Meeker On Media

Click below for new blog location

2010-11-01T15:53:00.002-02:30

Hi there... If you're looking for the Meeker on Media blog, please click here. The link below died when the page was moved to new site architecture. -GM

2008-11-04T11:20:00.003-03:30

Click below for new blog location

2008-01-03T22:46:00.000-03:30

Since June of 2007, the Meeker on Media blog has been hosted at The Telegram's web site. Click here to view latest posts.

Test driving the Nikon D80 digital SLR

2007-10-25T22:10:00.000-02:30

The following image gallery is a virtual extension of my Techno-File column in The Telegram, in which I took the Nikon D80 digital SLR camera for a test drive. Most images were taken using the camera's auto settings, but I switched to manual for a few as well, most notably the waterfall shots (the soft effect was created with a one-second exposure, with the camera braced against a fence post). I was fairly impressed by the camera's faithful colour reproduction. These images have all been saved down to about 400K; the originals are several meg's each. All photos were taken October 25 at Bowring Park, in St. John's, Newfoundland. You can click each image for a larger view. The column appears in the October 29 edition of the Telegram.

Click right here for new blog location

2007-06-10T11:05:00.003-02:30

The Meeker on Media blog is now located at The Telegram's web site. Please click here to get there.

Blog is now active at thetelegram.com

2007-06-04T09:35:00.000-02:30

This blog is now up and posting at its new location, over at The Telegram's web site. I kick things off by taking a second look at Current magazine, which I wrote about back in March. There is also a complete archive with links to all previous posts, for your browsing convenience. You will find me in the left column, under the "blogs" heading. See you there, and don't forget to update your links!

Update: Moving day is Monday

2007-06-01T11:49:00.000-02:30

Effective Monday, June 4, this blog is moving to its new home at The Telegram's web site. Look for the 'blogs' button on the left, and there I will be.

I've been regrouping this week, lining up some new content whilst meeting some client deadlines, and will have plenty of new material for you in the weeks ahead. In the interests of time (of which I have precious little to spare), I am going to leave archived posts at this site for now, and just link to them from my new location.

I am looking forward to the move - and all those new readers. See you over at The Telegram on Monday. Don't forget to update your links when you drop by...

Karl Wells is retiring from the CBC

2007-05-28T14:59:00.000-02:30

News flash: Veteran broadcaster, weatherman and all-round performer Karl Wells (photo by Randy Dawe) is retiring from CBC, effective August 1. I will have more on this later. In the meantime, the following internal memo from Janice Stein, Managing Editor for CBC NL, sums up this story quite nicely. I had noticed that Karl was becoming much more animated lately, reading the weather like he was calling the play by play in the Stanley Cup finals. Perhaps he was betraying some of that excitement that one must feel when surveying the new vistas that await in retirement. In this case, Karl plans to pursue his freelance writing career. Karl operates a great web site so if you would like to read more about him, click here. Here's the memo from Janice Stein:

Karl Wells, our colleague and Here & Now's weatherperson for almost 30 years, has decided to retire from the CBC.

With the approach of his official CBC retirement date of August 1, Karl has been thinking about a career change. He wants to pursue freelance writing. Karl already writes a regular column for The Telegram and he hopes to expand into magazine writing.

Karl began his remarkable 31-year career with the CBC in 1976 as an announcer in radio and television. In radio he was the first host of Weekend AM and the voice of the Morning Show’s satirical segment, His Worship, an impersonation of former St. John’s mayor John Murphy. In 1978 he moved to television to begin his Here and Now weather assignment and to anchor the very successful late night news program, Newsfinal. In 2001 he went national for two years as the Country Canada channel’s morning weatherperson on CountryWide.

During the past 31 years Karl has spent almost 30 years reporting the weather on Here and Now, becoming an icon across the province for his weather knowledge. During that time he became one of our most visible CBC personalities, in large part because of the highly successful live community segment he helped develop during the early nineties, reporting from winter carnivals, fire stations, church basements, fishing boats and live from the Hibernia platform, over 350 km offshore!

As well as the weather, Karl used his passion for arts and food to bring many arts personalities to our show and to launch the popular ‘Cooking with Karl’ series. And he has always been an ambassador for the CBC at community events, including his role as volunteer host of the CBC Janeway Telethon.

It will be a challenge to find a replacement for Karl. Karl will remain with us as we search for a new weather person and help with training. Our search will begin immediately. We hope to have a new weatherperson selected and trained soon.

Karl’s commitment to his work at Here & Now and to his role as a representative in the community is something we appreciate and will miss. Please join me in congratulating Karl on a wonderful career with the CBC and wish him all the best in exploring his new adventures in writing.

