I'm going to start with what I said on Facebook after the election was over:
Canada has spoken. Whether you like the results or not, this is our new reality. For those who don't like it, you can either stomp your feet in the corner, claiming the world is coming to an end. Or you can suck it up and fight for what you feel is important. Fight for justice and good policy in light of a new government's failings. But let's not forget to celebrate Canada's successes as well. Those on the left felt a Conservative government would ruin this country 10 years ago. We, as a nation, did pretty well, I'd say. The roles are reversed now. Just like we did then, let's put politics aside now and work together to keep this country as wonderful as it always has been.
I would like to add something to that sentiment. For those who are celebrating the results of last Monday's election, you also can't sit on your high horse and expect the accolades to pour in. You are in for a long four years (or so) of constantly having to prove yourself, to show that your vision for Canada was in fact the best, and that this was a decision based on that vision and not just to get another party out of power. Because your true colours will ultimately determine whether this country continues to thrive or not.
I'll step off my pedestal now and talk about a few observations about this election:
#1. All-Candidates Forums
Is it safe to say that the all-candidates forum is quickly becoming a thing of the past? While I understand the value it can hold (especially when it comes to determining who can work well under fire, who can talk in front of crowds, etc), the point of these gatherings has quickly been lost, especially here in Alberta. If showing up to these forums actually mattered, many MPs wouldn't have jobs right now. The other thing is that these gatherings have become nothing more than partisan grandstanding. Most people in attendance already know who they're voting for, and they've only shown up to either rip on the other candidates or act as cheerleaders for their candidates. I haven't met very many people who have gone in with an open mind and said "that forum really helped change or make up my mind." I whole-heartedly agree with how it is important to the democratic process, but I can also see how some candidates wouldn't want to take part.
#2. The West's Relevancy
I joked on Twitter that the national TV networks would have their projections and have their elections called by 7:35pm MST. And I wasn't that far off (I think it was 7:37). If this election did anything, it brought us back to the 90's, where the results of the west really didn't matter because Ontario and Quebec spoke in relative unison. Admittedly, it was a little frustrating to see that, but I do understand representation by population, to a certain extent. But look at the provincial election. 360,000 people voted for the Wildrose, who ended up with 21 seats. 413,000 people voted for the PC's, who ended up with 10 seats (well...9 because Prentice didn't stick around to sit in the seat). That's right, the PC's actually got more votes than the Wildrose, but the Wildrose ended up with double the seats. That's what happens when the Wildrose cleans up in the rural areas and the PC's finished 2nd in the cities. Is that really appropriate representation in the legislature? It's an argument that's gone on since this system began. Here's an idea: each party gives you 100 of its best candidates to man the 100 seats in the House of Commons. They give you a depth chart of sorts, including who would sit in what cabinet post. Then on election day, voters truly vote for the party. If the winning party gets 44% of the vote, they will send their top 44 to the House. If one is caught breaking the law or something else that's untoward, we don't hold a byelection. We kick that MP out and we bring up the next person on the depth chart from the OTHER guys. So for example, if a Liberal MP is booted, a Conservative (official opposition) gets to replace that MP. If it's someone from the official opposition getting turfed, they are replaced by the third party, and so on. It's like recall legislation, only less costly for the taxpayer and makes parties really think hard about who they want in their inner-circle. The one downside is that you don't have a "local" voice in Ottawa, which I sympathize with. But maybe that's where we start depending more on our provincial governments to be our advocates. Because we see it far too often, where we feel like MPs are more "Ottawa's representative in this riding" more than "this riding's representative in Ottawa." I've said it before: I'd rather have an MP in opposition who works for me than have an MP in government who works for his party.
#3. And then there was Alberta...
Something really weird has happened in Alberta. In May, we voted for a leftist NDP government, yet in Monday's federal election, the majority of the province took another right and went with Conservatives. Talk about two opposite ends of the spectrum. So now you have a provincial government (NDP) trying to cozy up with Alberta's MPs (Conservatives) to make sure our best interests are being looked after in Ottawa, which is now run by another majority government (Liberals). Holy moly. Makes for some really interesting discussions over whether you can or whether you should put partisan politics aside. You should, given all of these politicians have been elected to serve the best interests of Albertans and Canadians. That being said, you can't just bend over backwards just to get along. I reckon the conversations behind closed doors are going to be quite animated as all three sides try to figure out how to best govern what many still consider to be the "economic engine" of this country.
That got long-winded in a hurry. I don't say it often, but thanks for reading this blog. I'm always amazed seeing how many people actually take the time to at least read a few sentences of my sometimes-coherent rambling. If there's a topic you'd like for me to chat about, political, sports or otherwise, don't hesitate to drop me a line: radiofriendlyjoe@yahoo.ca.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Don't Know Who To Vote For?
It's amazing the number of texts, messages and outright conversations I've had in the last few days surrounding the federal election. The main theme of these communications has been the same: "I don't know who to vote for."
This has been a LONG campaign. Longest in Canadian history. And for those who have been paying attention the whole time, the fatigue factor is starting to set in. Many have heard more than enough reasons to not only vote FOR each party, but also more than enough reasons NOT to vote for each party. And that seems to have frustrated a lot of people. So I'm here to provide some advice to any of you who have been thinking about how they were going to cast their ballot, and for those who were a little confused on how to do so.
#1. Find What Resonates With You
Think about your own life and determine what's important to you. Is it strong finances? Is it a strong moral compass? Is it child care? Find some issues that look like they are going to be affecting you in the next few years. Then look at each party's platform and determine which one seems to jive with your own belief system. Chances are, each party is going to have a couple of things you disagree with. But that's almost to be expected. Don't let the little things deter you from voting for or against a certain party. No party is going to be perfect for everyone, and the minute you start nitpicking is the minute that you quickly realize you won't be able to vote for any of the parties.
