stick out in my mind was the youth movement that seems to be going on in Alberta politics, especially as witnessed in the recent municipal election. It's an interesting topic that will likely expand into something unexpected. Let's begin.
Frankly, it's been a long time coming in Alberta politics to see young(er) political hopefuls get some attention. Don't get me wrong: I 100% respect what the veterans have done, putting themselves into the public eye term-after-term. It can't be easy to give up all of that time. Especially when it's always the "wrong" choices that get the attention while most of the good work you do ends up largely ignored. But I think Albertans were hoping for something new. Something fresh.
A lot of that "old guard" that some refer to could be considered conservatives. It's not that they align with a particular political party. But they know what their bread-and-butter is that will get them re-elected. They don't upset the apple cart, make sure their friends stay faithful, and they're in. They don't need to make bold, outrageous campaign promises because they're institutions to their constituents.
But something changed. People are no longer okay with the status quo. Things need to keep improving and progressing, especially at the municipal level. Otherwise, you're getting left in the dust. And so when there's an opportunity for change, Albertans have seemed to embrace it (at least at the local level). When was the last time we saw so many mayors who are under the age of 40?
And I do believe it has something to do with the idea that things can be even better. No longer is it acceptable in the eyes of most voters to stand by what's made you successful. They want to know wha'ts next. Politicians seem to love the idea of no tax hikes for a decade. But then when you ask residents how they feel, they wonder why nothing's changed with poor snow removal, broken-down city services and the like. The good economy in Alberta created an interesting environment where people started to realize that you have to spend money to make money. Of course, the hope is that the money will be spent wisely.
That's why I think it's more acceptable nowadays to see higher tax increases than we've seen in the past. Part of it is that many communities are trying to catch up from years of no funding (aka falling behind) for necessities like infrastructure. I think that's why there's an acceptance, even on the provincial level, that going into debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in the eyes of some taxpayers, because they will be able to physically see what they're getting in return (in theory). It's a lot like what they're doing at home, getting mortgages and borrowing money for a better future. Does this mean Alberta is losing its "Conservative" to get a little more "Progressive"? Maybe.
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Alberta is giving its politicians a blank cheque. I do believe there is a hope that money will be spent wisely and on the things we need, rather than the things we want. The difficult balancing act has been (and I've written about this before) is that EVERYONE will come at a politician with demands. We are a needy crew here and we want EVERYTHING now and in most cases, we don't actually want to pay for it. It's up to the politician to decide what's needed now and what's not. You can't make everyone happy. And it's pretty obvious who has been caught trying to do too much and who hasn't.
The one side of any government's economy that I've been thinking a lot about lately has been those "rainy day funds". I know Alberta has its Heritage Savings Trust Fund and many communities have their own little pot of gold sitting around somewhere. What intrigues me about having all these young(er) politicians is, how will they handle these "untouchable assets"? I love the political hot potato that these funds have become. Many will say "these are savings for future generations" or they will say "this is for when we hit a bad patch". And yet, when we actually use it during a rough patch (remember that recession we just went through), the governments/councils get raked over the coals for it. Am I wrong to think that the average taxpayer would actually be okay with dipping into a rainy day fund during something like this summer's flood? Or like the massive fire in Slave Lake? Or even something minor that we couldn't have predicted? Why does the money just have to stay there? For the future? Which future? The one where we wait long enough for the next generation of politicians to stand by and say "whoa whoa whoa, you can't touch that, we have to save it for the future!"
Yes I realize the issues around government finances are more complicated than I've made them out to be. But what's so wrong with making it more simple? The average Joe or Jane on the street is having a hard enough time trying to wade through the political BS. They don't care anymore about what's worked in the past or why things have been done a certain way for so long. The insider baseball of who likes who and who has helped who out or why so-and-so has been in the job for as long as they have just doesn't matter anymore. People want to see action. And the opportunity has come where they have a choice to vote for new candidates who are bringing fresh ideas to an old system. Which is why I think we're seeing quite the shift in the way politics are being done in Alberta. And by which generation.
Until next time, my friends...
A little while ago, I asked people on Facebook what they would want to see me blog about and I had a number of options thrown at me. The one that seemed to stick out in my mind was the youth movement that seems to be going on in Alberta politics, especially as witnessed in the recent municipal election. It's an interesting topic that will likely expand into something unexpected. Let's begin.
Frankly, it's been a long time coming in Alberta politics to see young(er) political hopefuls get some attention. Don't get me wrong: I 100% respect what the veterans have done, putting themselves into the public eye term-after-term. It can't be easy to give up all of that time. Especially when it's always the "wrong" choices that get the attention while most of the good work you do ends up largely ignored. But I think Albertans were hoping for something new. Something fresh.