Big changes in store for this little blog

2007-05-25T10:18:00.000-02:30

I launched Meeker On Media just over three months ago, to write about the people who produce news in this province, and create a forum for the discussion of local journalism.

Thanks to the kind support of other bloggers, who keep linking to my posts, and faithful readers like you, the site has grown quickly. It has also been the catalyst for discussion in other media outlets, which I appreciate as well.

But the blog is about to be elevated to an entirely new level. The Telegram is adding a blog section to its web site, and would like to get the ball rolling by hosting Meeker On Media. It will be the first of several local blogs to appear there. (Other print media have been adding blog sections to their web sites with some success. Check out Macleans Blog Central to see what I mean.)

That’s right, I am picking up the whole shebang and moving over to The Telegram’s web site. I will start migrating archived posts over the weekend, and should have everything up and running in a week or so. You get there by going to The Telegram’s home page, then clicking on the blogs section in the column on the left (though there is nothing up as of yet).

What’s in it for me? Well, they are going to pay regular freelance rates for my contributions, which is more than the blog is earning right now. More importantly, they are going to expose me to a much larger readership.

How large? Right now, I’m getting about 300 unique visitors on a good day, which is not bad for a new blog. The Telegram web site, however, gets an average of 20,000 hits per day. While logged on yesterday, I noted there were 900 people browsing the site at that moment, triple what I get now in an entire day. As a writer, I like to be read. And those numbers are what sold me on accepting The Telegram’s offer.

Such a large base of readers will also make for a more active comments section, which enhances the readability and value of the blog.

Is there a downside? Are there strings attached? Does this mean I start sucking up to The Telegram?

No, no and no.

I asked these questions of The Telegram and the reply (to paraphrase) was, ‘Your blog is a good read, and that’s what we want – just keep on doing what you’re doing.’ I asked them what happens when I criticize something in their newspaper, as I inevitably will, and the reply was, ‘That’s fine, we have broad shoulders. We can take it.’ They are giving me the same latitude extended to any other columnist – which is pretty much unlimited – except my content appears online, not in print. So I am satisfied with that.

The odd person might suggest that I am now biased toward The Telegram, because they are paying me to write for them. This is patent nonsense, of course. Firstly, my reputation is not for sale at any price. Secondly, this would mean by extension that all columnists are biased toward the paper in which they appear, a notion that no thinking person – including the columnists themselves – should accept. Furthermore, I have administrative access to my portion of the site and will do all posting myself, which enables full control over what gets posted and when.

There will be fewer posts here over the next few days, as I migrate archived material to the new site (not to mention keep up with some client deadlines). But I do have some interesting items on the drawing board, so stay tuned. A notice will be posted here when the new site is ready to go live.

I think this is good news indeed. You may think otherwise. Either way, feel free to express your point of view in the comments section.

Newfoundland's senior reporter passes away

2007-05-22T22:11:00.000-02:30

He was the only working journalist to cover all nine provincial premiers. And this afternoon (May 22), it all came to an end. Veteran broadcaster Scott Chafe passed away at the age of 62, after a brief battle with lung cancer.

I remember seeing Scott Chafe at work when I was a young reporter at The Newfoundland Herald. We had just left a news conference and I was standing nearby when he picked up a pay phone and filed his story in time for the 1:00 pm news. I was still digesting what I had heard at the newser, and here was Scott, delivering a perfect 20-second wrap of the story without even looking at notes. I thought that was pretty cool.

I spoke with VOCM news director Gerry Phelan several weeks ago, when I first became aware that Scott was gravely ill. He spoke to me on condition that I check first with Scott’s wife, Barbara. I did, but she asked that I not write anything at the time. Scott was not feeling well, didn’t feel up to creating a rush of visitors and – as usual – didn’t want to make a fuss.

Sadly, that embargo has ended.

Scott passed away with the same unassuming, quiet dignity in which he lived. He was sick for quite some time before the diagnosis but kept it hidden as best he could.

“I think he was in denial about it,” Phelan said. “I remember his first phone call to me was ‘Gerry I’m some glad I don’t have lung cancer.’ He was in hospital when he called and said that. He said he had back problems, had to have a back operation and would be back in the saddle soon… And then a bit later it was ‘cancer of the lung’. He never said ‘lung cancer’.”

Some of Scott’s colleagues knew he was ill before Scott acknowledged it to himself, because he insisted on keeping a ‘stiff upper lip’ while his health was clearly deteriorating. Scott even managed to keep it hidden from his bosses, since he spent so little time in the newsroom.