#2. Find Which Candidate Resonates With You
If you're still at a loss when it comes to the parties or the leaders, then it's time to look at each of the candidates in your own riding. Now, I would argue this should be your primary concern, because as I've said before, there's no way any party will remain accountable if you're not keeping all of the candidates accountable. That being said, do some research on your local candidates. Answer the door when they knock. Get to see which of them impresses you. Don't let them over-promise. Make them be realistic with you. And make them show you why they would help represent you in Ottawa. I have no doubt that each party has all-stars, who are willing to do the best for their constituents. And if you think a strong voice in Ottawa is more important than someone who tows party lines just to stay in the "inner circle", this might be the recommendation for you.
#3. Find A Reason To Vote FOR Something/Someone
I've been on a bit of a crusade of late, with my key message being that I would rather vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something else. I really believe everyone should find that reason. And that reason should be FOR you. I'm glad that people where their political stripes on their sleeves, but it won't be affecting the way I vote at the end of the day, nor should it affect you. Maybe it's the economy and jobs. Maybe it's social issues. Maybe it's that you like the way a certain candidate handles the pressure and the questions you ask. The important thing is that you ask those questions and find the answers that you're looking for. You might end up being surprised where you find the good answers. Don't depend on everyone else to get the answers for you. Get it straight from the horse's mouth. And who cares if someone doesn't like the way you're voting. It's your vote. It's your chance to take part in the democratic process.
I could try to tell you who to vote for. But I play a mean devil's advocate and would do my best to poke holes in every single argument. Plus, my opinion shouldn't matter at the end of the day. It's your opinion that matters on October 19th. The only opinion I'll share is that I hope everyone takes a minute to get informed, find a reason to vote for someone, and then casts their ballot. A message will never get sent to politicians unless the electorate mails the letter.
This has been a LONG campaign. Longest in Canadian history. And for those who have been paying attention the whole time, the fatigue factor is starting to set in. Many have heard more than enough reasons to not only vote FOR each party, but also more than enough reasons NOT to vote for each party. And that seems to have frustrated a lot of people. So I'm here to provide some advice to any of you who have been thinking about how they were going to cast their ballot, and for those who were a little confused on how to do so.
#1. Find What Resonates With You
Think about your own life and determine what's important to you. Is it strong finances? Is it a strong moral compass? Is it child care? Find some issues that look like they are going to be affecting you in the next few years. Then look at each party's platform and determine which one seems to jive with your own belief system. Chances are, each party is going to have a couple of things you disagree with. But that's almost to be expected. Don't let the little things deter you from voting for or against a certain party. No party is going to be perfect for everyone, and the minute you start nitpicking is the minute that you quickly realize you won't be able to vote for any of the parties.
#2. Find Which Candidate Resonates With You
If you're still at a loss when it comes to the parties or the leaders, then it's time to look at each of the candidates in your own riding. Now, I would argue this should be your primary concern, because as I've said before, there's no way any party will remain accountable if you're not keeping all of the candidates accountable. That being said, do some research on your local candidates. Answer the door when they knock. Get to see which of them impresses you. Don't let them over-promise. Make them be realistic with you. And make them show you why they would help represent you in Ottawa. I have no doubt that each party has all-stars, who are willing to do the best for their constituents. And if you think a strong voice in Ottawa is more important than someone who tows party lines just to stay in the "inner circle", this might be the recommendation for you.
#3. Find A Reason To Vote FOR Something/Someone
I've been on a bit of a crusade of late, with my key message being that I would rather vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something else. I really believe everyone should find that reason. And that reason should be FOR you. I'm glad that people where their political stripes on their sleeves, but it won't be affecting the way I vote at the end of the day, nor should it affect you. Maybe it's the economy and jobs. Maybe it's social issues. Maybe it's that you like the way a certain candidate handles the pressure and the questions you ask. The important thing is that you ask those questions and find the answers that you're looking for. You might end up being surprised where you find the good answers. Don't depend on everyone else to get the answers for you. Get it straight from the horse's mouth. And who cares if someone doesn't like the way you're voting. It's your vote. It's your chance to take part in the democratic process.
I could try to tell you who to vote for. But I play a mean devil's advocate and would do my best to poke holes in every single argument. Plus, my opinion shouldn't matter at the end of the day. It's your opinion that matters on October 19th. The only opinion I'll share is that I hope everyone takes a minute to get informed, find a reason to vote for someone, and then casts their ballot. A message will never get sent to politicians unless the electorate mails the letter.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Facebook Statuses Explained
I have this bad habit of venting frustrations on Facebook. I'm sure it's going to come back and bite me in the rump one day. But the thing is: I'm not afraid of my opinions. As someone in talk radio, I believe that we need to have an opinion to get people talking.
It's been a weird few weeks in the world of news and it's had me venting. 140 characters aren't enough on Twitter. And on Facebook, I'm really just giving a "Coles Notes" version. So I'm here to share my full, unfiltered thoughts on some recent posts.
#1. Maybe politicians should start their campaigning with "I'm sorry for what's coming." It'd be a lot easier for everyone to digest, whether it's lies, corruption, stupidity or whatever makes headlines. Because right now I feel bad for voters, who are having to wade their way through the seemingly infinite amount of garbage just to find a reason to vote for someone. Especially when all the politicians say is that they "regret" their missteps. That's not an apology. That's a "I wish I didn't get caught." Anyways... Back to your regularly-scheduled long weekend.
