What If We Tried This...

Every so often, I get a little poli-nerdy.

It comes from a fascination with political systems and math.  As I've become more entrenched in the political world as a reporter, I've been able to see a number of elections transpire with a variety of outcomes.  And after every election, there's always talk about electoral reform.

You see, whenever someone loses an election, there's an instant belief that the numbers don't make sense.  How can a party garner 35-40% of popular support, command 80% of the legislature or House of Commons?  This is nothing new to the game, as political parties from both sides of the spectrum have cried foul over the representation not necessarily mirroring what the popular vote says.

So what would electoral reform look like?  Is it representation-by-population?  Is it a set number of delegates from each province and territory (ie 5 for each)?  Even beyond that is the argument over how to get more people out to vote.

I'm going to propose something a little crazy.  What if we did a mish-mash of the different kinds of systems out there?

Here's what I'm thinking: each party runs in an election with a "depth chart".  In Alberta, you would have your leader, deputy leader, finance minister, agriculture minister, justice minister, and on and on.  In federal politics, same idea, with maybe a BC Minister, Alberta Minister, etc, to go along with your standard ministries (and maybe you want to give some more than one portfolio, so the justice minister is also Manitoba minister).  This gives the electorate an understanding of how big your cabinet would be, where your strengths are, what you think will be important portfolios, and that kind of thing.

Then come election day, whatever percentage of the vote you get is how many seats you end up receiving.  So in Alberta, we have 87 seats.  Let's say the top percentage vote is 43%, so you will end up with 37 seats.  You end up with 8% of the vote, you get 7 seats.  So each party will pick their best people to sit in those seats while the rest can work as advisers or whatever the case may be.

Add in fixed election dates and recall legislation and I think you make the case for forcing parties to work together for the greater good.  The fixed election dates mean you can't have opposition parties with non-confidence motions forcing another election, and utilize recall legislation for the entire group, so if we, as the electorate, feel we're not being served, we can toss those not getting along.

I know the one argument against this idea will be that we're essentially taking local representation away.  And while I don't necessarily disagree, how often have we seen it where local MLAs or MPs are nothing more than puppets for the party anyways?  I know of politicians who sat for years or even decades without doing anything of real substance, never sat as cabinet ministers, yet continued to get voted in because they were with the governing party.  What if this new kind of government would force governments to hear concerns of all Albertans (or Canadians), rather than listen to only those in their own jurisdictions, so that they can get a "full picture" of each of their decisions?  Interestingly enough, I do believe in local representation.  But I also vote based on who will be the best representative for me and for the people in my riding.  As weird as it sounds, I'd rather have my representative be effective in opposition, rather than be a lap-dog with the governing party.

I'm not pretending to have all the answers or to understand all the ins and outs of how this system would totally work.  But maybe this can be a bit of a discussion-starter when it comes to thinking outside the box, rather than believing that the system can only work in one of two or three ways.

Because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again while expecting a different result.  And that's sort of how it feels when it comes to election reform.

Take Care Of Yourself

It doesn't matter who you are, you need to decompress sometimes.

That's the lovely thing about summer.  Typically it's the time of the year everyone takes a week or two off.  You get out of the house a little more, maybe take off from the office an hour early here and there, in hopes of escaping, even for a little while.

As reporters, we sometimes forget to do that.  In a sense, we're addicted to information.  We want to keep our audiences informed and we don't want to miss anything.  I've admitted before that going on vacation used to be a little weird.  But in this world of constant communication, it's really important to disconnect.

What I find interesting is that we spend so much time focusing on mental health issues and discussions in media, yet it's not really something we talk about for ourselves, as an industry.  It's one thing to say "time to disconnect" during vacations.  It's another to start talking about disconnecting after major emotional or psychological stories, or just from the simple day-to-day stories we cover. 

Here in Calgary, many were glued to their local news outlets, hoping to hear the latest about five-year-old Taliyah Marsman.  Her mother, Sara Baillie, was found dead in their northwest Calgary home in July, leading to an Amber Alert for the little girl.  There was so much mystery around her disappearance, and it quickly became a national story.  Everyone was hoping for the best, but unfortunately the worst was realized when her body was found outside city limits a few days later.