“Even the Sergeant of Arms over at the Legislature, when I told her that we were going to get somebody else to cover the House, said she knew how sick he was,” Phelan said. “She could tell last fall that he was deteriorating. She said that her uncle had cancer, and she cried seeing what he was going through. And here was Scott coming in here every day as if he was normal. We knew he wasn’t completely well, but we never saw any of that… he would not let on how bad he was.”

But those who worked most closely with Scott – his fellow journalists out in the field – could see something was wrong. And the way they rose to help their colleague is perhaps the most inspiring aspect of Scott’s final days.

“I gotta tell you this much,” Phelan said. “And this is the most moving thing I have heard about this from other reporters who have called me – the Cec Haires of the world and a few others. They told me stories about how Scott was sick for a while and how they have covered for him for a long time – like being sick and almost passing out at an event. They would start his tape recorder for him. Someone else told me about taking off his clip for him because he was so ill. I never knew… One day he was on the verge of passing out at a Board of Trade function. He was out in the lobby asleep on the couch. Those who knew him knew he was sick. They went out of their way to make sure he was okay, and that he did manage to file his story. None of us had any idea. That shows the camaraderie out there, how deep people in the media community really are. That means a lot, you know. To me, people who take care of people… they make the difference. It can be dog-eat-dog in this media world but let me tell you, in all honesty the people on the front lines know how to take care of each other. I always knew that the boys were really good people. Those are the things that have stayed with me…”

Here is the full story that was posted on the VOCM web site:

We are mourning one of our own today. A man who can be called THE senior journalist in this province, has passed away. VOCM's Scott Chafe was 62.

Scott Chafe covered the political scene in Newfoundland and Labrador under all nine Premiers, starting in 1963 with Premier Joey Smallwood and continuing until today with Premier Danny Williams. He was the senior Legislative Reporter with Steele Communications, and the dean of reporters at the House of Assembly. Scott reported on all the major events in the province over the past four decades.

Scott wore the badge of the consummate professional. His familiar face, and voice were accompanied by the red arm holding the VOCM microphone at news event after news event.

A native of Harbour Grace, Scott was an avid outdoorsman whose passion was fishing for sea run brown trout and Atlantic Salmon. He was an accomplished fly-tyer and built his own fly rods from scratch. He had an intimate knowledge of the geography of Newfoundland and Labrador having visited and written stories from the Torngats in Northern Labrador to Cape Race and in between.

The funeral service for Scott Chafe will be held on Friday at 10:30 am at Corpus Christi church.

More interesting stuff on the way

2007-05-21T07:49:00.000-02:30

I will be out of town on Monday and Tuesday of this week (May 21 and 22). I'm working on some interesting stuff and should be back on deck by Wednesday; possibly sooner, if I can find time to post while on the road. In the meantime, check out Bob Wakeham's column in the Sunday Telegram - he offers an opinion on Ryan Cleary's appearance at the Trust & Confidence Rally but goes one further, saying that David Cochrane shouldn't be speaking at business luncheons either. (I don't agree with that. If Cochrane can offer analysis on a political panel he can do the same at a luncheon, but Wakeham's column makes for interesting reading.) The weekend's Independent is also interesting. Ryan Cleary offers a half-hearted defence of his appearance at the rally, and Randy Simms writes about it too. There is also a letter slagging me, and that's fine (although the editor describes me as a "Telegram columnist", implying perhaps that I am biased toward that paper, as if I could be bought for any price. I will have more on this point later.)

Walsh leaves the bright lights of TO for St. John's

2007-05-18T11:56:00.000-02:30

You may have noticed a new byline in The Telegram this week. After serving in high profile reporting positions with the national CBC network, Peter Walsh (right, CBC photo) is back in hometown St. John’s and working at The Telly.

Walsh graduated in 1994 from the one-year journalism program at University of King’s College in Halifax. He worked at CBC Here & Now, where he distinguished himself as a strong investigative journalist and a champion for ripped off consumers. After five years, Walsh landed a job with the national CBC on its investigative program Disclosure, working out of Winnipeg. When that program was cancelled in 2003, Walsh moved to the CBC Sunday program in Toronto, working with Evan Solomon and Carole MacNeil.

So what draws him from the glam world of national TV back to the grind of a St. John’s daily?

“Well, it’s professional and personal,” Walsh said in an interview. “I care more about Newfoundland stories than I do about national stories and I really want to be in the province with my family. I’m married and have a nine-year-old stepson. It was just a great job opportunity to tell Newfoundland stories, to have an opportunity to do investigative Newfoundland stories, and also to live a great lifestyle with my family in Newfoundland.”

I asked Walsh what sort of job description he has.