A lot of that "old guard" that some refer to could be considered conservatives. It's not that they align with a particular political party. But they know what their bread-and-butter is that will get them re-elected. They don't upset the apple cart, make sure their friends stay faithful, and they're in. They don't need to make bold, outrageous campaign promises because they're institutions to their constituents.
But something changed. People are no longer okay with the status quo. Things need to keep improving and progressing, especially at the municipal level. Otherwise, you're getting left in the dust. And so when there's an opportunity for change, Albertans have seemed to embrace it (at least at the local level). When was the last time we saw so many mayors who are under the age of 40?
And I do believe it has something to do with the idea that things can be even better. No longer is it acceptable in the eyes of most voters to stand by what's made you successful. They want to know wha'ts next. Politicians seem to love the idea of no tax hikes for a decade. But then when you ask residents how they feel, they wonder why nothing's changed with poor snow removal, broken-down city services and the like. The good economy in Alberta created an interesting environment where people started to realize that you have to spend money to make money. Of course, the hope is that the money will be spent wisely.
That's why I think it's more acceptable nowadays to see higher tax increases than we've seen in the past. Part of it is that many communities are trying to catch up from years of no funding (aka falling behind) for necessities like infrastructure. I think that's why there's an acceptance, even on the provincial level, that going into debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in the eyes of some taxpayers, because they will be able to physically see what they're getting in return (in theory). It's a lot like what they're doing at home, getting mortgages and borrowing money for a better future. Does this mean Alberta is losing its "Conservative" to get a little more "Progressive"? Maybe.
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Alberta is giving its politicians a blank cheque. I do believe there is a hope that money will be spent wisely and on the things we need, rather than the things we want. The difficult balancing act has been (and I've written about this before) is that EVERYONE will come at a politician with demands. We are a needy crew here and we want EVERYTHING now and in most cases, we don't actually want to pay for it. It's up to the politician to decide what's needed now and what's not. You can't make everyone happy. And it's pretty obvious who has been caught trying to do too much and who hasn't.
The one side of any government's economy that I've been thinking a lot about lately has been those "rainy day funds". I know Alberta has its Heritage Savings Trust Fund and many communities have their own little pot of gold sitting around somewhere. What intrigues me about having all these young(er) politicians is, how will they handle these "untouchable assets"? I love the political hot potato that these funds have become. Many will say "these are savings for future generations" or they will say "this is for when we hit a bad patch". And yet, when we actually use it during a rough patch (remember that recession we just went through), the governments/councils get raked over the coals for it. Am I wrong to think that the average taxpayer would actually be okay with dipping into a rainy day fund during something like this summer's flood? Or like the massive fire in Slave Lake? Or even something minor that we couldn't have predicted? Why does the money just have to stay there? For the future? Which future? The one where we wait long enough for the next generation of politicians to stand by and say "whoa whoa whoa, you can't touch that, we have to save it for the future!"
Yes I realize the issues around government finances are more complicated than I've made them out to be. But what's so wrong with making it more simple? The average Joe or Jane on the street is having a hard enough time trying to wade through the political BS. They don't care anymore about what's worked in the past or why things have been done a certain way for so long. The insider baseball of who likes who and who has helped who out or why so-and-so has been in the job for as long as they have just doesn't matter anymore. People want to see action. And the opportunity has come where they have a choice to vote for new candidates who are bringing fresh ideas to an old system. Which is why I think we're seeing quite the shift in the way politics are being done in Alberta. And by which generation.
Until next time, my friends...
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Movin' On Up
It was a little over three years ago that I decided to leave my post as news director at CJCY in Medicine Hat. At that point, I told a select few people that if I ever decided to go back into a management position, they were allowed to kick me in the unmentionables.
It wasn't that I hated the job or that I was particularly bad at it. But after two years of leading a fantastic team in building our reputation and exceeding all expectations, it was time for me to move on and let a fresh set of eyes take the helm. I was emotionally and physically drained from doing 60-hour weeks for two-straight years. It was going to be nice to be a foot soldier again.
Yet, here we are, with those select few people shining up their kicking boots. Today's the last day of my two-week vacation. Tomorrow marks the beginning of a new chapter in my career, as I officially begin my transition into the post of news director and assistant brand director for News Talk 770. Back into a "managerial" position. So what changed in the last three years?
To tell you the truth, I don't have the slightest idea. It's not like I woke up one day and said "it's time". When the position came open, I threw my name in the hat, essentially to see how far down the process I could go. Yet, what seems to have been the norm during my career, I went a lot further than originally anticipated. And here we are.
