Dear bullies,
You didn't win.
Don't get me wrong. The battles sucked. But you lost the war.
I'll admit that I had it a lot easier than so many others including Amanda Todd. But seeing and hearing what she went through made me think back to a time when life wasn't so awesome. It made me think back to a time when I hated going to school because of you. I hated getting on the bus because of you. You made my life miserable. I remember the name-calling and the fights we used to get into.
Here's the thing though. You made fun of me and taunted me because I was smarter than you. I wasn't as physically fit as you. You were actually winning for a while, because I started to drop my grades on purpose. But then I became the "fat, dumb kid" instead of the "fat, smart kid". I'm kicking myself now for letting you have that little victory.
Like I said, I had it much easier than others though. I had (and still have) a super-supportive family, in a house where I could escape your tormenting, even if only for a while. They stood up for me, approaching you in school when teachers did nothing and your parents continued to claim that you "wouldn't do such a thing." It taught me some very valuable lessons like "you're the only one who can be responsible for your actions" and "treat others how you'd like to be treated." I can't imagine being a kid now, having to put up with the actions of people like you, on Facebook and all the other ways they stay connected.
We parted ways after I finished grade six. We went to different schools. That's where I made friends with people who liked me for me. Heck, we still hang out whenever we can. They were the positive influences in my life you could have been. But you couldn't be bothered. I could have been crediting you for helping me along this path I've gone. Instead, they deserve all the credit in the world for coming along for this crazy ride.
You deserve some kudos though. You're the example of the kinds of people I don't need in my life and the kinds of people that no one should feel the need or want to have in their lives. You helped shape the person I've become, as it soon became evident what kind of person I didn't want to become.
This is one of the many examples for kids out there that it does, in fact, get better. I don't wish ill-will for you. I only hope that you learned some valuable lessons along the way, just as I did. I'm sure you may have a wife, kids, or other loved ones, and I hope you realize that they don't deserve to be treated the way you treated me. You'll want karma to be on your side eventually. I can't control what happened then and can't control what happens to you now.
All I can control is what I took from our experience together:
You didn't win.
Sincerely,
Joe
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Embargoes and Publication Bans
Ahhhh. Two things reporters love hearing. "Embargo". "Publication ban". Shutter. For those not knowing what these are, they're pretty self-explanitory. An embargo means we can't run the "story" until a specific time or day. A publication ban means we can't talk about a certain something within said "story". And in this digital age, you have to wonder if these two things need to become things of the past.
Let's start with the art of the embargo. While I do appreciate that certain situations merit an embargo, two recent incidents come to mind that really make one scratch their head. I'll try not to be too specific about each case as I don't want to throw anyone in particular under the bus.
In one situation, we were told during a media briefing that the embargo time would be 7am. Which is all well and good but the newspapers were not happy campers. And rightfully so. This style of embargo means that while everyone else gets to run the story at 7am, it won't be in your morning paper. Sure, it can go on the paper's website at 7am. But it puts the papers at a disadvantage, especially given the recent talk about the supposed demise of the "paper" part of their business (which is a different story for a different day).
In the other situation, we were told the embargo time is 10am. Which is all well and good until you open up the newspaper to find it splashed all over it simply because they printed the report which was under the embargo. I understand it's a business. But the time 10am rolls around, it's "old news" for other forms of media, especially radio. The question that comes up: why would we run a story for the first time at 10am when everyone's supposedly read the newspaper already?
Onto the ol' publication bans. You don't see this very often anymore outside of the justice system. Some are understandable, such as naming a young person as outlined in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Most times, information laid out in a bail hearing is also under a publication ban. You may ask why, but in most cases, the concern is that you could be "tainting a jury pool" by reporting on what's alleged before it actually goes to a trial. That's why you will sometimes see a "change of venue" application by a lawyer for someone who has a co-accused that's already gone through a trial.
Other bans can be wishy-washy at best. I once covered a court case where a lawyer tried to ban the media from getting access to the agreed statement of facts for a couple of days so that his client wouldn't have those facts splashed across the media. It was a child pornography case and it was said that he was "having issues" in jail. The lawyer was unsuccessful in his ban bid.