“I am a beat reporter, with the goal of breaking as many stories as I can. My personal goal is to use my training and experience as an investigative reporter to do that. That can't happen every day and I will also cover daily news, but I think The Telegram is committed to setting the news agenda, not following it, and is the best media platform in the province right now for enterprising and investigative reporting, an area which I think is suffering generally in Canada right now.”

Walsh said that Toronto is “a great city and I enjoyed working there, but the cost of living is high and it’s a little overcrowded for my liking. My wife and I, we just decided that we’d rather be here.”

An all-out attack on freedom of speech

2007-05-17T16:33:00.000-02:30

I’ve heard many rowdy listener call-in shows, but none as boisterous as this. In fact, the racket it raised is still echoing within the corridors of the CBC.

The Monday, May 14 edition of Crosstalk on Radio Noon started out quietly enough. The topic was abortion, and the guest was Patrick Hanlon, representing the pro-life side of the debate. The pro-choice side was also invited to participate, host John Furlong (above, CBC photo) explained, but they declined. Furlong had noticed a recent survey which found that 34 per cent of citizens in this country feel that abortion is wrong, which struck him as a large number considering that people are not vocal on the issue.

After a quick preamble with Hanlon, a soft-spoken 24 year old with deeply held religious beliefs, Furlong opened the lines to callers. And that’s when it hit the fan.

Well-known activist Peg Norman was the first caller. And she went ballistic. I don’t know that I have ever heard such vitriol expressed on radio. You can hear the entire program by going to the Radio Noon Crosstalk archive. The content is so intense that it is disturbing at times, though Norman’s call off the top was probably the most shocking. Here is the full exchange:

Peg Norman: First of all, I’m absolutely appalled that CBC has given the Crosstalk show over to the anti-choice, misogynyst group of people that Patrick Hanlon represents. I was approached on Friday by somebody who had been tasked by you to come up with a guest to be on as a counter-point. And I said absolutely not. I would not do it for two reasons: one because the issue of abortion in Newfoundland and Labrador is not a current hot topic… Abortion in Newfoundland and Labrador is acceptable, it is covered by our health care plan and it is a medical procedure available to all women in this province. Two, to go on Radio Noon as a counter to Patrick Hanlon and his hateful misogynyst views is a waste of my time. Patrick Hanlon will never have to make the decision to have an abortion. Patrick Hanlon will never have to be in that position. And to give him a full show to spew his hateful, misogynystic views, I think is deplorable on the part of CBC. The issue of choice in this country is still very much current. There are still threats to it, as Patrick Hanlon represents, and people who think like him. The issue of choice in this world is still very much an issue. There are many women in this world who are still dying every day because of hateful people like Patrick Hanlon who think that women have no right to control their bodies. And I am absolutely shocked that the public broadcaster would give him a full show to (broadcast this). I am absolutely shocked. I cannot believe it.

Furlong: If I can interrupt, the only reason that Patrick Hanlon has the full show is because we couldn’t find anybody else to go on with him.

Norman: But the fact that CBC would go ahead and do this show without…

Furlong: And let the other side dictate whether or not we’re going to do the show because…

Norman: Would you have somebody on that show who was anti-semitic? Would you …

Furlong: Well, that’s a specious argument.

Norman: No, I am asking you, would you have somebody on your show who is a member of an anti-semitic group and allow them on because you couldn’t find somebody who wasn’t anti-semitic? Would you allow someone on the show who represented a homophobic group, for instance? In this day and age you would not. But you, for some strange reason, believe it is still fine to have a hateful, misogynyst man on your show talking about the issue of choice which he has absolutely no right to talk about. Patrick Hanlon, if you don’t believe in abortion, do not have one. But do not – do not ever – stand in the way of a woman who has to make that very difficult choice. Do not ever do that. You are a hateful person. I cannot believe it – I have to say it again – that my public broadcaster would have you on there today. I am shocked.

Since this item aired, word reached me that a letter of complaint had been sent to the CBC from an unspecified women’s group, demanding that CBC apologize for airing the program and commit to not broach the subject again.

I received confirmation from Regional Director Diane Humber that CBC had received such a complaint, to which they have yet to respond. She promised to get back to me with more information, and I will update you as I receive it.

For his part, John Furlong stayed cool during the program, despite the verbal attack from Norman and several others. I called to ask if he was at all shaken by the incident.

“Absolutely,” he said. “I was taken aback at the all-out attack on freedom of speech.”

Furlong said that repeated attempts were made to bring in a representative of the pro-choice side, but their reply was that this issue should not be discussed at all. “I mean, that’s a very dangerous ideology to be spreading in 2007,” he said.