I did add one more point onto that, being it wasn't aimed at any one party or politician. This was from this past long weekend after a couple of federal Conservative candidates were booted from the campaign because of things said and done. But it runs rampant in every single election and with every single party. And it's left voters in flux. How do you vote for someone when all you can focus on is all the bad everyone has highlighted about them. "You can't trust this guy." "He's too young." "She doesn't have enough experience." "The economy might collapse with this party." "We need change." All of these typical slogans and party lines and not enough substance because voters just don't have the attention spans to keep up. In Alberta, people knew they wanted change in the last provincial election. But did they know what they were getting when they voted NDP? Or were they simply voting for something just to get the 40+ year dynasty out the door? Why did urban go NDP and rural go Wildrose? Could the federal election be split depending on geographic region as well? It's a fascinating case study on "divide-and-conquer" politics, deliberate or not. But I think part of the reason is because of the fear-mongering being done by all parties, coupled with the scandals and sideshows, which leave people shrugging their shoulders and not really focused on the most important question: who is best to run this fine country of ours?
#2. Just a little follow-up to my last post about the woman who allegedly threw the puke bag at the taxi driver after he requested a clean-up fee for her mess: what in the coldest gates of hell? I'm sorry. But why do people feel so GD entitled that they can do whatever they want to those who are in the service industry? Honestly, you must believe that they are below you if you think you can get away with making racist/derogatory/ridiculous comments or take inappropriate/abusive actions. How would you like it if someone walked into your office and did the same thing? Everyone's trying to make a living here and you're showing absolutely zero respect for them. I get it. Respect goes both ways. But you'd be surprised how quickly it's reciprocated if you make the first move. Have a conversation. Be civil. It's not that GD hard. Rant over.
I don't use taxis a lot. But when I do, I try to get the conversation going quickly. I find some of the stories fascinating. I remember meeting a gentleman in Calgary who was from "the good part of Afghanistan" (his words). He was in Canada trying to make enough money to bring the rest of his family over. He loved our idea of freedom. This was his "land of opportunity," in particular for his kids. It was a great story. There was another guy when I was in Florida who was running a fleet of older vehicles. So we got to talking about fixing up these old 1950's and 1960's trucks and cars and how they handle the Florida heat. It was "something different" for a guy originally from New York who needed to "escape." The same thing goes for waiters and waitresses, gas station attendants, or grocery store workers. I know this sounds super-hokey, but why can't we all just get along? It's absolutely baffling that we allow ourselves to get caught up in our own BS and go off the rails at the first opportunity. Even something simple like looking someone in the eye after you've paid for your slurpee or whatever, then saying "thank you." You can tell it brightens their day just a little bit. I feel like I'm in the Miss America pageant here or something, but holy moly. Are we so far removed from simple things like opening the door for someone? We're in "too much of a rush?" Yeesh.
#3. I'll admit that I'm a bit of a moron. I monitor the comments on the station's Facebook page quite regularly (for work), which means I read them all. And we all know that the #1 rule of journalism is to not read the comments section. Ever. But I have to read them. It's the comments on stories like this one (the Pride Bus) which makes me lose a lot of faith in humanity. The needless Twitter wars that have popped up because of it. The vitriol. It's just tiring to watch. "When do we get a Straight Pride Parade?" How about when you're feeling oppressed and marginalized for who you love? "LGBQT is threatening the sanctity of marriage!" Really? Did it break up your marriage and the love of others you know? Maybe we should worry about banning Ashley Madison-style websites first. Who appoints you as the "Director of Love?" Why is it your business what other people do in their bedrooms? Why is someone else's happiness a detriment to your being? I'm a proud, straight man. I'm also proud to associate myself with and love people of all sexualities and backgrounds. If you're a good person, that's all that matters to me. Be happy. Much love y'all!
This one gets me every time. Maybe it was because I was bullied when I was younger. But for whatever reason, we have this infatuation with hating everything that's different from our "norm." Too fat. Too skinny. Too white. Too black. Too Christian. Too Muslim. Too gay. Too straight. Too rich. Too poor. What the heck does it even matter?
I found one thing in particular really disturbing on this topic. The Calgary Flames and associated organizations (Hitmen, Stampeders and Roughnecks) all posted Facebook profile pictures altered with rainbow colours (as many personal pages had done). You would not believe the vitriol thrown in the comments of those posts. I had to go for a walk after a while, just to calm down and make sure I didn't post anything I'd later regret. Here's the thing: why are you letting something like that bother you? Some claimed the teams were trying to get on the "indoctrination" train or trying to be "trendy." Really? This is about acceptance and being inclusive. If a player were to come out tomorrow, are you saying that player should be cut immediately? All these teams are saying is "we support you" to those who are being bullied, shamed and the like. But again, it goes to another bigger point: why does it matter to you what they do in the comfort of their own homes, so much so that you need to make negative comments about someone else's way of life? If I'm putting a team together, I'm looking for the best group of athletes. I don't care where they came from, what religion they are, what sexuality they are. None of it matters because (if I was in that position) I would be in the business of winning championships and if that meant bringing in a blind, three-armed trans-sexual Irish-Catholic man to do it, sign him. Would it be a distraction? Sure. Right up until he dominated on the ice.
And for those of you who are "sick and tired of having this shoved in my face every year": You're tired of hearing about it?!? Imagine having to live through the shaming, doubt, bigotry, cat calls and more EVERY DAY.
I'm an optimist. I look for the best in people. I really do. But sometimes, society puts me to the test. We can be better. I know we can.