What might excite me the most about this opportunity is being part of a change in the way people view news. Especially the "news talk" format. It's viewed as a bit of a dinosaur that is only listened to be the older demographics. There's a perception that young people (under the age of 40) don't care about news. Honestly, I believe that is completely false. They've simply been handed fewer places to get their information in the "traditional form" (newspapers, TV, radio). They're getting their information in different places (particularly the internet). So the challenge is out for us to draw them back in, but in a different way. In a "multi-format" way. There is a thirst for solid news that they can relate to. Our role is two-fold: be informative and be insightful. Tell people what's going on and then tell them why it's important.
The most important result of all of this (especially for radio) is we get away from being "background noise". Whenever you know a newscast is coming, I want you to stop what you're doing. You deserve and need to be informed. One of the things that happened in Medicine Hat was that people would tell me that we might not have been their station of choice, but they made sure to listen to our news. As news director, that's all I could have asked for.
But I'm not naive enough to think that our industry is changing. People want information now. And they want it in a different fashion than they wanted it a decade ago or 25 years ago. I posted this on Facebook a few days ago:
And asked a simple question. What would hook you back into the world of news? To go one step further, what would get you listening to radio news again, or maybe for the first time?
I'm looking forward to seeing what kinds of shenanigans I can get myself into in this new role. It's an interesting time in talk radio. It's time to prove to the world that we can be young AND plugged in to what's going on around us, and present it to you in a way that keeps you coming back for more.
It wasn't that I hated the job or that I was particularly bad at it. But after two years of leading a fantastic team in building our reputation and exceeding all expectations, it was time for me to move on and let a fresh set of eyes take the helm. I was emotionally and physically drained from doing 60-hour weeks for two-straight years. It was going to be nice to be a foot soldier again.
Yet, here we are, with those select few people shining up their kicking boots. Today's the last day of my two-week vacation. Tomorrow marks the beginning of a new chapter in my career, as I officially begin my transition into the post of news director and assistant brand director for News Talk 770. Back into a "managerial" position. So what changed in the last three years?
To tell you the truth, I don't have the slightest idea. It's not like I woke up one day and said "it's time". When the position came open, I threw my name in the hat, essentially to see how far down the process I could go. Yet, what seems to have been the norm during my career, I went a lot further than originally anticipated. And here we are.
What might excite me the most about this opportunity is being part of a change in the way people view news. Especially the "news talk" format. It's viewed as a bit of a dinosaur that is only listened to be the older demographics. There's a perception that young people (under the age of 40) don't care about news. Honestly, I believe that is completely false. They've simply been handed fewer places to get their information in the "traditional form" (newspapers, TV, radio). They're getting their information in different places (particularly the internet). So the challenge is out for us to draw them back in, but in a different way. In a "multi-format" way. There is a thirst for solid news that they can relate to. Our role is two-fold: be informative and be insightful. Tell people what's going on and then tell them why it's important.
The most important result of all of this (especially for radio) is we get away from being "background noise". Whenever you know a newscast is coming, I want you to stop what you're doing. You deserve and need to be informed. One of the things that happened in Medicine Hat was that people would tell me that we might not have been their station of choice, but they made sure to listen to our news. As news director, that's all I could have asked for.
But I'm not naive enough to think that our industry is changing. People want information now. And they want it in a different fashion than they wanted it a decade ago or 25 years ago. I posted this on Facebook a few days ago:
And asked a simple question. What would hook you back into the world of news? To go one step further, what would get you listening to radio news again, or maybe for the first time?
I'm looking forward to seeing what kinds of shenanigans I can get myself into in this new role. It's an interesting time in talk radio. It's time to prove to the world that we can be young AND plugged in to what's going on around us, and present it to you in a way that keeps you coming back for more.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Alberta Flood 2013
Welcome back to the little place we like to call "Confessions of a Vulture". Sorry for the length of time it took between posts (again). This time I think I have a legitimate excuse, as the last few weeks have been arguably the busiest of my professional career.
The floods that ravaged Alberta in the last month have forever changed a part of the world that I have called home for my entire life. It has been absolutely surreal to report and volunteer in some of these communities that more than a month ago, were preparing for what they were expecting to be a normal summer. We've seen stories of despair, heartbreak, disappointment, anger, heroism, jubilation and every emotion in between. I know the word "resilience" has been used a lot in the last few weeks, but it's the only word that comes to mind in watching entire communities rise above the carnage to help their fellow neighbors and complete strangers, in the midst of the most difficult times in their lives. There was never a moment where everyone said "oh whoa is me". It seemed to always be "well, this isn't going to clean itself".