Accusations made during the program – that the producers didn’t give the pro-choice side enough time to pull in a spokesperson – are not accurate, Furlong said. “We’d been chasing this since last week and were still chasing it right up to airtime. So the people who called on Monday morning, who said we had just called them that morning, I suppose technically they were right because we were still feverishly trying to get someone to come on and put forward the other side. “

While he certainly didn’t set out to offend anyone, Furlong has no regrets about how the program was handled. “Could we have done the show differently? Absolutely. I could have set it up differently. I could have been a little more clearer on why we decided to do it now. I could have maybe looked for a different guest to put forward. Rarely am I part of any show that I somehow wouldn’t have done differently when I think about it. But to not go ahead because one party doesn’t want to be part of it, because they want the subject shut down… I thought that was shameful.”

Furlong also expressed disappointment that he has not received the unqualified support of CBC management on this issue.

“I’m still paying the price here at CBC, because the CBC brass are thoroughly pissed off,” he said. “I’m not quite sure why, but I get the distinct impression that they are not pleased. There are people who won’t even make eye contact with me… If the CBC had upset Patrick Hanlon, they would have said ‘That’s ok, that’s only Patrick Hanlon, don’t worry about him.’ But if you upset Gerri Rogers, Peg Norman and Nancy Riche, then you’ve got a problem on your hands if you’re the CBC.”

I can understand and appreciate why the pro-choice side is upset. They worked long and hard to have abortion removed from the criminal code. But this does not give them the right to suppress debate on the issue. I will give the final say on this back to John Furlong:

“I think one of the talkback callers that we had on said it best: ‘Your first pro-choice caller frightened me. Obviously, she does not believe in free speech. In her world, only her right to speak is sacred.’ That is so true.”

When editors stump at political rallies

2007-05-16T08:47:00.000-02:30

Managing editors wear many hats, god knows. But one of them should not be appearing as a speaker – make that cheerleader – at an emotionally-charged political event.

It is my view that Ryan Cleary (right, photo by Duncan De Young/The Muse) made such a mistake, by speaking at the Stand Up For Newfoundland & Labrador political demonstration Friday at Confederation Building.

I was also disappointed - though less so - that Randy Simms, host of VOCM’s Open Line, was emcee for the event. It is fine for Simms to offer political analysis on ‘Here & Now’, but hosting a political rally is something altogether different. However, Simms does an admirable job of staying unbiased during Open Line, and I’ve even heard him play devil’s advocate against causes he apparently believes in. So I am willing to forgive him this momentary lapse.

Cleary’s case is different. He is not a traffic cop on a call-in show; he decides what does and doesn’t get printed in a newspaper that some see as influential.

The Independent is often compared to the now defunct Sunday Express (where I worked) because the latter was controversial and nicely designed. But that is where the similarities end.

The Sunday Express was a newspaper that broke more than a dozen stories every week, whereas The Independent might break one or two. The Sunday Express was an objective newspaper that carried a brief for no one, whereas The Independent is a propaganda sheet that has become a cheerleader for the Williams government and Newfoundland nationalists.

I am not the only individual to question Ryan Cleary’s judgment on appearing at this event. CBC Radio Noon host John Furlong raised exactly this point with Cleary, in a live interview via cell phone from Friday’s event. Here’s an excerpt:

Furlong: Ryan, what about your role as a journalist? Are you worried that you are compromising your impartiality by taking a stand?

Cleary: You know, you asked me that question earlier this morning John, and the first thought that ran through my head was, ‘I wonder, did you ask that question to David Cochrane when he appeared before the Board of Trade, or Craig Westcott, when he gave a speech a while ago to the offshore oil (industry)?’

Furlong: Well, David Cochrane analyzed the political climate. He didn’t take a stand on a public issue. And he was invited to speak. There’s a big difference.

Cleary: Well, I don’t see that as a big difference. I’m here as a Newfoundlander…

But here is what Cleary said in the same interview, just two minutes before that:

I’m here today basically as the Editor In Chief of The Independent, but I am also here I guess primarily as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian first.

Thanks for, um, clarifying that.

Like a politician, Cleary dodges Furlong’s questions about impartiality, bridging immediately from the sticky subject of ethics over to the ‘rah rah Newfoundland and Labrador’ line, just as a politician would. In fact, Cleary’s speech overflowed with political rhetoric and bombast. (The full text was published as Cleary’s column in Friday’s Independent, and is posted at their web site .)

The paper’s nationalist stance is widely known and understood, despite Cleary’s occasional half-hearted denials. Just a few weeks ago, on April 20, Cleary reaffirmed this in his column. He was commenting on a guest column by political science professor Michael Temelini, who advocates “opening a discussion” about separating from Canada.