And then there are the absolutely complicated cases. Look no further than the legalities and publication ban issues that arose from the Medicine Hat triple-murder case. One of the issues was whether the media and public would be allowed into the voir dire (deciding what evidence will be allowed to be seen in the trial and what won't). Another was whether bloggers would be held to the same account that "traditional media" (print, radio, TV) outlets were, in particular around naming the girl accused in the case (which was regularly broken by online folks with no repercussions). The question even came up at one point about whether American outlets would have to abide by that ban as they don't have the same legal structuring as we do in Canada. It does put the "traditional media" at a bit of a disadvantage to be bound by rules that don't take the information super-highway into consideration.
There you have it. A little inside information for you. I truly believe the era of the "embargo" should be virtually dead. As much as you want to control the flow of information, there's only so much that can be done and in most cases, you're now doing yourself a disservice by trying to implement an embargo. Your best bet is to make the embargo across the board and accessible for all outlets as we've all become "instant messengers". As for publication bans, I'm sure we'll see more of them and, as I said, most make sense. But we do have to take a second look at some of them and say "is it really doing anyone any good by banning the information for some but not others." Because it can get complicated and, frankly, confusing.
Just some food for thought.
Let's start with the art of the embargo. While I do appreciate that certain situations merit an embargo, two recent incidents come to mind that really make one scratch their head. I'll try not to be too specific about each case as I don't want to throw anyone in particular under the bus.
In one situation, we were told during a media briefing that the embargo time would be 7am. Which is all well and good but the newspapers were not happy campers. And rightfully so. This style of embargo means that while everyone else gets to run the story at 7am, it won't be in your morning paper. Sure, it can go on the paper's website at 7am. But it puts the papers at a disadvantage, especially given the recent talk about the supposed demise of the "paper" part of their business (which is a different story for a different day).
In the other situation, we were told the embargo time is 10am. Which is all well and good until you open up the newspaper to find it splashed all over it simply because they printed the report which was under the embargo. I understand it's a business. But the time 10am rolls around, it's "old news" for other forms of media, especially radio. The question that comes up: why would we run a story for the first time at 10am when everyone's supposedly read the newspaper already?
Onto the ol' publication bans. You don't see this very often anymore outside of the justice system. Some are understandable, such as naming a young person as outlined in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Most times, information laid out in a bail hearing is also under a publication ban. You may ask why, but in most cases, the concern is that you could be "tainting a jury pool" by reporting on what's alleged before it actually goes to a trial. That's why you will sometimes see a "change of venue" application by a lawyer for someone who has a co-accused that's already gone through a trial.
Other bans can be wishy-washy at best. I once covered a court case where a lawyer tried to ban the media from getting access to the agreed statement of facts for a couple of days so that his client wouldn't have those facts splashed across the media. It was a child pornography case and it was said that he was "having issues" in jail. The lawyer was unsuccessful in his ban bid.
And then there are the absolutely complicated cases. Look no further than the legalities and publication ban issues that arose from the Medicine Hat triple-murder case. One of the issues was whether the media and public would be allowed into the voir dire (deciding what evidence will be allowed to be seen in the trial and what won't). Another was whether bloggers would be held to the same account that "traditional media" (print, radio, TV) outlets were, in particular around naming the girl accused in the case (which was regularly broken by online folks with no repercussions). The question even came up at one point about whether American outlets would have to abide by that ban as they don't have the same legal structuring as we do in Canada. It does put the "traditional media" at a bit of a disadvantage to be bound by rules that don't take the information super-highway into consideration.
There you have it. A little inside information for you. I truly believe the era of the "embargo" should be virtually dead. As much as you want to control the flow of information, there's only so much that can be done and in most cases, you're now doing yourself a disservice by trying to implement an embargo. Your best bet is to make the embargo across the board and accessible for all outlets as we've all become "instant messengers". As for publication bans, I'm sure we'll see more of them and, as I said, most make sense. But we do have to take a second look at some of them and say "is it really doing anyone any good by banning the information for some but not others." Because it can get complicated and, frankly, confusing.
Just some food for thought.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Getting Into "The Biz"
Maybe we can call this a "must-read" for anyone just starting their careers or thinking about getting into media. But by the time this post is over, it might be less of a "must-read" and more of an "avoid at all costs" read. Let's see how this bad boy goes...
I remember when I first left Lethbridge College and wanted to get into the "real world". It actually took me three months to find that first job. And to say it was a painful wait would be an understatement (just ask my parents, who had to put up with me moping around the house for that three months). But finally, Lloydminster came calling and I never looked back.