It's been a weird few weeks in the world of news and it's had me venting. 140 characters aren't enough on Twitter. And on Facebook, I'm really just giving a "Coles Notes" version. So I'm here to share my full, unfiltered thoughts on some recent posts.
#1. Maybe politicians should start their campaigning with "I'm sorry for what's coming." It'd be a lot easier for everyone to digest, whether it's lies, corruption, stupidity or whatever makes headlines. Because right now I feel bad for voters, who are having to wade their way through the seemingly infinite amount of garbage just to find a reason to vote for someone. Especially when all the politicians say is that they "regret" their missteps. That's not an apology. That's a "I wish I didn't get caught." Anyways... Back to your regularly-scheduled long weekend.
I did add one more point onto that, being it wasn't aimed at any one party or politician. This was from this past long weekend after a couple of federal Conservative candidates were booted from the campaign because of things said and done. But it runs rampant in every single election and with every single party. And it's left voters in flux. How do you vote for someone when all you can focus on is all the bad everyone has highlighted about them. "You can't trust this guy." "He's too young." "She doesn't have enough experience." "The economy might collapse with this party." "We need change." All of these typical slogans and party lines and not enough substance because voters just don't have the attention spans to keep up. In Alberta, people knew they wanted change in the last provincial election. But did they know what they were getting when they voted NDP? Or were they simply voting for something just to get the 40+ year dynasty out the door? Why did urban go NDP and rural go Wildrose? Could the federal election be split depending on geographic region as well? It's a fascinating case study on "divide-and-conquer" politics, deliberate or not. But I think part of the reason is because of the fear-mongering being done by all parties, coupled with the scandals and sideshows, which leave people shrugging their shoulders and not really focused on the most important question: who is best to run this fine country of ours?
#2. Just a little follow-up to my last post about the woman who allegedly threw the puke bag at the taxi driver after he requested a clean-up fee for her mess: what in the coldest gates of hell? I'm sorry. But why do people feel so GD entitled that they can do whatever they want to those who are in the service industry? Honestly, you must believe that they are below you if you think you can get away with making racist/derogatory/ridiculous comments or take inappropriate/abusive actions. How would you like it if someone walked into your office and did the same thing? Everyone's trying to make a living here and you're showing absolutely zero respect for them. I get it. Respect goes both ways. But you'd be surprised how quickly it's reciprocated if you make the first move. Have a conversation. Be civil. It's not that GD hard. Rant over.
I don't use taxis a lot. But when I do, I try to get the conversation going quickly. I find some of the stories fascinating. I remember meeting a gentleman in Calgary who was from "the good part of Afghanistan" (his words). He was in Canada trying to make enough money to bring the rest of his family over. He loved our idea of freedom. This was his "land of opportunity," in particular for his kids. It was a great story. There was another guy when I was in Florida who was running a fleet of older vehicles. So we got to talking about fixing up these old 1950's and 1960's trucks and cars and how they handle the Florida heat. It was "something different" for a guy originally from New York who needed to "escape." The same thing goes for waiters and waitresses, gas station attendants, or grocery store workers. I know this sounds super-hokey, but why can't we all just get along? It's absolutely baffling that we allow ourselves to get caught up in our own BS and go off the rails at the first opportunity. Even something simple like looking someone in the eye after you've paid for your slurpee or whatever, then saying "thank you." You can tell it brightens their day just a little bit. I feel like I'm in the Miss America pageant here or something, but holy moly. Are we so far removed from simple things like opening the door for someone? We're in "too much of a rush?" Yeesh.
#3. I'll admit that I'm a bit of a moron. I monitor the comments on the station's Facebook page quite regularly (for work), which means I read them all. And we all know that the #1 rule of journalism is to not read the comments section. Ever. But I have to read them. It's the comments on stories like this one (the Pride Bus) which makes me lose a lot of faith in humanity. The needless Twitter wars that have popped up because of it. The vitriol. It's just tiring to watch. "When do we get a Straight Pride Parade?" How about when you're feeling oppressed and marginalized for who you love? "LGBQT is threatening the sanctity of marriage!" Really? Did it break up your marriage and the love of others you know? Maybe we should worry about banning Ashley Madison-style websites first. Who appoints you as the "Director of Love?" Why is it your business what other people do in their bedrooms? Why is someone else's happiness a detriment to your being? I'm a proud, straight man. I'm also proud to associate myself with and love people of all sexualities and backgrounds. If you're a good person, that's all that matters to me. Be happy. Much love y'all!
This one gets me every time. Maybe it was because I was bullied when I was younger. But for whatever reason, we have this infatuation with hating everything that's different from our "norm." Too fat. Too skinny. Too white. Too black. Too Christian. Too Muslim. Too gay. Too straight. Too rich. Too poor. What the heck does it even matter?
I found one thing in particular really disturbing on this topic. The Calgary Flames and associated organizations (Hitmen, Stampeders and Roughnecks) all posted Facebook profile pictures altered with rainbow colours (as many personal pages had done). You would not believe the vitriol thrown in the comments of those posts. I had to go for a walk after a while, just to calm down and make sure I didn't post anything I'd later regret. Here's the thing: why are you letting something like that bother you? Some claimed the teams were trying to get on the "indoctrination" train or trying to be "trendy." Really? This is about acceptance and being inclusive. If a player were to come out tomorrow, are you saying that player should be cut immediately? All these teams are saying is "we support you" to those who are being bullied, shamed and the like. But again, it goes to another bigger point: why does it matter to you what they do in the comfort of their own homes, so much so that you need to make negative comments about someone else's way of life? If I'm putting a team together, I'm looking for the best group of athletes. I don't care where they came from, what religion they are, what sexuality they are. None of it matters because (if I was in that position) I would be in the business of winning championships and if that meant bringing in a blind, three-armed trans-sexual Irish-Catholic man to do it, sign him. Would it be a distraction? Sure. Right up until he dominated on the ice.