“(Temelini) says there’s nothing wrong with asking whether there’s a better way. True, but people are afraid; they feel threatened. I say Newfoundlanders and Labradorians must finally face their fears.”

Cleary closes that column by saying that the “the bigger dragon to slay will be the media,” a suggestion perhaps that other media aren’t giving separation the attention it deserves. What the other media aren’t doing is selling out their credibility by pumping their fists in the air at political rallies, or wedging their noses firmly – if figuratively – between the nether cheeks of our premier.

In the above noted column, Cleary wrote that: “I do not stand before you to cheerlead for Premier Danny Williams, although I do walk beside him in his quest to push this place forward.”

Look at the fawning treatment the paper gave Premier Williams last week, by printing verbatim his entire speech to the Economic Club of Toronto, without a shred of analysis or commentary, except to say that the Premier “set the record straight” about Newfoundland and Labrador.

Michael Harris, the Editor-In-Chief of The Sunday Express, was quick to praise Premier Clyde Wells if he supported his stand on a particular issue. But Harris kept this praise confined to editorials, didn’t let it filter into the news pages and would never, ever have stumped for a premier at a political rally.

Maybe Cleary is planning to run for provincial or federal politics, or perhaps land a job in the Premier’s office. He has every right to do so. And it is not against the law to turn what could have been a decent newspaper into a political manifesto.

However, it does cause problems for the journalists who work under him. The columnists are somewhat insulated from this, since they bring subjectivity to the mix, but the reporters need to be objective – and perceived as objective. How can they claim this when the paper itself is so obviously biased against all things ‘Canada’? When their Editor In Chief is out stumping for the premier?

The Independent has some good reporters on staff (though they could be breaking more stories), and some decent columnists. The back section is fabulous, as is some of the intellectual ferment on the opinion pages (to their credit, the paper does publish letters that question its nationalist stance or criticize the premier). Where it falls down is its blatant nationalist agenda, which was lampooned nicely by the Muse a while ago when it wrote "NL gets raw deal, See story every page". Even fans of the newspaper will agree that this bias is there – it’s why they read the paper. But do they trust it to deliver objective reporting?

No, The Independent is not impartial.

It is not even ‘independent’.

It is propaganda.

First technology column in The Telegram

2007-05-15T08:35:00.000-02:30

Before The Express folded in March, I was one of its freelance contributors. I furnished a column about technology, in which I wrote about technology developments in simple terms. I am not a techie - you should definitely not call me to come fix your computer - but I have always been a sucker for a new gadget. This is the blurb that was used to introduce that column back in April of 2006:

A former journalist who now works in communications, Geoff Meeker has always kept in step with the forward march of technology. He first used modem connections in 1986 and his first laptop, a Tandy, had a memory of 48K. “Sometimes it’s better to wait for second generation technology,” Geoff says. “And sometimes, you might as well splurge right now. Hopefully this column will help you sort it all out.”

Of course, the column went into hiatus when the Express folded. Just recently, The Telegram called and offered to pick up the column. I agreed, and the first installment appeared yesterday, May 14, on page 3. It will now appear every other week. I have decided to run the first column here, for those who may have missed it and to provide something to read whilst I rush elsewhere to meet a client deadline.

TECHNOLOGY COLUMN, May 14:
Time to back up those important files

Do you have hundreds of priceless digital photos stored on your computer’s hard drive?

How about many hours of home movies, saved to your video editing program?

Maybe you work at home, and all your business files reside on your computer.

Or perhaps you’re halfway through that great Newfoundland novel… and the whole thing is stored on your hard drive.

If so, ask yourself what would happen if your computer were to crash tomorrow. Hard drive fried. Everything gone.

Yes, it’s too scary to contemplate. But it happens. I’ve seen it myself, and my eardrums are still bleeding from the anguished cries of colleagues who lost entire projects when their computers died.

If there are files of value stored on your computer, you need to back them up. And the quickest, easiest and most reliable method is to connect an external hard drive. (There are other ways, such as by burning files to CD and DVD, but this can be time consuming.)

In addition to backing up work and personal files, a key concern of mine is the amount of video that I have stored on my hard drive. And in case you weren’t aware, video is a major memory hog. For example, if I stored 19 hours of raw, uncompressed video on my 250 GB hard drive, the computer would be full.

I do have my important video backed up on DVD. But I prefer ready access to the video archive, and the external drive allows me to call up any file I want, simply by clicking the external drive icon on my desktop. It has capacity for 38 hours of video and, if I fill it up, that’s fine – I will simply buy another external drive, and start filling that up as well.