It was an emotional roller-coaster for everyone, including those covering the story, as they spoke with family, friends and others, who were also holding out hope.  The raw emotion you witness first-hand as a reporter can be extremely intense and this was no exception.  As I was being interviewed by one of our national hosts during the search, I realized just how often this kind of story had happened in our listening area.  There was the Nathan O'Brien case, where he and his grandparents, Alvin and Kathy Liknes, disappeared from Calgary.  Their bodies were never found, but murder charges were eventually laid.  There was the Hailey Dunbar-Blanchette case, where she and her father were killed in Coleman.  Murder charges were eventually laid there as well.  You had one with a happier ending a few years earlier with the disappearance of Kienan Hebert in Sparwood.  He was returned to his home a few days after the search began, with a man being charged with kidnapping.

All were high-profile and all were emotionally-charged.  I know many people who shed tears over these cases.  And I know many reporters who did the same thing.  As much as some people think we're "vultures" with no emotion, I would say for most here in Calgary, it's untrue.  We do take our work home with us sometimes.

Many of us talk with friends and family about the stories we cover.  And it's not always good news.  I'm lucky that way.  I have a great support system of family and friends who let me vent when I need to, or simply let me unwind.  I have outlets like hosting hockey games which allows me to find balance in my life.  But I know not everyone has that.  After what's been a busy summer, then having this past week off to let loose, I wanted to write something to you.  You might be a reporter friend, a family member of a reporter or simply someone interested in media.

My message here is simple: don't be afraid to disconnect and unwind.  Find something that allows you to "get away", even if it is for a few hours.  It will do you a world of good when the world only wants to throw you the bad.

#BlameTheMedia

I've tried really hard to stay out of the debates about "The Media" or "The Mainstream Media", but there comes a point where we need to start standing up for ourselves.  So I guess here we are.

This has actually been percolating in my mind for a few weeks now, it's just been a challenge to find the right way to word it without sounding like a jaded, old "traditional media" guy who obviously still has a horse in the race.  But as I've watched the coverage of big local news stories and big international stories alike, I can't help but feel like something needs to be said.

Recently, I received a text message from a former colleague about challenges she was facing in getting an interview about a local issue.  I jokingly bugged her about how no one wanted to talk to her because she was part of "the media".  That's part of the trouble I suppose, is that we're now treating it like it's a joke, when it's really not.

Whether this is a self-induced problem or not is an interesting debate, because it is and it isn't.  Some outlets pander to the ratings.  Others over-use the term "breaking news".  Others show biases.  It's a bunch of different issues that have seemingly eroded the public's trust in media.  On the other side though, we have a TON of reporters who work their tails off day in and day out, bringing great stories and shedding light on all sorts of issues.  Yet that hard work and dedication seems to get downplayed.

Just in the last day or so, I became involved in a bit of a Twitter debate over media and one commenter stated "We're witnessing the death rattle of the MSM, what a time to be alive!"  It also featured "thumbs up" and "clapping" emojis.  Is this really what we should be applauding?  Are we really applauding a less-informed and less-educated society?

I'm not trying to be overly-dramatic here.  But there seems to be this thought process that "citizen journalists" or social media will be able to do all of the informing.  Here's the point being missed: where do you think those original stories on social media come from?  Especially when it comes to local stories.  Who in the social media sphere is covering city council on a regular basis?  Who in the social media sphere is going to report on crime and sit through days and weeks of criminal court proceedings?  Who in the social media sphere is able to hold politicians, police, school boards and others to account by developing contacts, investigating stories, asking questions of the appropriate people and then bringing those stories to you in a factual way?

Don't get me wrong.  I actually believe there's a place in this world for the online media outlets that are starting to pop up.  The thing is: they are catering to a very specific audience.  They have their own agendas and I say "good on them."  They are filling a void, as witnessed by their followings.  But you have to ask yourself a question: what stories aren't they telling?  Maybe the "mainstream media" isn't covering the stories that really matter to you, but maybe the "online media" isn't covering the stories that really matter to others.  To me, writing either one of them off is foolish.  To me, there's a place for both.

The other issue I want to bring up is the arguments about paywalls and advertising.  Somewhere along the line, we became obsessed with the idea that news is free.  It's not.  It takes time and resources to put together stories and newscasts and newspapers.  It's not just reporters but also editors and photographers and producers to make sure the product is ready for the public's consumption.  Stories don't just pop up out of thin air.