As a reporter, it's a bizarre feeling to be in the midst of all of this. You're watching people break down in front of you as they tell you about their most cherished belongings being under water or get tossed into the garbage bin. You want to drop the microphone and help in any way you can. But at the same time, you have a responsibility to tell the stories of these people and these communities. You have a responsibility to get the information out there as fast and as accurately as you possibly can, and in any way you can, whether it be on-air, on-line, on-phone, wherever. For the first six days of the flood, I spent most of my time in Calgary's Emergency Operations Centre. That was where we were getting the majority of our updates from city officials. That was where municipal, provincial and federal politicians also spoke to the public, through the media.
I must admit, we're a fairly cordial media bunch in Calgary. There are no flying elbows or dastardly deeds done between different outlets. But this was, by far, one of the most cooperative situations I've ever come across in media. It was less about being territorial with the information and more about getting the right information out there in a time of need. Any lingering biases were tossed out while you saw reporters fling questions at one another, double-checking quotes or helping each other on the technical end. We became less about trying to "get the scoop", and we returned to being a public service.
On a personal level, it was literally one of the busiest stretches I've ever encountered. You see, it's not just about the "on the radio" aspect of the job. Sure, I'm in charge of gathering the tape (recording what's said into the microphone), cutting up the tape (downloading it onto my computer and editing the tape into short clips for newscasts) and writing the stories to go along with the tape. But you had all the other stuff to worry about. Social media became the big thing. I "live-tweeted" every single news conference I went to. Took pictures for Facebook and Twitter. I wrote up stories for our website whenever I had a chance. There was never a lack of things to do.
And with this becoming a national story, our sister stations were also looking for information. So I became the unofficial point-man for live interviews with our friends in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto (mainly because I'm the morning reporter, so it's easier for them to line something up with the guy who's actually awake at the strike of stupid o'clock). It was, without a doubt, a challenge to juggle all these different roles and responsibilities. This wasn't unique to me either. Many reporters pulled all sorts of crazy hours, sleeping in the EOC, napping at their desks, running off of coffee and the company of fellow reporters. And while some might question why all that work was put in, the simple answer is: that's our job, our responsibility and our passion.
As I said before, at the end of the day, we are a public service. Whether we be newspapers, radio, television or internet, we are to be THE source for information. It's what we're trained to do. We'll do whatever it takes to get it out there. I remember when I was working in Medicine Hat and the power went down in the entire City of Lethbridge. That meant our sister station (and any other radio station in the city) was without power. But we still had our transmitter site with a backup generator. So our news director drove out to the site with a microphone and CD player (maybe it was an iPod, I can't remember exactly), plugged in, and kept broadcasting (although at lower than normal power). Between songs, he'd read news updates from his BlackBerry, which he was getting from my newsroom in Medicine Hat, as we were still getting all the city emails and updates. Our company had the only operational radio station in Lethbridge during a state of emergency, and we earned rave reviews for what we did.
Thank you to everyone, from family and friends to listeners and co-workers, for all the kind words throughout this disaster. But this is far from over. We still have many more chapters to read in what will be a long road to recovery, which will undoubtedly include more emotional extremes, from heartbreak to heroism. And I hope you join us as we share those stories.
The floods that ravaged Alberta in the last month have forever changed a part of the world that I have called home for my entire life. It has been absolutely surreal to report and volunteer in some of these communities that more than a month ago, were preparing for what they were expecting to be a normal summer. We've seen stories of despair, heartbreak, disappointment, anger, heroism, jubilation and every emotion in between. I know the word "resilience" has been used a lot in the last few weeks, but it's the only word that comes to mind in watching entire communities rise above the carnage to help their fellow neighbors and complete strangers, in the midst of the most difficult times in their lives. There was never a moment where everyone said "oh whoa is me". It seemed to always be "well, this isn't going to clean itself".
As a reporter, it's a bizarre feeling to be in the midst of all of this. You're watching people break down in front of you as they tell you about their most cherished belongings being under water or get tossed into the garbage bin. You want to drop the microphone and help in any way you can. But at the same time, you have a responsibility to tell the stories of these people and these communities. You have a responsibility to get the information out there as fast and as accurately as you possibly can, and in any way you can, whether it be on-air, on-line, on-phone, wherever. For the first six days of the flood, I spent most of my time in Calgary's Emergency Operations Centre. That was where we were getting the majority of our updates from city officials. That was where municipal, provincial and federal politicians also spoke to the public, through the media.