As noted, there is no end to the variety of external hard drives that are available on the market. You can pick one up at any computer supply store as well as purchase them online.

I purchased a new external drive (shown above) this week for $179 at Costco, but you can find them all over the place – including online – in roughly this price range. My drive is a Western Digital My Book, with a 500 GB capacity (twice the memory of the 250 GB on my iMac).

A quick Internet search at Futureshop turned up the Comstar 500 GB external drive, on sale for $199, while CDW had the Seagate 400 GB model for $204. There are a range of other models available at both sites with anywhere from 60 to 120 GB capacity, priced in the $100 range, which is not such a great buy at all. So look closely at capacity before buying.

Two other points worth considering are connections and ease of use. The most common cable connections between the computer and external drive are USB and firewire, and some offer both. I recommend the firewire connection; it’s much faster when copying those large video files.

Finally, ask about operating software, and how easy or difficult it is to configure the connection between the hard and external drives.

The My Book that I purchased was super easy to set up and run (even on a PC). That’s because the operating software is already installed on the drive. You connect it to your computer, then plug it in. The external drive does the rest, finding your hard drive and loading the software for you. Then you click the icon that appears on your desktop and the software opens like a flower, giving you a series of prompts, to which you generally click ‘ok’ each time.

Then it’s a matter of performing your first backup. The program lets you choose between a full data backup and an incremental backup. The manufacturer strongly recommends that you run the full data backup on the first day. After that, you can run incremental backups – ideally on a regular basis – which only saves those files which have been added or changed since the last backup. But be warned: the first full backup will take quite some time to complete, depending on how much data you have on your hard drive.

After that, you can set the external drive software to run automatic incremental backups as often as you like.

And then you can relax, secure in the knowledge that those precious files are now fully protected.

Atlantic Journalism Award winners announced

2007-05-14T08:43:00.000-02:30

The winners of this year's Atlantic Journalism Awards were announced Saturday at a gala event in Halifax. Congratulations are extended to:

- CBC Newsroom in St. John's, Gold Award winner, Spot News, Radio for coverage of the fire at Aliant.

- Chris O'Neill-Yates of CBC St. John's, Gold Award winner, Enterprise Reporting, Television for her series on the 'Secret Life of Dr. Chandra'.

- Pam Pardy Ghent of The Independent, Gold Award co-winner, Feature Writing for her 'Suck It Up' feature.

- Deanne Fleet of CBC St. John's, Gold Award winner, Sports Reporting, for 'Gushue History'.

You can view the complete list of winners here.

Rally numbers inflated by patriotic spin?

2007-05-13T14:35:00.000-02:30

Organizers of the Stand Up For Newfoundland & Labrador rally were hoping for a turnout in the thousands for their event on Friday. In fact, they would have needed a major mob – anywhere from five to ten thousand people – to demonstrate that a substantial segment of the population stands firmly behind the premier in his equalization battle with Stephen Harper.

According to the CBC News web site, there were “at least 1,500 people” there, while VOCM reported after the event that there were “some 3 thousand.”

The Telegram opened its page one, above-the-fold coverage by saying, “Several thousand frustrated and angry” people gathered for the event. However, it is not clear if they did their own rough head count, or relied on estimates given by organizers. Further in the article, reporter Terry Roberts wrote: “with an estimated 3,000 people on hand for a lunch-hour event, organizers say the turnout exceeded expectations.” There is no attribution given for this number, but organizer Peter Whittle is quoted in the next sentence, so perhaps he is the source.

I looked up “several” and the definition is “more than a few, quite a few, quite a lot of,” whereas 3,000 could only be described as a “few” thousand.

Okay, perhaps I am getting pedantic here. But there was also early VOCM coverage, live from the event on Friday afternoon, which said “hundreds are gathered on the Hill at this hour…” Was it already apparent that thousands were not going to happen?

Most telling has been the tone of discussion at one of the web sites that promoted this event, which has been quite muted subsequent to Friday. There are 24 comments (at last count) in which many express disappointment with the turnout. These remarks caught my attention:

“I was there... no way it was over 1000 people. I was very disappointed in my fellow Newfoundlanders. Once again we flop over and do nothing.”

“I hate to wade in on the onslaught of Federalist love-in types posting here lately and trying to belittle the protest but I was there and having been to many large happenings (protests, concerts, etc.) before I would put the crowd at around 3000.”

“I went down with my big Canadian flag and was told not to wave it around while the cameras were there. This province sucks. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. And it WASN'T a big crowd.”

It should be noted that all of these posts were anonymous, so we can't put much weight on them.