I don't have all (or maybe even any) of the answers in how to increase readership/listenership/viewership or how to bring revenues back up.  What I do know is that we've seemingly entered this vicious circle where revenues are down, which has led to layoffs, which has led to fewer stories, which has led to an erosion of trust, which has led to doubt about reach, which has led to more declines in revenues, and on and on it goes.

What I do know is that I'm not willing to stand by and accept it.  We have to stop loathing in self-pity and start standing up for ourselves and the work that we're doing.  Does this mean we need to be more focused on the kinds of stories we do and stop trying to be "everything to everyone"?  Maybe.  Does this mean marketing ourselves a different way?  Maybe.  Do we need to start capitalizing on what makes us integral to the communities that we serve?  Absolutely.  And maybe we start by answering those first two questions.

We've been spinning our tires for far too long, trying to think of ways to prove to the audience that we're still relevant in today's marketplace.  Maybe it's time to make the rubber hit the road.  I think it starts with getting rid of the "superiority" complex (that we're essential in this day and age), understanding why the perceptions out there about "mainstream media" even exist, then addressing those perceptions in a way that informs but busts those perceptions.

Because if we keep going down this same path, we're only delaying the inevitable.  Those who think the "death rattle" will actually be proven right.  But I don't think the world will be a better place for it.  People will quickly realize just how much local news will be missing, because those stories aren't being fed from traditional media to the social media.  It's not that the stories don't exist.  It's just that they won't be told.

Then who's going to be able to #BlameTheMedia?

Microphones in Faces

It might be one of the oldest and most contentious issues people have when it comes to their hatred towards reporters and "the media": talking to families of victims of crime.

Let me be the first to say: I hate it.  I've always hated it.  I'll probably always hate it.  I actually don't know many people who take joy in trying to track down the families and friends of those who have left us.  It's the hardest part of the job as a reporter.  But I also feel that it is an important part of what reporters do.

Why?  Because it gives the community (listeners/viewers/readers) an opportunity to get to know the person.  It allows for a spotlight to be placed on their lives, rather than on the lives of the perpetrators, who so often end up getting the vast majority of the news coverage (mainly because of ongoing court proceedings, which can last years).  That was one of my biggest beefs with the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings, in that so much of the attention was placed on the Tsarnaev brothers, while everyone seemed to forget there were three lives lost (Krystle Marie Campbell, , 29, Lu Lingzi, 23, and Martin William Richard, 8) in the bombings.  Even when you look up "Boston Marathon Bombing" on Wikipedia, a lot of the focus is on the hunt for the suspects and their lives, versus what seems to be a footnote for the three victims.

It's interesting to see the public's reaction to how "the media" handles these situations.  From one side of the mouth, some will complain that there's too much focus on the suspects and not enough on the victims.  From the other side of the mouth, those same people will trash the media for trying to contact the families of the victims.

I can only speak for myself and how I've handled these situations on a personal level, as well as those situations like in court where you have a throng of reporters.  But here in Calgary, these interactions with families and friends are never forced.  Personally, I've never been a fan of sticking a microphone in someone's face unless they deserve it (ie politicians who refuse to speak about controversies).  When it comes to families and friends who have lost loved ones, I (and almost every reporter I know) will go out of our way to make sure they know that nothing's "on the record" or a microphone is even on unless they give us the okay.  You always identify yourself, and then ask if the family would like to provide a statement or would be willing to answer some questions about their loved one.  If they say "no", that's their right and they will be left alone.  Will we ask again later in court proceedings (like when a suspect is found guilty or sentenced)?  Absolutely.  Because they may want to convey their feelings and messages to the public.  They may also decide not to.  And again, that's their right.

As an example of what it can look like when stories like this are done 100% right, look no further than Global Calgary's "Remembering the Brentwood 5."  Matthew de Grood was set to go to trial on five counts of first-degree murder in the 2014 deaths of Lawrence Hong, Josh Hunter, Katie Perras, Zachariah Rathwell and Jordan Segura.  So in the week leading up to that trial, Global's Jill Croteau sat down with each of the families to look back on the young lives.

