More Good News

Episode 42 of This Is Toronto is now available!

This latest edition revisits Good News Toronto, a not-for-profit newspaper that features inspirational stories and celebrates everyday heroes.

www.thisistorontopodcast.blogspot.com

NEXT EPISODE: Jan. 14, 2010

A Few Random Thoughts on the Shifting Media Landscape

Still working on creating the forum for that Future of Media discussion group. But since these issues have been in the news alot lately I felt the urge to throw out a few thoughts on what is going on in media triggered by recent coverage and observations. Some of these things I've said before but nevertheless:

What is facing media is a media revolution that will make the invention of the printing press look like the invention of the salad shooter, unlike every previous media revolution the only barriers to entry are literacy and a set of computer skills that an average person could pick up in a day.

The recession didn't cause this, it has accelerated the shift but didn't cause it.

This isn't really a public policy issue, there is very little that Parliament or the CRTC can do to change it. They could, if properly persuaded and if they wanted to spend a fortune throw up roadblocks and barricades but it would be an incredible waste of resources, the barriers won't hold back the flood they will only create an adversarial relationship between old and new media. I will always fight for network neutrality and against silly, intrusive copyright laws like C-61 but not because either of these would change anything. If I lose these fights people will find a way to beat the system, things will go on as they are, but the level of animosity created by excessive traffic shaping, or copyright protection would kill just about every current mass media company.

Many in media have criticized the Detroit 3 for being out of touch, not competitive with newer companies and failing to make products that consumers want. Ironically these are the same criticisms that have been leveled at much of the main stream media.

The claims of tradition in the media hold no water. Other than book publishing Journalism is the oldest of the current mass media and Journalism has only slight claim to tradition. The concept of Journalistic objectivity didn't emerge until the 1890s (less than 120 years ago), and the first Journalism school in the world turned 100 last year (2008). I know people have short memories and short attention spans these days but traditions that go back 100 years are hardly sacrosanct.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want media to go away. I don't think it will but the ground has shifted dramatically and people who currently work in media have to understand what has changed and adapt. They have to re-learn much of what they know and they have to learn to compete in a world where many of their "competitors" are operating with little or no budget and few resources. Many of these "competitors" in fact don't even see you as a competitor, they don't analyze in that way. They do what they do because they enjoy it. They cultivate and communicate with their audience and pay little or no attention to what traditional main stream media is doing.

One of the most frequent mistakes I see people in main stream media, including new media projects that are attached to MSM make is placing themselves on a pedestal. The new audience doesn't want to read your resume. They don't care about your education, experience or credentials - only the quality of your output and it's value to them. If you demand acknowledgment and respect from the audience based on what's written in your CV they will likely ignore you completely and, though they won't notice, you will go away.

Halifax Loses News

My condolences to the city of Halifax. The Halifax Daily News shut down this week, rather suddenly, so suddenly in fact that many of the 92 employees who were let go apparently found out from other media outlets.

According to Kelly Toughill at JSource:

The Daily News has been the plucky underdog of Nova Scotia journalism since it was founded as a suburban weekly almost 30 years ago. It has gone through several owners and styles since then.

Editor Jack Romanelli brought a new dedication to public policy journalism when he took over as head almost two years ago. The paper probed difficult issues such as racism, patronage and city planning that were sometimes ignored by its larger rival, the Chronicle Herald.

King's Journalism Review has posted an online tribute to the News.

The worse news for Halifax is that they are getting a 'Metro' instead. Toronto already has one and it's not so much a 'newspaper' as a few rewritten wire stories used as packaging for alot of ads. Even for free they occasionally have to send university kids into the street to try to push them into people's hands. It exists almost purely to kill trees.

My advice to the suddenly unemployed journalists and photographers would be: Keep going. Register a domain (make sure it is viewable on Blackberries and cell phones), file for UI and keep doing what you do. Part of the reason for the decline of newspapers is the rise in online journalism. Although I cannot find the article at the moment even the editor of the New York Times has said that he doesn't know if there will be a print edition in 5 years and without the need to print your overhead goes way down. You obviously love journalism, you obviously want Halifax and though they may not buy papers, people still want news.

On Bias in the Media

For years now I have heard Right Wingers whine and cry about Bias in the media. The reality is that all people have some bias, it's just part of being human. I suppose it might also be true that there are more left leaning journalists that right wing journalists. Journalists are by nature and profession, curious and suspicious (to a degree). They are more likely to ask questions, get second opinions, search through documents for inaccuracies or suspect information. It seems to me that the same can be said for the left. The left is more likely to be suspicious of those in power, more likely to ask questions and fact check information that is given to them.