And for those of you who are "sick and tired of having this shoved in my face every year": You're tired of hearing about it?!? Imagine having to live through the shaming, doubt, bigotry, cat calls and more EVERY DAY.
I'm an optimist. I look for the best in people. I really do. But sometimes, society puts me to the test. We can be better. I know we can.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Social Media vs. Traditional Media
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
I laugh when I think about that line, but then I realize how true it can sometimes be. Take the argument of "social media vs. traditional media." Obviously, I have a vested interest in the success of traditional media. But I also understand the pull and importance of social media and believe it can be used for the power of good.
So as I started writing this post, I had this weird feeling I had written about it before. I went through the entire history of this blog and couldn't find it. Then I remembered that there's a "Notes" function on Facebook. Eureka! Found it. In light of what I've seen and heard following today's tornado warning in the Calgary area, I present to you the unedited post I wrote from February 9th, 2012:
*****
I've been biting my lip on this whole argument for a while now. I've been trying to find a way to "craft" some sort of rant to get a few things off my chest while trying to keep the "emotional" element out of it. I've had a day or two to cool off and now it's time to give you an inside look into the mind of a reporter in what seems to be an ever-changing industry.
Social media is an interesting beast. Outside of radio, where are you going to get information up-to-the-minute? Not the papers. Not the TV (unless you're on an all-news channel). Maybe on radio (I'm proud to be working for a radio station which actually still has newscasts so you do get it there). But if something's happening right now, you'll probably find it on social media. That can be a good thing and a bad thing. And there's two schools of thought I want to hit on when it comes to that last sentence.
Let's start with you, the average everyday Facebook/Twitter user. You LOVE to post things. Especially when something is going on. It's good to be that person trying to help out your community. But how FACTUAL is that information? Did you hear it from a reliable source or is it just something you heard through the grapevine or rumour mill? Because we all know how many ears that gets passed through before it's hit yours.
I look at the grassfires near Lethbridge a few months back as a prime example of this. The city wasn't evacuating anyone from the west side yet you'd never know that by reading some of the tweets sent out. I have no idea how that information came to be, whether it was something made up through imagination or if it was a young firefighter or rookie officer saying something. What I do know is it creates a ton of problems, including hysteria for those on social media sites. How serious should you be taking these claims? How long do you wait before you determine this is a legitimate concern?
The other issue it creates is it forces traditional media outlets into trying to confirm these claims. And, as a reporter, I can say it sometimes feels like you're running around in circles. I've always likened social media to having a call-in radio show, only there's millions of calls you have to sift through. The only trouble is you have to get through a ton of crap to find the gold. Having heard almost every rumour imaginable in the hours after the tragic murder-suicide outside Claresholm, we spent most of our initial news conference with the RCMP asking questions which the officer said had no bearing on the investigation (eg was a house fire connected). I don't blame anyone for that but it makes you question just how much stuff out on the internet is truth and how much isn't.
As for us media types, we're almost caught in a Catch-22. We're told (sometimes repeatedly) that we "need to be first". Consultants come in and say social media is here and we need to embrace it. Be the first to tweet whatever you have because you don't want to risk having "the other guys" beat you to it. Well unfortunately this has left us holding onto our journalistic integrity by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen media people re-tweet wrong information (the Lethbridge-area fires were really bad for that). You hear horror stories of reporters being sent out on wild goose chases about some "situation" someone else in the office saw on Facebook or Twitter, then it turns out to be nothing at all. Yet no one bothers to fact-check and make a quick phone call. They are using these social mediums as "sources" and it's getting some people in major hot water. And yes, it's all to be "first". Look at how many celebrities have "died" on social media, then it spreads to traditional media, only to have the celeb call someone to say "hey wait a second". I'll tell you right now (and most of you who actually take the time to read this probably already know), I don't care if I'm first. Yeah, it's cool to have a possible scoop. But I'd rather be second by a minute and accurate ALL the time than be first by a minute and accurate MOST of the time. I am super-competitive, but I like my integrity and the trust that people put in me to have the story right the first time.
I don't have any fancy-dancy anecdotes that will make people proclaim "Eureka!" while altering their attitudes towards social media. Just hopes and dreams that one day traditional media can fully grasp the power that social media has and use it to their advantage while giving the average everyday person an absolute surefire place to go to get accurate, relevant information, whether its on-air or online. Hopes and dreams that the average everyday person will stop taking rumours and innuendo as being "truth" and, in turn, will come back to the traditional media outlets to get the real truth. Because, as it stands right now, between journalists, bloggers and the gossipers, the line still seems a little blurred to me.
*****
More than three years later, all I can say is "ditto."
I laugh when I think about that line, but then I realize how true it can sometimes be. Take the argument of "social media vs. traditional media." Obviously, I have a vested interest in the success of traditional media. But I also understand the pull and importance of social media and believe it can be used for the power of good.
So as I started writing this post, I had this weird feeling I had written about it before. I went through the entire history of this blog and couldn't find it. Then I remembered that there's a "Notes" function on Facebook. Eureka! Found it. In light of what I've seen and heard following today's tornado warning in the Calgary area, I present to you the unedited post I wrote from February 9th, 2012:
*****
I've been biting my lip on this whole argument for a while now. I've been trying to find a way to "craft" some sort of rant to get a few things off my chest while trying to keep the "emotional" element out of it. I've had a day or two to cool off and now it's time to give you an inside look into the mind of a reporter in what seems to be an ever-changing industry.