I must admit, we're a fairly cordial media bunch in Calgary. There are no flying elbows or dastardly deeds done between different outlets. But this was, by far, one of the most cooperative situations I've ever come across in media. It was less about being territorial with the information and more about getting the right information out there in a time of need. Any lingering biases were tossed out while you saw reporters fling questions at one another, double-checking quotes or helping each other on the technical end. We became less about trying to "get the scoop", and we returned to being a public service.
On a personal level, it was literally one of the busiest stretches I've ever encountered. You see, it's not just about the "on the radio" aspect of the job. Sure, I'm in charge of gathering the tape (recording what's said into the microphone), cutting up the tape (downloading it onto my computer and editing the tape into short clips for newscasts) and writing the stories to go along with the tape. But you had all the other stuff to worry about. Social media became the big thing. I "live-tweeted" every single news conference I went to. Took pictures for Facebook and Twitter. I wrote up stories for our website whenever I had a chance. There was never a lack of things to do.
And with this becoming a national story, our sister stations were also looking for information. So I became the unofficial point-man for live interviews with our friends in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto (mainly because I'm the morning reporter, so it's easier for them to line something up with the guy who's actually awake at the strike of stupid o'clock). It was, without a doubt, a challenge to juggle all these different roles and responsibilities. This wasn't unique to me either. Many reporters pulled all sorts of crazy hours, sleeping in the EOC, napping at their desks, running off of coffee and the company of fellow reporters. And while some might question why all that work was put in, the simple answer is: that's our job, our responsibility and our passion.
As I said before, at the end of the day, we are a public service. Whether we be newspapers, radio, television or internet, we are to be THE source for information. It's what we're trained to do. We'll do whatever it takes to get it out there. I remember when I was working in Medicine Hat and the power went down in the entire City of Lethbridge. That meant our sister station (and any other radio station in the city) was without power. But we still had our transmitter site with a backup generator. So our news director drove out to the site with a microphone and CD player (maybe it was an iPod, I can't remember exactly), plugged in, and kept broadcasting (although at lower than normal power). Between songs, he'd read news updates from his BlackBerry, which he was getting from my newsroom in Medicine Hat, as we were still getting all the city emails and updates. Our company had the only operational radio station in Lethbridge during a state of emergency, and we earned rave reviews for what we did.
Thank you to everyone, from family and friends to listeners and co-workers, for all the kind words throughout this disaster. But this is far from over. We still have many more chapters to read in what will be a long road to recovery, which will undoubtedly include more emotional extremes, from heartbreak to heroism. And I hope you join us as we share those stories.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Consensus Media Unite!
First off, for those of you who took the time to read this blog in the past, my apologies for the time between posts. Truth be told, I probably wrote about three different entries over the past six weeks or so. But after careful evaluation, I decided not to hit "publish". All three had to do with crime stories and how media covers them, and seemed to be "too soon". I have the ideas saved for future reference and may come back to them at some point.
Now on to the subject matter at hand. I do want to preface it a little bit by saying that the title is obviously pretty tongue in cheek. There's this weird belief out there that there's a "concensus media" that has a pre-determined agenda that it wants to push on the public. Yes. We (reporters) meet every morning, sipping on champagne and eating fine caviar while deliberating how we are going to cover each story. Is that enough sarcasm for you?
That being said, there are times it would be kind of nice to have a "media consortium" of sorts. Not to discuss what story ideas everyone has. Rather, it would be a way to gather and, maybe, just maybe, come to an agreement on when stories aren't really stories anymore. You know those times when you say "when will this story just go away?" For those exact times. Not to debate whether or not the Rob Ford saga should continue getting air-time. But for those "filler" days.
Let me elaborate. The "it's snowing" stories. Don't get me wrong, weather affects a lot of people, but does that mean we need full-out coverage of the fact we got an inch of snow? Call me Albertan, but it snows here. Every year. And yet, we are subjected to the same stories year after year (and day after day during the winter) about how the City of Calgary responds to snow. How many times can you possibly hear one of the spokespeople say "we'll start with the Priority One routes and then move onto the Priority Two routes" in a year? I was kind of hoping one of the spokespeople would say "this time we're going to switch it up and do the Priority Two routes first, just for a change of pace". In this situation, I'd love to have a consortium in place that would agree not to do those token winter stories. And anyone breaking the agreement would have to pay a small fine. Or apologize on-air. Something fun. And yes, the same rules would be in place for those "it's warm out so how are people like the patio" stories.