The old saying is "there are two sides to every story."  As reporters, we're asked and expected to get both sides of the story.  Unfortunately, when it comes to crimes and tragedies, there's only one way to get the victim's side of the story, and that's through family and friends.

I will agree that there are different ways of going about that, though.  Respect, in my mind, is paramount.  Most abide by that.  A few don't.  I guess reporters have never felt the need to advertise what goes on behind-the-scenes when gathering these types of stories.  Maybe it's an inferred knowledge: the belief that the consuming public already knows that the interviews were done in a kind and respectful manner.  And maybe that inferred knowledge has been lost.  Do we now need to go out of our way to state how we went about getting the interviews?  That's probably not up to me to answer.

One other aspect worth highlighting on this topic has to do with "societal impacts".  Being able to report all sides of the story might be able to give us more context to a story and what happened.  In a case where a drug dealer kills another drug dealer, we shouldn't be afraid to talk about what led up to that.  Some people might shake that story off and think nothing of it, but I think it is important to give listeners/viewers/readers that opportunity for background to show what really happened, before the almighty rumour mill starts to spin.  I believe the same can be said in cases where mental health issues are at the forefront.  We shouldn't be afraid to ask questions about it, or ultimately talk about it.

It's not to be insensitive.  It's not to sensationalize the story.  To me, this all brings you both sides of the story, as well as some context, so that you're better-informed about the events in your community.

The "It's Been A While" Grab Bag

Sometimes as a reporter, you get bogged down.  Things happen that are out of your control and you sort of just allow yourself to let the momentum take it where it must.  That's sort of what happened in the last few weeks.  With the fires in Fort McMurray, despite being a few hours away, our newsroom went all-in to bring the latest.  So my apologies for not getting a new blog up sooner.  Better late than never, right?

At some point during this absence, I hit a milestone.  So a big thank you to each and every one of you for taking a moment to read this blog as I've hit the 10,000 views mark.  Never would have thought in a million years that you'd find my writings that enjoyable.  Or maybe you read it just to get angry.  Either way, glad you're along for the ride.

Anyways, a lot has happened recently in our world so I thought I'd take a couple minutes just to address them.

#1. Fort McMurray vs. Environmentalists

This became a thing during the wildfires.  Environmental groups, including Occupy Toronto, decided to take glee in the fact that the city at the centre of Alberta's oilsands was burning.  While lives were being changed, ruined and risked, some were celebrating.  Some of those accounts were conveniently deleted, others just deleted the posts, while the remainder stood behind their comments.  Here's the trouble: the debate over getting to cleaner energy should happen.  Maybe I'm alone on this in our fine province, but we should make movement towards improving our carbon footprint.  We should always be striving to be better to the world so that we leave it in a better place for generations to come.  But why try to force that conversation down the public's throat in the middle of a disaster?  As I've said to some of those who felt the need to post those kinds of comments (and on-air), these kinds of comments actually do more harm than good to the cause.  Even beyond the comments, those who think that the taps need to be turned completely off right now should think about that for a second.  Think about the number of products that are created with petroleum-based products.  Until we have found a way to be sustainable and mass produce these products in another way, is it realistic to think we can just say "no more oilsands immediately"?  Again, it's a goal we should be aiming towards, especially if there's a cleaner way of doing things.  But we also need to start being realistic about all aspects of this debate, including environment, economy and sustainability.  These are not mutually-exclusive terms.

#2. Elbow-Gate

First off, can we stop naming everything _______-Gate?  There is no doubt that this is a story that needs to be told.  We all know the details.  The Prime Minister was in the wrong on this.  The House of Commons is supposed to be a place for all Canadians and should be a place of higher standing.  MP's were actually debating serious legislation.  Yet no one knows what that legislation was about because it's been overshadowed by what transpired.  Can it be worse?  Absolutely (we've seen it in other countries).  But that doesn't make what happened okay.  That all being said, the Prime Minister apologized and from what I've been able to gather, the MP has accepted that apology.  So can we move on?  What more should happen?  I'm not asking to be flippant.  I'm asking because we have a lot of serious issues that are supposed to be debated in the House, such as help for Fort McMurray and the struggling economy (just to name two).  Yet the story that's garnered the most headlines is this.  I'm not trying to minimize what happened.  But I am trying to put it into perspective.  Hopefully journalists on Parliament Hill see that and get back to reporting on the issues facing this country before too long.