The interesting part about this is that I never really expected to get into the big cities right off the hop. Don't get me wrong, I applied EVERYWHERE. Even did a few interviews and had a few news directors keep in touch over the years. But, after doing my practicum in Red Deer and listening to my teachers tell us over and over and over again, I knew the likelihood of getting a major market gig straight out of school was slim to nil. But you'd be surprised how many new journalism students think they are "the exception" and that they're going to bypass the small towns and cities to land that perfect gig.
I had a conversation with a young lady not too long ago about this actually. She was dead-set that she was going to get on CTV here in Calgary right off the hop. She figured she was better than everyone else in her class and went so far as to say she was already better than some of the reporters on most TV stations in Calgary. I was a little beside myself. Confidence is one thing; ridiculousness is another. I told her she'll likely have to start in a place like Lloydminster or Yorkton, work her way up to a Lethbridge or Regina, and then maybe in a few years she'd be able to get to a major market. Nope. The smallest she's willing to start at: Saskatoon. Good luck with that.
By no means am I saying don't have dreams, kids. All I'm saying is set realistic goals. Ask just about any reporter/anchor in Calgary about where they've been and they'll give you quite the list. I was actually pretty lucky to have been given a kick at the can after just over a year-and-a-half in the business (two stops). And believe it or not, after a while, I knew I wasn't ready.
It's one thing to BE in the market, it's another to be ready for it. For radio, the expectations and workload are insane. You have to be an expert in everything, from council and school board to crime and the court system to business and agriculture. When I went back to Medicine Hat in 2008, it really allowed me to brush up on some of that stuff that I was flying by the seat of my pants on earlier in my career. I was able to go to councils, school boards, courts, you name it, and do it at a much slower pace than what happens in Calgary. It also gave me a keen understanding of how to develop stories at a much slower pace. In my first stint in Calgary, I was pounding out stories left, right and centre, but I'm not 100% sure I knew what I was talking about half the time. Going back to the smaller city, it allowed me to understand the processes a lot better. When you understand the processes, you can more fully develop the stories as you have a better understanding of how everything affects everyone.
But the most important thing (to me) that you gain from working in the smaller centres is you get a better appreciation for not only the industry, but the way you connect with people. And you would be surprised how often that can come back to help you when you're sent out to a smaller town to do a story. You're able to throw on the "small town charm". But that also helps in the city, because people tend to gravitate to that as compared to the "hard-nosed reporter" that you can't say two words around because it might be on the news that night.
Two words come from this: trust and integrity. You can learn how to build both of those in a small market so that when you get to the big city, it's almost second nature to you. Or you can start in the big centre, and if you flub up, best of luck to you in picking up the pieces of your career. Think of it as a poor man's "traveling the world". You get to see some places you normally wouldn't get to see. And who knows, maybe you'll actually like it there and decide to stay a while.
I remember when I first left Lethbridge College and wanted to get into the "real world". It actually took me three months to find that first job. And to say it was a painful wait would be an understatement (just ask my parents, who had to put up with me moping around the house for that three months). But finally, Lloydminster came calling and I never looked back.
The interesting part about this is that I never really expected to get into the big cities right off the hop. Don't get me wrong, I applied EVERYWHERE. Even did a few interviews and had a few news directors keep in touch over the years. But, after doing my practicum in Red Deer and listening to my teachers tell us over and over and over again, I knew the likelihood of getting a major market gig straight out of school was slim to nil. But you'd be surprised how many new journalism students think they are "the exception" and that they're going to bypass the small towns and cities to land that perfect gig.
I had a conversation with a young lady not too long ago about this actually. She was dead-set that she was going to get on CTV here in Calgary right off the hop. She figured she was better than everyone else in her class and went so far as to say she was already better than some of the reporters on most TV stations in Calgary. I was a little beside myself. Confidence is one thing; ridiculousness is another. I told her she'll likely have to start in a place like Lloydminster or Yorkton, work her way up to a Lethbridge or Regina, and then maybe in a few years she'd be able to get to a major market. Nope. The smallest she's willing to start at: Saskatoon. Good luck with that.
By no means am I saying don't have dreams, kids. All I'm saying is set realistic goals. Ask just about any reporter/anchor in Calgary about where they've been and they'll give you quite the list. I was actually pretty lucky to have been given a kick at the can after just over a year-and-a-half in the business (two stops). And believe it or not, after a while, I knew I wasn't ready.