Here's another example: polls. It's been a hot-button topic of late thanks to the municipal election in Calgary in 2010 and the latest provincial elections in Alberta and BC. It's had many asking the question about how legitimate the polls are, but it's begged the question in many newsrooms about how much weight they will be putting into said polls. We have another municipal election in Alberta coming up, but do you think those polls will be abandoned? Not a chance. Especially in Edmonton, where Mayor Stephen Mandel won't be running again, so every media outlet is going to be trying to grab a poll or two to find out which newcomer has the "early lead" or "who has the momentum in the early going". We almost need that consortium to come to an agreement that, while the polls are good snapshots, please don't make it the top story. Otherwise, we'll be getting the same story post-election, about how the polls were "wrong again".
Although, it does give us even more stories after the election. Maybe we'll have to discuss these merits at tomorrow's wine and caviar session...
Now on to the subject matter at hand. I do want to preface it a little bit by saying that the title is obviously pretty tongue in cheek. There's this weird belief out there that there's a "concensus media" that has a pre-determined agenda that it wants to push on the public. Yes. We (reporters) meet every morning, sipping on champagne and eating fine caviar while deliberating how we are going to cover each story. Is that enough sarcasm for you?
That being said, there are times it would be kind of nice to have a "media consortium" of sorts. Not to discuss what story ideas everyone has. Rather, it would be a way to gather and, maybe, just maybe, come to an agreement on when stories aren't really stories anymore. You know those times when you say "when will this story just go away?" For those exact times. Not to debate whether or not the Rob Ford saga should continue getting air-time. But for those "filler" days.
Let me elaborate. The "it's snowing" stories. Don't get me wrong, weather affects a lot of people, but does that mean we need full-out coverage of the fact we got an inch of snow? Call me Albertan, but it snows here. Every year. And yet, we are subjected to the same stories year after year (and day after day during the winter) about how the City of Calgary responds to snow. How many times can you possibly hear one of the spokespeople say "we'll start with the Priority One routes and then move onto the Priority Two routes" in a year? I was kind of hoping one of the spokespeople would say "this time we're going to switch it up and do the Priority Two routes first, just for a change of pace". In this situation, I'd love to have a consortium in place that would agree not to do those token winter stories. And anyone breaking the agreement would have to pay a small fine. Or apologize on-air. Something fun. And yes, the same rules would be in place for those "it's warm out so how are people like the patio" stories.
Here's another example: polls. It's been a hot-button topic of late thanks to the municipal election in Calgary in 2010 and the latest provincial elections in Alberta and BC. It's had many asking the question about how legitimate the polls are, but it's begged the question in many newsrooms about how much weight they will be putting into said polls. We have another municipal election in Alberta coming up, but do you think those polls will be abandoned? Not a chance. Especially in Edmonton, where Mayor Stephen Mandel won't be running again, so every media outlet is going to be trying to grab a poll or two to find out which newcomer has the "early lead" or "who has the momentum in the early going". We almost need that consortium to come to an agreement that, while the polls are good snapshots, please don't make it the top story. Otherwise, we'll be getting the same story post-election, about how the polls were "wrong again".
Although, it does give us even more stories after the election. Maybe we'll have to discuss these merits at tomorrow's wine and caviar session...
Monday, April 8, 2013
Frogger: The Real Game
Some people believe that being a reporter or in the media is "glamorous". They think it's "so cool". And for the most part, they're right. It's not a bad job at all. But this past week reminded me of the stupid situations we can find ourselves in.
Remember the game "Frogger"? It was an early computer game built on the premise that you control the main frog character as you dodge traffic to get from the bottom of the screen to the top of the screen. You gotta deal with all sorts of vehicles and obstacles to get to your destination. Well, there's a real-life version of it. It's called "Reporter". The goal is to cross as many lanes of traffic as possible, on foot, trying to get to an incident or get to a potential interviewee.
Last week, I had the unenviable task of covering a fatal semi-truck crash on Deerfoot Trail in Calgary. I was fortunate in the sense that I arrived early enough to avoid the main traffic backups. I parked inside the grass part of the "cloverleaf" intersection and proceeded to do my job. What I failed to realize (at the time) was that I had parked on the wrong side of 17th Avenue/Blackfoot Trail to get a picture. And I wasn't about to hop in my vehicle just to cross the road. So I figured it shouldn't be an issue trying to cross. At that particular location though, it was crossing six lanes of traffic. On foot. If this were Twitter, I'd hashtag it #fatkidproblems. I got it done and lived to see another day.