#3. Memes For Days

I went on a bit of a Facebook rant a while back about how political supporters seem to really be ramping up their rhetoric.  It had to do with all the rumours being spread surrounding the Fort McMurray wildfire.  Before I continue, I'd like to clarify that I'm a political free agent.  If you don't like a certain politician, that's totally up to you.  I'd rather have a good politician in an opposition role than a bad politician with the party in power.  But as I said in that post: "We all need to take a deep breath here and put some serious thought into what's going on in the world around us, instead of letting the basis of your thoughts be formed from a meme.  And just because a meme or a "viral post" fits your already-formed opinion on a situation, that doesn't make it true."  We don't seem to put critical thought into anything.  We're easily distracted by those who speak loudly, rather than taking those who speak seriously and thoughtfully seriously.  We think in 140 characters or less.  And this isn't just politics.  Look at how often we see stories about police brutality that turn out to be unfounded, despite the fact there's a "viral video" showing how bad it was.  The thing is: that video almost always captures the aftermath and never captures what led up to the altercation.  But you know.  Whatever gets your point across quickly.  I guess.

Obviously, I'm looking forward to the day when we return to a world of civility and critical thinking.  Because we're not getting anywhere with grandstanding, temper-tantrums and cute memes.

See you next time!

5 Random Post-Budget Thoughts

The highly-anticipated 2016 Alberta budget is now in the hands of taxpayers.  We've all seen the numbers.  $10.6-billion deficit this year.  Upwards of $58-billion in debt in three years.  The NDP government calls it a "jobs plan" which won't "slash-and-burn" the public sector (that's they're go-to phrase right now).  The opposition parties are all in shock over a myriad of things, from an increase in spending (2%) to the debt total.  Realistically, the reaction has been what we expected from all sides and really, the budget shouldn't be of any real shock to anyone who was paying attention to the promises and campaign run by the NDP in last year's election (aside from the carbon tax...errr...levy that was outlined).

Anyways, you've heard all of the politicians talk.  You've heard all of the watchdog and special interest groups.  And now you've decided to step into the world of The Vulture for a handful of random thoughts.  So here you go:

#1. Shadow Budgets
Can we get a timeline on when we'll see the shadow budgets from all of the opposition parties?  I see the Alberta Party has already released theirs, which is quite impressive, considering they have one MLA.  I'm really intrigued to see what the Wildrose, PC's and Liberals have up their sleeves, if they release shadow budgets at all.  Taxpayers should hold their opposition parties to account on this one.  If you're going to railroad the NDP budget, you should be prepared to release your own document.  I'm willing to give them a week, only because they may not have had access to all of the same numbers that the NDP had.  But all parties have some very smart people on the inside, who should be able to pour over the numbers and come up with some sort of counter-argument in a timely manner.  If not, how are we supposed to judge their ability to handle our money if their only argument would be "if you vote us in, we can show you."

#2. PST
I know this is a dirty acronym in Alberta.  No one wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole and I guess I get it.  We've never had one before and so why start now?  Let me tell you why a PST isn't necessarily a bad thing.  The key to all of this is actually making sure that you're reducing income taxes when you introduce a PST.  This forms the basis of the question I always ask: why are we getting taxed on what we make instead of getting taxed on what we spend?  If I want to keep the money that I earn (EARN is the key word here), why shouldn't I have that option?  At the same time, if I want to buy a Hummer instead of a Jeep, I can obviously afford a little more tax to buy that Hummer instead of the Jeep.  But why shouldn't I have that choice?  By no means am I saying we need a PST right now.  But I am saying it's worth having a full and educated discussion about the pros and cons.  Take it to a vote in the next election and see what happens.

#3. We're Not All Idiots
Can we please stop with the name-calling and callousness?  For example: "Anyone who voted for ___ party is an idiot" or "I'm ashamed of anyone who voted for _____."  Why?  Because they had a difference of opinion from yourself?  You do realize that you're not doing your side any good, right?  You realize that most people who did vote for _____ aren't going to sit there and go "Gee, you know, they're right, I'm an idiot" just because you said so.  This kind of goes back to my first observation, but this is where opposition parties (or the governing party supporters) need to start working together here.  Stand up for what's right, but do so in a way that is actually constructive.  It's like the old saying goes: "be the change you want to see in the world."  The saying isn't: "be the change you complain about but don't actually act on."