Social media is an interesting beast. Outside of radio, where are you going to get information up-to-the-minute? Not the papers. Not the TV (unless you're on an all-news channel). Maybe on radio (I'm proud to be working for a radio station which actually still has newscasts so you do get it there). But if something's happening right now, you'll probably find it on social media. That can be a good thing and a bad thing. And there's two schools of thought I want to hit on when it comes to that last sentence.
Let's start with you, the average everyday Facebook/Twitter user. You LOVE to post things. Especially when something is going on. It's good to be that person trying to help out your community. But how FACTUAL is that information? Did you hear it from a reliable source or is it just something you heard through the grapevine or rumour mill? Because we all know how many ears that gets passed through before it's hit yours.
I look at the grassfires near Lethbridge a few months back as a prime example of this. The city wasn't evacuating anyone from the west side yet you'd never know that by reading some of the tweets sent out. I have no idea how that information came to be, whether it was something made up through imagination or if it was a young firefighter or rookie officer saying something. What I do know is it creates a ton of problems, including hysteria for those on social media sites. How serious should you be taking these claims? How long do you wait before you determine this is a legitimate concern?
The other issue it creates is it forces traditional media outlets into trying to confirm these claims. And, as a reporter, I can say it sometimes feels like you're running around in circles. I've always likened social media to having a call-in radio show, only there's millions of calls you have to sift through. The only trouble is you have to get through a ton of crap to find the gold. Having heard almost every rumour imaginable in the hours after the tragic murder-suicide outside Claresholm, we spent most of our initial news conference with the RCMP asking questions which the officer said had no bearing on the investigation (eg was a house fire connected). I don't blame anyone for that but it makes you question just how much stuff out on the internet is truth and how much isn't.
As for us media types, we're almost caught in a Catch-22. We're told (sometimes repeatedly) that we "need to be first". Consultants come in and say social media is here and we need to embrace it. Be the first to tweet whatever you have because you don't want to risk having "the other guys" beat you to it. Well unfortunately this has left us holding onto our journalistic integrity by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen media people re-tweet wrong information (the Lethbridge-area fires were really bad for that). You hear horror stories of reporters being sent out on wild goose chases about some "situation" someone else in the office saw on Facebook or Twitter, then it turns out to be nothing at all. Yet no one bothers to fact-check and make a quick phone call. They are using these social mediums as "sources" and it's getting some people in major hot water. And yes, it's all to be "first". Look at how many celebrities have "died" on social media, then it spreads to traditional media, only to have the celeb call someone to say "hey wait a second". I'll tell you right now (and most of you who actually take the time to read this probably already know), I don't care if I'm first. Yeah, it's cool to have a possible scoop. But I'd rather be second by a minute and accurate ALL the time than be first by a minute and accurate MOST of the time. I am super-competitive, but I like my integrity and the trust that people put in me to have the story right the first time.
I don't have any fancy-dancy anecdotes that will make people proclaim "Eureka!" while altering their attitudes towards social media. Just hopes and dreams that one day traditional media can fully grasp the power that social media has and use it to their advantage while giving the average everyday person an absolute surefire place to go to get accurate, relevant information, whether its on-air or online. Hopes and dreams that the average everyday person will stop taking rumours and innuendo as being "truth" and, in turn, will come back to the traditional media outlets to get the real truth. Because, as it stands right now, between journalists, bloggers and the gossipers, the line still seems a little blurred to me.
*****
More than three years later, all I can say is "ditto."
Monday, July 13, 2015
Coming To A Town Near You
Being a small town kid, I'll always have a soft spot for small towns. It also gives me a unique perspective on how the big city handles the small towns.
You see, the only time big city media types invade the small towns, it's for negative news. Disasters and tragedies. Both are obviously unthinkable events. Unexpected. And it creates a problem for everyone involved when the expectation in both camps is so vastly different.
From the small town perspective, you're simply not used to having 15 media outlets (or more) converge on your community. At most, you might have a weekly newspaper, maybe a regional radio station that stops by once in a while. But that's it. So you're completely unprepared for what's about to come. About five years, I attended an emergency preparedness conference in Banff, where the vast majority of municipalities I spoke with said their plans don't/didn't include how to handle media. Standing in front of one microphone was nerve-wracking enough, let alone 15 with reporters yelling questions.
From the media perspective, you're used to getting the big city response. The cities have multiple spokespeople/communications people, whose sole job is to organize the message being sent out and to get back to us media types. The cities develop strategies on communications for everything from a new park opening to an emergency. The towns, well, don't. The speakers are well-coached and are used to handling the pressure cooker of a scrum. It's a totally different world between the two.
So I tend to give smaller communities a little more leeway in terms of answering interview requests when disasters or tragedies strike. It's not a ton of leeway. But it's enough to make sure to say to them "we're looking to help you pass along as much information as possible to our listeners/viewers/readers, who also happen to live in your community." The relationship needs to be perceived as being mutual. It's an idea that's sometimes foreign to small town spokespeople, who are already resentful that the only time media types are talking to them is in the most inconvenient time.
I've covered so many of these situations. High River, Claresholm, Sparwood, Innisfail, Brooks. Even the bigger small cities like Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Red Deer. For the most part, I don't believe that they're trying to dodge questions. They're simply not as prepared to deal with the barrage like Calgary and Edmonton are.