The next day, I was sent out to the Trans-Canada Highway for several rollovers. The icy conditions were wreaking havoc on traffic heading in and out of the city. Not a big deal, until I realized that all of the crashes were in the eastbound lanes and I was heading westbound. So I pulled into an approach and figured I'd get some pictures and try to get the attention of an RCMP officer to do an interview about how busy it was for them. I figured traffic was going slow enough that I could cross the highway easy enough. But the road was icy enough that getting proper traction on my size-11 shoes was tough. So there's me, illegally crossing a highway in front of a bunch of emergency crews, trying to avoid oncoming traffic. Not my finest moment.
This isn't the only time I've willingly put my life in harm's way. I remember one of my first weekends in Calgary in '07, I was called out to a bomb threat at city hall. There I was, the newest reporter in the big city, driving into the downtown, when I wondered out loud "what if this bomb is real?" Word of caution for any reporter caught in a similar situation: don't call your mom to say you love her. You just scare the crap out of her. She'd rather not know what you've been doing until AFTER the situation is given the all-clear.
I also had a couple of brushes with, how shall I put it, non-law abiding citizens. Back in the heat of the gang wars, I remember covering a couple of funerals (we'd cover them as they drew heavy police presence for fear of retribution killings). At one particular funeral, I remember having a gun pointed in my general direction. If memory serves me right, it was the brother of the deceased who was taking issue with how close some of us media types were getting to the funeral home. We took that as a solid hint to back up a bit. I also know I was followed home by someone after another funeral. I proceeded to keep driving until it was obvious that he knew that I knew he was following me. But it was freaky to know he knew what I drove. I was later told he was only "sending a message". Yeah. I got that message alright. Cripes.
The stupid, STUPID things we do to get a story sometimes.
Remember the game "Frogger"? It was an early computer game built on the premise that you control the main frog character as you dodge traffic to get from the bottom of the screen to the top of the screen. You gotta deal with all sorts of vehicles and obstacles to get to your destination. Well, there's a real-life version of it. It's called "Reporter". The goal is to cross as many lanes of traffic as possible, on foot, trying to get to an incident or get to a potential interviewee.
Last week, I had the unenviable task of covering a fatal semi-truck crash on Deerfoot Trail in Calgary. I was fortunate in the sense that I arrived early enough to avoid the main traffic backups. I parked inside the grass part of the "cloverleaf" intersection and proceeded to do my job. What I failed to realize (at the time) was that I had parked on the wrong side of 17th Avenue/Blackfoot Trail to get a picture. And I wasn't about to hop in my vehicle just to cross the road. So I figured it shouldn't be an issue trying to cross. At that particular location though, it was crossing six lanes of traffic. On foot. If this were Twitter, I'd hashtag it #fatkidproblems. I got it done and lived to see another day.
The next day, I was sent out to the Trans-Canada Highway for several rollovers. The icy conditions were wreaking havoc on traffic heading in and out of the city. Not a big deal, until I realized that all of the crashes were in the eastbound lanes and I was heading westbound. So I pulled into an approach and figured I'd get some pictures and try to get the attention of an RCMP officer to do an interview about how busy it was for them. I figured traffic was going slow enough that I could cross the highway easy enough. But the road was icy enough that getting proper traction on my size-11 shoes was tough. So there's me, illegally crossing a highway in front of a bunch of emergency crews, trying to avoid oncoming traffic. Not my finest moment.
This isn't the only time I've willingly put my life in harm's way. I remember one of my first weekends in Calgary in '07, I was called out to a bomb threat at city hall. There I was, the newest reporter in the big city, driving into the downtown, when I wondered out loud "what if this bomb is real?" Word of caution for any reporter caught in a similar situation: don't call your mom to say you love her. You just scare the crap out of her. She'd rather not know what you've been doing until AFTER the situation is given the all-clear.
I also had a couple of brushes with, how shall I put it, non-law abiding citizens. Back in the heat of the gang wars, I remember covering a couple of funerals (we'd cover them as they drew heavy police presence for fear of retribution killings). At one particular funeral, I remember having a gun pointed in my general direction. If memory serves me right, it was the brother of the deceased who was taking issue with how close some of us media types were getting to the funeral home. We took that as a solid hint to back up a bit. I also know I was followed home by someone after another funeral. I proceeded to keep driving until it was obvious that he knew that I knew he was following me. But it was freaky to know he knew what I drove. I was later told he was only "sending a message". Yeah. I got that message alright. Cripes.
The stupid, STUPID things we do to get a story sometimes.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Everyone's Favorite Cash Cow
Am I the only one who finds the arguments around photo radar, especially online, to be rather amusing? There's no "in-between" on it. Those who comment are either staunchly for it or staunchly opposed. Not that there's anything wrong with either side. Debate is never a bad thing. But I do enjoy poking the bear. So here we go again.