#4. Zero-Based Budgeting
I've been a big proponent of this for years.  I know it's really work-intensive because you're having to start from scratch every year.  But if you really want to get at the heart of the "fat" in some of the organizations, this might be the only way to go.  It seems we have some expenses that are just "assumed" every year.  We don't bother to look for efficiencies in the system because we've been told for years that this is how we do things.  But in a situation like AHS, why not give it a try?  AHS, when it was first created, was supposed to help the province save money and improve wait times, etc.  Has it delivered?  You be the judge.  Same thing goes for school boards.  How is that some are saying they are getting rid of mandatory school fees, while others are saying they're going to have to increase the fees?  Would zero-based budgeting help iron out some of the ineffectiveness in the system?  I'm not sure, because I'm not an economist.  But when something's not working, I tend to think shaking things up isn't a bad thing.  Because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result.

#5. Farming
I'll declare a pecuniary interest here, obviously being a farm kid.  But I did find it interesting that one of the only departments to get a cut in funding was Agriculture and Forestry.  A number of boards were either dissolved or amalgamated within that department.  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad thing because maybe that's what was needed.  But I did find it interesting that in a budget which saw spending increase 2%, the one department to get slashed was this one.  Is it just a coincidence that happened to the one base of voters (rural) which isn't exactly known as a hot-bed for NDP voters?  Maybe.  It's also quite possible that agriculture isn't as big of an industry to the budget as it once was.  I pointed this out on Twitter and one person claimed it was because we had a bunch of disaster funding accounted for in the last year.  Which has me a little concerned, especially if we're not accounting for disasters in 2016.  It is early in the spring, but it is bone-dry out there.  And I hope there's some contingency in place in case we do end up with a drought.  I will applaud the NDP for one thing and that is making the carbon tax...errrr...levy not apply to farm fuel.  That would have gone over like a lead balloon.  "We know that you're providing us with food and you're already facing ballooning costs to do business, so here's another expense.  Have a nice day!"

Overall, I personally would have liked to see more spending restraint by the province.  I'm not sure the sky would have fallen had they done that.  I'm curious how the budget numbers will look in 2017 once all of the new collective bargaining agreements are reached for several high-profile groups.  And I'm curious to see if this "jobs plan" actually creates the jobs that it so desires.  Because I'm failing to understand why the Notley and Trudeau governments haven't looked at what the Harper government did back in 2008-2009 with the economic stimulus plan and "Build Canada" plan and said "let's do it the same way" (or at least something close to it).

As I've said before (even on TV), Albertans don't want a handout.  They want a hand up.  Did the budget provide that hand?  I guess we'll see...

Where Do You Get Your News From?

I don’t like sounding like the old radio guy who is getting territorial over an increasing-divided audience.  I actually do believe in the power of online news sources and think there’s actually a place for them.  But what has continually been thrown into question is who will “police” those sources?  Will they be held up to the same standards that traditional media is held up to?

By no means am I even remotely alluding to traditional media being foolproof.  I don’t think the audience would be this divided if I didn’t think that somewhere along the line, we messed up.  Rightly or wrongly, potential audiences are calling our intentions into question.  Whether it’s being “in cahoots” with political parties, police departments, or anyone else, some people have grown disenfranchised with the status quo and are looking elsewhere for their information.  And that’s their prerogative, but I would hope that they would heed some caution before doing so.

Recently, I went on a bit of a rant on Facebook:

“To my Medicine Hat friends,

In the last little while, I’ve seen a few posts shared from “Community TV” and I just wanted to offer my two cents.  Please, please, please be careful sharing what is being produced.  Some of it has been walking a fine line around slander, while a recent post inadvertently interfered with police investigations.  Frankly, it lacks in professionalism on many fronts and I would hate to see one of you tied up in what could one day be legal issues for him.  I know this can sometimes sound like “the old radio guy” taking a crap on an online outlet, but I actually have some legit concerns about what he posts and what I’ve seen shared.  It’s one thing to be doing this as Joe Schmo on the street.  It’s another for someone to masquerade this as “journalism.”  It’s not being held up to the same standards as traditional outlets and I hope everyone thinks about that before sharing what’s been produced.  Thanks.”