It's one thing to BE in the market, it's another to be ready for it. For radio, the expectations and workload are insane. You have to be an expert in everything, from council and school board to crime and the court system to business and agriculture. When I went back to Medicine Hat in 2008, it really allowed me to brush up on some of that stuff that I was flying by the seat of my pants on earlier in my career. I was able to go to councils, school boards, courts, you name it, and do it at a much slower pace than what happens in Calgary. It also gave me a keen understanding of how to develop stories at a much slower pace. In my first stint in Calgary, I was pounding out stories left, right and centre, but I'm not 100% sure I knew what I was talking about half the time. Going back to the smaller city, it allowed me to understand the processes a lot better. When you understand the processes, you can more fully develop the stories as you have a better understanding of how everything affects everyone.
But the most important thing (to me) that you gain from working in the smaller centres is you get a better appreciation for not only the industry, but the way you connect with people. And you would be surprised how often that can come back to help you when you're sent out to a smaller town to do a story. You're able to throw on the "small town charm". But that also helps in the city, because people tend to gravitate to that as compared to the "hard-nosed reporter" that you can't say two words around because it might be on the news that night.
Two words come from this: trust and integrity. You can learn how to build both of those in a small market so that when you get to the big city, it's almost second nature to you. Or you can start in the big centre, and if you flub up, best of luck to you in picking up the pieces of your career. Think of it as a poor man's "traveling the world". You get to see some places you normally wouldn't get to see. And who knows, maybe you'll actually like it there and decide to stay a while.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Small Town Kid In The Big City
It's always bittersweet going back to some of the smaller cities and towns I've lived in or had a past in when on assignment. On one hand, it's always nice to catch up with some of the people I haven't connected with in a while. On the other, I'm never there for something good. It's always bad news that I'm covering when I'm going somewhere out of the city.
It's a tough dilemma to be a part of. Being the small town kid in the big city has its challenges within city limits. Many people question where I'm actually from because of how many contacts I have in rural parts of the province. All I can say is that I'm "from Southern Alberta". You send me out to areas I've worked or lived before and it can be a little crazy because I'll probably know someone or know someone who knows someone.
I have three bones of contention when it comes to covering stories in rural parts of our fine province. In no particular order:
#1. Bad News Is The Only News
Why does it feel like the only time I'm in some of these centres is when it's bad news? The only time I ever went to Vulcan for a news story? Bunty Loose's murder. Claresholm? Triple-murder/suicide. Sparwood? Kienan Hebert's kidnapping. There's much more to these communities but unfortunately, we only ever seem to go out there when tragedy strikes. But do people in the "big city" truly care about those stories? It would be an interesting discussion that's for sure. Even something like the ongoing Events Centre debacle in Medicine Hat: should that be garnering attention in other parts of the province?
#2. How Media Is Perceived
It's always interesting being out in rural areas with the hard-nosed reporters. Some of them expect to be treated the same way that they're treated in the city. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. And some of those reporters don't like it. They want quotes NOW. This is one area where I'll give RCMP some leeway. A lot of the smaller detachments don't have the man-power to have a "media relations" person, let alone someone who has any sort of media training. So they tend to keep quiet until the Calgary or Edmonton offices come in to help out. Yet some reporters despise that. The same can be said with how we handle area residents. It's hard to explain but rural residents can be a little more weary of media than those in the city. They're simply not used to the cameras and attention. So, in many cases, you have to approach it a little differently. Again, it's not welcome with open arms by some reporters. And a "bad attitude" by one media outlet can ruin it, leading to a negative reputation for the entire batch. To my fellow reporters, I'm not saying "don't do your job", I'm just saying you might be best-served to proceed with caution as it, more times than not, will get you a lot further than throwing a little hissy fit.
#3. Take A Geography Class
This one really bugs me actually. Let's start with general directions. You would be shocked at the number of times I've heard someone say Medicine Hat is in "southwestern Alberta" or that Lethbridge is in "central Alberta". So there's that. Then there's proximity. We've had a wild summer of weather and at one point, I remember reading multiple tweets that a tornado had touched down "in Taber". Nope. It was eight miles south of Taber. Or the fire last November west of Lethbridge, when some media outlets said that the "west side of Lethbridge was being evacuated." Nope. Some rural residents west of Lethbridge were being forced from their homes. Word choice seems to go out the door when it comes to rural Alberta and I'm not exactly sure why. It always make me cringe to see us providing misleading or false information, because what it does is burns bridges as we gain a negative reputation as a whole (as much as some people don't want to think so). An "aside" as well on this one: someone should teach a class on how to pronounce the names of some of these communities. Boils down to doing some research but they don't call Irvine ER-VINE. It's ER-VIN. And Picture Butte is most certainly not PICTURE BUTT. It's PICTURE BYOOT.