The right wing tends to be more trusting. They tend to like politicians who tell them what they want to hear and as long as it's what they want to hear they don't second guess. If you look at the current breed of North American conservatives (and there is really no division between the Canadian and American breeds anymore.) They are the people who believe in 'the Bible as irrefutable, historical, letter for letter fact.' The people who brought you "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" the people who believe the death penalty is the answer to crime and that it is somehow a betrayal of the soldiers to question a war once it is begun. They like things simple and don't like questions or alternative viewpoints.

Such a mindset does not lend itself to good journalism, especially not investigative journalism. It also does not lend itself to creativity or the arts (in case you were wondering why it seems that most actors, artists, writers, musicians and other creative types tend to lean to the left.) I don't know how you overcome this, if your mind works in a way that doesn't lend itself to good journalism I find it hard to argue that you should be hired anyway.

It is more than offset though, tby those who hold the pursestrings. The people that own media outlets tend to be much more conservative. First of all you want the largest audience possible, that means that you want to offend as few people as possible. But more importantly if you run a media organization that accepts advertising, the advertisers more and more play a huge roll in editorial decisions.

Take, for example, this article from Columbia Journalism Review

* Journalists are more likely to confirm that self-censorship exists generally than to personally admit to avoiding newsworthy stories. Still, the 26 percent who acknowledge personal self-censorship goes to 41 percent when reshaping or softening is included. There is a generational divide on this question, with younger journalists more likely than older colleagues to say they have avoided or toned down stories.
* Market pressures -- manifested when newsworthy stories are ignored because they are too boring or complicated -- are seen as the most common factor for not pursuing good stories. Nearly eight in ten of those surveyed say stories that are seen as important but dull are often or sometimes ignored, while a majority says the same of highly complex stories.
* Local journalists face especially difficult challenges. Nearly one-third (32 percent) acknowledge they have softened the tone of a news story on behalf of the interests of their news organization; only 15 percent of those in the national media say they have done so. And 26 percent of local reporters say they have been told to avoid a story because it was dull or overly complicated, but suspect the real reason for the decision was that the story could harm their company's financial interests. Just 2 percent of national reporters harbor such suspicions.
* Investigative reporters -- a discreet group drawn entirely from the members of Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE) -- are more likely than either local or national journalists to cite the impact of business pressures on editorial decisions. A strong majority (61 percent) of this group believes that corporate owners exert at least a fair amount of influence on decisions about which stories to cover; 51 percent of local journalists and just 30 percent of national journalists agree. Because this group does not comprise a representative cross-sample of journalists, its responses have not been included in the total results.

It should also be noted that this survey was done in 2000 - before 9/11 and market pressures in the media as well as the political pressures of the 'with us or agin us' age have almost certainly compounded the problem.
Another increasing problem is the advertorial, or advertisement disguised as a news story. This is obviously done to appease and lure advertisers.
Given all of this it is clear that while journalists may be likely to have a left leaning bias, they are still generally restrained by Journalistic Standards and Practices and that the "media" overall has something of a right wing bias.

So, to those of you who think the CBC has a left wing bias all I can say is that most of the time they are just telling you things you don't want to hear, or answering questions you'd rather weren't asked. It is not a matter of bias, it is a matter of curiosity and whether you have any or not.

The Dose-ification of The Globe and Mail

Yesterday, The Globe and Mail came out with a newly-designed newspaper. Not only has it shrunk in width, but just about everything in the paper has been given a facelift.

Oddly enough, my first reaction upon seeing the "new" Globe was "Hey! When did they start up that Dose paper agagin?" Dose was the free transit paper from CanWest that gave in to the other freebies Metro and 24 Hrs. and ceased publication some time ago. I've missed it (I don't live in any of the cities they serviced, but I always read it online) since its' demise, as the attitude and originality it brought to everyday news was quite unique. A website still exists (http://www.dose.ca) but alas, the paper is but a distant memory.

Until now, that is...

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE the "new" Globe. The new Life section is quickly becoming a welcome inclusion, and the look of the entire package is certainly cleaner, especially the front section and the Report on Business section. I think this was a good move for The Globe in the end, as they might be able to attract younger readers, and perhaps even increase their female readership too.

Good luck to The Globe. And thanks for bringing back a bit of Dose!