This was in reaction to a post I ended up commenting on that particular page, where I outlined my concerns a little more concisely surrounding the police investigation.  The creator posted a raw video of an interview with the alleged child luring victim’s father, which apparently contained some “hold-back information” (information police don’t want out in the public eye for investigative reasons).  The police ended up contacting the creator, who ended up editing the video, but then made some comments about why, but not totally understanding all of the ins and outs.  My comment got a response, to which I responded and it went back-and-forth a couple more times before I realized my time would be better spent slamming my head into a concrete wall.  I simply didn’t understand why someone would try to chase after a story without fully understanding how the legal system works.  (As an aside, I realize that I’m giving this particular example exactly what he wants and that’s exposure.  But I needed a particular example to point out how stark the contrast between styles can be.)

Qualifications aside, I hope that potential audiences are looking at professionalism and tact when it comes to the news media they are consuming.  It might seem kind of nitpicky, but there’s something to be said about conducting yourself in a respectful manner.  That comes from education and training and an understanding of the business.  Simple things like getting all sides of a story, understanding the subject matter you’re talking about and overall decorum (such as doing things legally).  There are other things I’ve seen out there that make me cringe (with more than just the above example).  Things like telling the person you’re interviewing that you’re recording the conversation for public consumption (aka “on the record” vs. “off the record”) or broadcasting screen grabs of text messages (still a grey area but I’ve always assumed texts are “off the record” unless told otherwise).  Then there are the issues around publication bans in court that are, for the most part, abided by.  But I’ve seen a few examples where young people think they can say anything and everything because they’re not held to the same standards and expectations as traditional media.  One friend encapsulated it in one perfect word: ethics.  You can usually tell how seriously outlets take that word by the way they frame their stories.  Did they refer to themselves (ie the story is more about them than it is about the story they’re supposedly covering)?  That should tell you a lot about what’s most important to them, especially if you notice it more than once.

I’ve been really interested in looking at the comments to some of these pages as well.  They usually go along the lines of “thanks for telling it like it is” or “you’re the only one telling the truth.”  You know how it goes: the anti-traditional media sentiments.  The question really becomes: is it really the truth?  How can it be the truth if they’ve only gone after one interview or angle to the story?  Reminds me of the old saying about how there’s always two sides to a story and the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.

Can traditional media do a better job of protecting and standing up for its reputation?  Absolutely and that could include a number of things.  I’d love to see the day when we stop seeing political endorsements.  I’d love to see the day that we stop talking about “viral videos” and spend more time on stories that actually have an effect on people.  I’d love to see the day where we see fewer stories about weather and more “dig deep” stories on politics, education and health.

On the flipside, online news outlets need to do a better job of creating a strong and positive reputation.  Get all sides to a story.  Present yourself in a professional manner.  Show that you care about ethics, the legal system, and processes involving government.  I actually believe that in the not-too-distant future, you’re going to see more online news sources dedicated to what I call “hyper-local”, with a focus on a particular “beat”, which might have a smaller overall reach but a much more engaged audience.  But that audience won’t be served well if that news source is constantly stepping all over rules, the law or professionalism.

Both sides need to understand these points and more.  Why?  Because both sides are already being lumped in as one-and-the-same “the media”, and one misstep by any of the outlets will have ramifications for the whole lot.  This is especially true now that traditional and new media are essentially in competition.  By no means am I saying “don’t have fun” or “don’t dig for stories” or “don’t piss anyone off.”  What am I saying?  Outlets, both traditional and new, have some work to do to gain the trust of the consumer.  At the same time, consumers should carry some responsibility, in holding BOTH traditional and new news media to high standards. 

At the end of the day, we live in a world where someone with a cellphone and a YouTube channel can call themselves a “journalist.”  These very same people have Facebook and Twitter followings that rival or even surpass traditional outlets, which I suppose is a compliment for their ability to self-promote.  But I also find this interesting on a personal level because this is who I’m now competing with.  I spent two years in school and the last 10+ years in radio building my reputation as a journalist.  And yet, who do you think will have their work dismissed first?

All I ask: think about it.