That being said, I will 100% advocate for all communities to be prepared. The person in charge of communications, whether it be internal, external, or both, needs to realize that the media is going to go looking for information to pass along to listeners/viewers/readers, especially when natural disasters hit. So to help your own image (whether it be on the "open and transparent front" or on the "let's quell any rumours that might be out there), the only option you have is to plan for the media to arrive. Plan regular updates. Communicate your plans.
Media can and will be the conduit from you to your residents, if you utilize it correctly.
You see, the only time big city media types invade the small towns, it's for negative news. Disasters and tragedies. Both are obviously unthinkable events. Unexpected. And it creates a problem for everyone involved when the expectation in both camps is so vastly different.
From the small town perspective, you're simply not used to having 15 media outlets (or more) converge on your community. At most, you might have a weekly newspaper, maybe a regional radio station that stops by once in a while. But that's it. So you're completely unprepared for what's about to come. About five years, I attended an emergency preparedness conference in Banff, where the vast majority of municipalities I spoke with said their plans don't/didn't include how to handle media. Standing in front of one microphone was nerve-wracking enough, let alone 15 with reporters yelling questions.
From the media perspective, you're used to getting the big city response. The cities have multiple spokespeople/communications people, whose sole job is to organize the message being sent out and to get back to us media types. The cities develop strategies on communications for everything from a new park opening to an emergency. The towns, well, don't. The speakers are well-coached and are used to handling the pressure cooker of a scrum. It's a totally different world between the two.
So I tend to give smaller communities a little more leeway in terms of answering interview requests when disasters or tragedies strike. It's not a ton of leeway. But it's enough to make sure to say to them "we're looking to help you pass along as much information as possible to our listeners/viewers/readers, who also happen to live in your community." The relationship needs to be perceived as being mutual. It's an idea that's sometimes foreign to small town spokespeople, who are already resentful that the only time media types are talking to them is in the most inconvenient time.
I've covered so many of these situations. High River, Claresholm, Sparwood, Innisfail, Brooks. Even the bigger small cities like Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Red Deer. For the most part, I don't believe that they're trying to dodge questions. They're simply not as prepared to deal with the barrage like Calgary and Edmonton are.
That being said, I will 100% advocate for all communities to be prepared. The person in charge of communications, whether it be internal, external, or both, needs to realize that the media is going to go looking for information to pass along to listeners/viewers/readers, especially when natural disasters hit. So to help your own image (whether it be on the "open and transparent front" or on the "let's quell any rumours that might be out there), the only option you have is to plan for the media to arrive. Plan regular updates. Communicate your plans.
Media can and will be the conduit from you to your residents, if you utilize it correctly.
Monday, July 6, 2015
If I Had $10,000...
I was sitting around one night, looking at the stars, thinking to myself "what would be the best way to promote myself?" Then it hit me! Why don't I get myself a lawnchair and $10,000 worth of helium, build a sign with an image of me on it, then launch myself into the sky! Seems like a pretty solid plan.
Pardon?
What?!?
It's been done already?!?
Dang.
OK, time for me to rant. Admittedly, I struggled with wanting to write this blog, simply because I didn't want to give this guy any more attention than he had already received. But ultimately I find myself writing this (and you find yourself reading this), as maybe I can shed some light on my observations about a story like this.
I feel like I've already gone through three different emotions with this story already:
#1. Anger
I honestly can't believe this was made out to be such a BIG story. It's a guy doing a publicity stunt, so he wants publicity and we're giving it to him. Reporters are tripping over themselves trying to get an interview with him. That's what he WANTS! His story is going to ultimately trump other, more important stories of the day. There are massive wildfires burning out of control in Western Canada, there's quite the economic crisis in Greece which is having an impact across the world, and oil prices have fallen again big-time. But those three stories are going to be buried behind this guy. And there are reporters spending their entire DAY on this. He says he "has no regrets." Of course he doesn't. It's a PUBLICITY STUNT! This is what he wanted.
#2. Baffled
I don't know if baffled is an emotion but I'm going with it. Here's the thing that seems to have been lost in all of this: it's not just his life he's playing with. Imagine if he had flown into the path of an oncoming plane. Or how about his contraption malfunctions and he falls, hitting someone. Or one report I saw alluded to him wanting to get into the Stampede Grounds where the rodeo or chuckwagons were going on. Imagine him landing on the track and causing a massive pileup as horses tried to stop. He's been given a lot of publicity for someone who didn't seem to have public safety at the top of his mind.
#3. Frustration
Here's the kicker: you all LOVE this "story." Judging by the number of shares, likes, retweets and the like, you love every single minute of this. This highlights the ongoing battle that I have in my mind every single day. Do you talk about the stories that everyone is talking about? Or do you try to spend some time to work on stories that will get people talking? Because I've seen it. Important stories that people should be outraged about, or disappointed about, or maybe even impressed by. But they get one Facebook like and a couple of retweets. Then some ridiculous story that has no bearing on anything in the world goes viral. And here's where things get sticky. We're now all in a rat race to make sure we're on top of those viral stories. Because if we're not talking about it, the assumption is that the consumer is going elsewhere to find it. Well hello there, slippery slope! Nice to see you again!
All of this leaves me with one very clear message: if you (or anyone else you know) want to get some free publicity, all you need is a stunt. Don't worry, it'll be all over the news.
Pardon?
What?!?
It's been done already?!?
Dang.
OK, time for me to rant. Admittedly, I struggled with wanting to write this blog, simply because I didn't want to give this guy any more attention than he had already received. But ultimately I find myself writing this (and you find yourself reading this), as maybe I can shed some light on my observations about a story like this.