I have no issue with photo radar whatsoever. Fact is, I've received four little envelopes in my life. Three were in Lethbridge and one was in Medicine Hat. I remember exactly where I got the tickets, the circumstances behind getting the tickets and how fast I was actually going. I paid the tickets and went about my jolly little way. I did the crime so I had to pay the dime.
Here's a harsh reality that some people simply don't want to grasp: without that photo radar revenue, everyone's taxes would be going up. You want to complain that it's a cash cow with $XX-million generated? Without that money, the local police service will be asking your town/city council for that money somewhere else. It's almost as if some people believe that police are padding their own wallets with the extra cash they're collecting from your law-breaking ways. Yes. You were caught breaking the law and you don't like it. Call it a "cash cow" or a "stupidity tax" or whatever you'd like. We could argue until the cows come home about other ways of taxation. But as long as you keep speeding, those little cameras will keep snapping photos of your license plate.
It's almost as if some people believe it's their right to speed. They don't want to pony up unless they have an officer pulling them over. To me, this seems ludicrous. Is this not like being upset that you were caught by a security camera stealing a piece of candy and not by a security guard? I completely agree with the notion that if you don't want a photo radar ticket, then don't speed.
Another argument I've already seen on Facebook is that photo radar was supposed to be a deterrant to speeding and it was supposed to help curb the number of crashes happening in high-impact locations. To that I won't disagree. It WAS supposed to do those things. But it doesn't anymore. Why? Multiple reasons, ranging from wilfully ignorant to being too much in a rush to the speed limits being too slow. So drivers continue to speed. And they continue to get into crashes. The old saying kind of goes here: people are dumb.
Now here's where things get fun. Let me play devil's advocate for a second. Should police cease the use of photo radar and other devices simply because people don't seem to want to pay attention to them? The argument seems to go "well if it's not stopping speeding or crashes then it's completely useless". But why would police stop that revenue from coming in (which, remember, is helping to pay for things that would otherwise have to be covered through even more property taxes)? I know you don't like that answer. But it's a reality.
There could be a happy ending in all of this. If you truly want to see the end of photo radar as we know it, then STOP SPEEDING. If the police noticed that they weren't sending out your happy picture in the mail anymore, they wouldn't feel the need to keep the van on the side of the road capturing said picture. Novel idea, don't you think?
I have no issue with photo radar whatsoever. Fact is, I've received four little envelopes in my life. Three were in Lethbridge and one was in Medicine Hat. I remember exactly where I got the tickets, the circumstances behind getting the tickets and how fast I was actually going. I paid the tickets and went about my jolly little way. I did the crime so I had to pay the dime.
Here's a harsh reality that some people simply don't want to grasp: without that photo radar revenue, everyone's taxes would be going up. You want to complain that it's a cash cow with $XX-million generated? Without that money, the local police service will be asking your town/city council for that money somewhere else. It's almost as if some people believe that police are padding their own wallets with the extra cash they're collecting from your law-breaking ways. Yes. You were caught breaking the law and you don't like it. Call it a "cash cow" or a "stupidity tax" or whatever you'd like. We could argue until the cows come home about other ways of taxation. But as long as you keep speeding, those little cameras will keep snapping photos of your license plate.
It's almost as if some people believe it's their right to speed. They don't want to pony up unless they have an officer pulling them over. To me, this seems ludicrous. Is this not like being upset that you were caught by a security camera stealing a piece of candy and not by a security guard? I completely agree with the notion that if you don't want a photo radar ticket, then don't speed.
Another argument I've already seen on Facebook is that photo radar was supposed to be a deterrant to speeding and it was supposed to help curb the number of crashes happening in high-impact locations. To that I won't disagree. It WAS supposed to do those things. But it doesn't anymore. Why? Multiple reasons, ranging from wilfully ignorant to being too much in a rush to the speed limits being too slow. So drivers continue to speed. And they continue to get into crashes. The old saying kind of goes here: people are dumb.
Now here's where things get fun. Let me play devil's advocate for a second. Should police cease the use of photo radar and other devices simply because people don't seem to want to pay attention to them? The argument seems to go "well if it's not stopping speeding or crashes then it's completely useless". But why would police stop that revenue from coming in (which, remember, is helping to pay for things that would otherwise have to be covered through even more property taxes)? I know you don't like that answer. But it's a reality.
There could be a happy ending in all of this. If you truly want to see the end of photo radar as we know it, then STOP SPEEDING. If the police noticed that they weren't sending out your happy picture in the mail anymore, they wouldn't feel the need to keep the van on the side of the road capturing said picture. Novel idea, don't you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)