By no means am I trying to throw anyone in particular under the bus with these. I'm simply writing about some observations noted in my time in Calgary. It'd be interesting to see how we, as the media, would be perceived if we made a few changes to the way we covered the rural areas. Would we lose listeners/viewers/readers by talking about tsome of the positives? Would our coverage change if we changed the way we approached those areas? Would we gain more respect from those rural communities? I have no idea. But it's certainly something I think is worthy of discussion.
It's a tough dilemma to be a part of. Being the small town kid in the big city has its challenges within city limits. Many people question where I'm actually from because of how many contacts I have in rural parts of the province. All I can say is that I'm "from Southern Alberta". You send me out to areas I've worked or lived before and it can be a little crazy because I'll probably know someone or know someone who knows someone.
I have three bones of contention when it comes to covering stories in rural parts of our fine province. In no particular order:
#1. Bad News Is The Only News
Why does it feel like the only time I'm in some of these centres is when it's bad news? The only time I ever went to Vulcan for a news story? Bunty Loose's murder. Claresholm? Triple-murder/suicide. Sparwood? Kienan Hebert's kidnapping. There's much more to these communities but unfortunately, we only ever seem to go out there when tragedy strikes. But do people in the "big city" truly care about those stories? It would be an interesting discussion that's for sure. Even something like the ongoing Events Centre debacle in Medicine Hat: should that be garnering attention in other parts of the province?
#2. How Media Is Perceived
It's always interesting being out in rural areas with the hard-nosed reporters. Some of them expect to be treated the same way that they're treated in the city. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. And some of those reporters don't like it. They want quotes NOW. This is one area where I'll give RCMP some leeway. A lot of the smaller detachments don't have the man-power to have a "media relations" person, let alone someone who has any sort of media training. So they tend to keep quiet until the Calgary or Edmonton offices come in to help out. Yet some reporters despise that. The same can be said with how we handle area residents. It's hard to explain but rural residents can be a little more weary of media than those in the city. They're simply not used to the cameras and attention. So, in many cases, you have to approach it a little differently. Again, it's not welcome with open arms by some reporters. And a "bad attitude" by one media outlet can ruin it, leading to a negative reputation for the entire batch. To my fellow reporters, I'm not saying "don't do your job", I'm just saying you might be best-served to proceed with caution as it, more times than not, will get you a lot further than throwing a little hissy fit.
#3. Take A Geography Class
This one really bugs me actually. Let's start with general directions. You would be shocked at the number of times I've heard someone say Medicine Hat is in "southwestern Alberta" or that Lethbridge is in "central Alberta". So there's that. Then there's proximity. We've had a wild summer of weather and at one point, I remember reading multiple tweets that a tornado had touched down "in Taber". Nope. It was eight miles south of Taber. Or the fire last November west of Lethbridge, when some media outlets said that the "west side of Lethbridge was being evacuated." Nope. Some rural residents west of Lethbridge were being forced from their homes. Word choice seems to go out the door when it comes to rural Alberta and I'm not exactly sure why. It always make me cringe to see us providing misleading or false information, because what it does is burns bridges as we gain a negative reputation as a whole (as much as some people don't want to think so). An "aside" as well on this one: someone should teach a class on how to pronounce the names of some of these communities. Boils down to doing some research but they don't call Irvine ER-VINE. It's ER-VIN. And Picture Butte is most certainly not PICTURE BUTT. It's PICTURE BYOOT.
By no means am I trying to throw anyone in particular under the bus with these. I'm simply writing about some observations noted in my time in Calgary. It'd be interesting to see how we, as the media, would be perceived if we made a few changes to the way we covered the rural areas. Would we lose listeners/viewers/readers by talking about tsome of the positives? Would our coverage change if we changed the way we approached those areas? Would we gain more respect from those rural communities? I have no idea. But it's certainly something I think is worthy of discussion.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Some Bold NHL Lockout Predictions
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.
#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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)