I feel like I've already gone through three different emotions with this story already:
#1. Anger
I honestly can't believe this was made out to be such a BIG story. It's a guy doing a publicity stunt, so he wants publicity and we're giving it to him. Reporters are tripping over themselves trying to get an interview with him. That's what he WANTS! His story is going to ultimately trump other, more important stories of the day. There are massive wildfires burning out of control in Western Canada, there's quite the economic crisis in Greece which is having an impact across the world, and oil prices have fallen again big-time. But those three stories are going to be buried behind this guy. And there are reporters spending their entire DAY on this. He says he "has no regrets." Of course he doesn't. It's a PUBLICITY STUNT! This is what he wanted.
#2. Baffled
I don't know if baffled is an emotion but I'm going with it. Here's the thing that seems to have been lost in all of this: it's not just his life he's playing with. Imagine if he had flown into the path of an oncoming plane. Or how about his contraption malfunctions and he falls, hitting someone. Or one report I saw alluded to him wanting to get into the Stampede Grounds where the rodeo or chuckwagons were going on. Imagine him landing on the track and causing a massive pileup as horses tried to stop. He's been given a lot of publicity for someone who didn't seem to have public safety at the top of his mind.
#3. Frustration
Here's the kicker: you all LOVE this "story." Judging by the number of shares, likes, retweets and the like, you love every single minute of this. This highlights the ongoing battle that I have in my mind every single day. Do you talk about the stories that everyone is talking about? Or do you try to spend some time to work on stories that will get people talking? Because I've seen it. Important stories that people should be outraged about, or disappointed about, or maybe even impressed by. But they get one Facebook like and a couple of retweets. Then some ridiculous story that has no bearing on anything in the world goes viral. And here's where things get sticky. We're now all in a rat race to make sure we're on top of those viral stories. Because if we're not talking about it, the assumption is that the consumer is going elsewhere to find it. Well hello there, slippery slope! Nice to see you again!
All of this leaves me with one very clear message: if you (or anyone else you know) want to get some free publicity, all you need is a stunt. Don't worry, it'll be all over the news.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
I Survived A Secondary Suite...
Some might consider me a survivor. Others might have called me the scourge of West Lethbridge. I was young and wasn't really paying attention. I was just happy to have somewhere to live.
To the surprise of some, I spent a year at the University of Lethbridge in hopes of getting into accounting. I'm relatively good with numbers and I took every high school accounting class I could, so it only seemed logical. So during that year, I needed a place to live (my first away from the farm).
It didn't take me long to find a place. Found it on Temple Boulevard. Nice middle-aged man had the house to himself and was looking to rent out the basement. I suppose it wasn't a FULL secondary suite as I didn't have my own kitchen, but everything else was my own. Entrance, bathroom, bedroom and even a parking spot connected to the back alley. He was a Christian chap, so I tried to mind my P's and Q's and didn't have parties or anything. My place was basically to sleep in anyways, as I was a full-time student with a part-time job (and as it turned out, volunteering at the university radio station took up the rest of my time).
As I've watched the on-going battle over secondary suites in Calgary, I can't help but look back on my days in my old place and wonder if someone is missing out on an opportunity that I had. The debate has been heated on both sides, with those against claiming it will ruin their communities, with everything from a lack of parking to an influx of drugs and prostitutes (that was actually one argument made). Those for the suites say nothing will really change as most of the suites are already in place, they're just considered "illegal" unless the owner has gotten the proper permits, etc.
What I have found interesting in this whole debate is that it feels like an "us vs. them" argument again, but someone is missing in this whole equation: the homeowner/landlord. I was lucky in that Gerry (I think that was his name, it's been a few years hahaha!) was an upstanding guy. He actually lived in the place, cut his grass, checked in on me. He was the opposite of a "slumlord." Maybe I'm being too much of an optimist here, but is it possible that most who are anti-secondary suite aren't actually opposed to the renters, but they're opposed to the idea that there will be homeowners who will rent out every single room in their home without actually checking in, only there to rake in the profits? Hate to burst any bubbles here, but I saw it when I first moved to Calgary. I went to a place in Inglewood where the owner showed me a room (Room #4 with an actual number on the door). It was one of six or eight rooms (can't remember) being rented. The room would have fit a bed and a dresser. That's it. You shared everything else. Needless to say, I didn't move in there.
It really feels like this whole argument is over something that no one has been able to actually eloquently address. It's about the homeowner/landlords. The renters want something resembling choice (aka affordable) and a safe place to live, while residents want their community to remain safe and everyone to be responsible. They want to be able to trust their neighbours, yet they don't. So instead of having to deal with it later (aka those "personal interactions" we all seem to deplore), they're being proactive and saying "no" outright. It's "nothing personal" for the potential renters, it's just there's that possibility that a bad apple could move in and they don't want that.
And really, no one does. But therein lies the problem. There are bad apples in every single group involved in these debates. The majority of renters are just simply looking for a place to live. The majority of potential landlords are mindful of their community but might also need some income, or wouldn't mind having someone in the house, or they feel they can help ease the housing crunch a bit. I'd also like to think the majority of communities are welcoming to the idea of legalizing secondary suites as they realize it will have little to no impact, especially if the first two groups are good apples.
Unfortunately, this is kind of like the debate over policing the Red Mile during the Calgary Flames playoff run. Police say the vast majority of revelers are good. But there are the few they need to keep a watchful eye on. The "bad apples" who ruin it for everyone else. There's a difference between the two though. Police are letting the Red Mile party continue while they weed out the bad apples, while the Secondary Suite party was shut down before it even started. And the good apples are being left with a court summons even though they didn't do anything wrong.
By no means am I saying that concerns on either side of the argument are misguided. I just hope to add a little insight into the back-and-forth, and that everyone keeps an open mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)