But I ask you, how hard is it to calculate the size of a crowd? I think some of the reported numbers have been inflated by patriotic spin. This is not a crime since media will also do it for hometown sports teams, though an issue critical to federal-provincial relations is perhaps more important. I am quite happy to eat my words if someone wants to send me a decent wide shot of the event, showing the main body of the crowd, with enough resolution that I can count the heads. If proven wrong, I will eat crow.

Until then, my gut tells me that the crowd was in the 1,200 to 1,500 range. With a population of 181,000 within easy driving distance, that would be a poor turnout (especially given the substantial advance promotion and brilliant weather on Friday). After all, a crowd of perhaps 6,000 turned out at Mile One on Saturday night to watch ‘professional’ wrestlers.

As a tactic, this event was risky with some potential to backfire. A massive turnout of 5,000 or more was necessary to send a convincing message to Ottawa. A small turn-out would give Stephen Harper ammunition to stand in the house and claim that this is not an issue for most Newfoundlanders.

Somebody out there must have a photo. Let’s count the heads, and let the facts prevail.

UPDATE: The photo above can be viewed at Kim Goodyear's photography blog. Kim says this image represents about two-thirds of the crowd. You can open a high resolution version of the photo at her site.

A shot of Rex you won't believe

2007-05-10T10:35:00.000-02:30

Talk about a bad hair decade! I offer for your perusal this amazing promotional photo of the CBC's Rex Murphy, taken during the 1970s. It's located at John Gushue's Dot Dot Dot site. And no, I am not mocking Rex (neither is John). I think Rex is fabulous, love how his brain works and am jealous of his vocabulary. But that hair? Well, it was the Seventies, after all...

One reporter’s take on our oil and gas industry

2007-05-08T08:52:00.000-02:30

Newfoundland's future is slipping into the hands of Alberta, largely because of Premier Danny Williams' unrealistic expectations.

That’s the opinion of Financial Post reporter and commentator Claudia Cattaneo, writing in today’s paper. You can read the full text here.

Last week, Cattaneo wrote an in-depth piece about the stalled oil and gas industry in this province. You can read the full text of that article here. But these first two paragraphs set the tone:

Barely a year ago, St. John's was a signature away from Alberta-style prosperity -- with a lineup of big oil and gas projects, a cascade of high-paying jobs, membership in the exclusive club of oil-producing hubs feeding off the global energy supply crunch, tantalizingly just out of reach.

Instead, a sequence of 'For sale' and 'For lease' signs jars the core of this quaint port city on the rocky shores of the Avalon peninsula, as Alberta employers host job fares almost weekly, snaring its youth by the planeload, and oil-industry operators quietly downsize.

Cattaneo follows up that article with today’s more subjective commentary, which concludes with this stark observation:

The bottom line: While Mr. Williams now tries to revive Hebron discussions and says he is optimistic its partners will accept a deal, warning terms will tougher with his new energy plan, his province is sitting out the biggest boom in the commodity's history, while Alberta is milking it for all it's worth.

He will need to beat Alberta -- not live in the past -- to get in on the next round.

A commentary of Orwellian proportions

2007-05-08T08:09:00.000-02:30

Craig Westcott, journalist and editor of The Business Post, can always be counted upon to deliver a hard-hitting commentary every Monday morning on CBC Radio, and yesterday he was in particularly fine form. Westcott used the writing of George Orwell as an entry point to some stinging remarks about recent infrastructure announcements in the province… and makes an implicit argument for the use of bottled water! Westcott has kindly agreed to make the complete text of his CBC Radio Morning Show commentary available here... and you can listen to it by clicking here.

I've gone back to reading George Orwell.

Not, mind you, that that is a chore.

Quite the contrary.

Orwell was one of the finest and most perceptive writers of the 20th century.

It's the reason I'm reading Orwell again that's worrisome.

And that's because the times are worrisome.

There's a lot of stuff going on that has me spooked.

Like this fruitless war in Iraq.

It got me reading Orwell's 1939 classic, "Coming up for air."

A novel that perfectly captures the incredulousness of an ordinary man seeing the approaching war and knowing he is helpless to stop it.

Nothing but death and destruction on the horizon, like so many enemy bombers, and a great chunk of the population baying for blood.

Closer to home, the surreal state of provincial politics keeps "Nineteen Eighty-Four" coming back to mind.

Now I apologize for using the word surreal.

It, along with diva, are among the most overused and inappropriately used words in the English language.

But surreal sure fits the situation here with everyone bellowing for Stephen Harper's head on a pike over equalization.

All the more ludicrous, when you think about it, because nine-tenths of the population don't understand what equalization is, or what we're even getting.

But the mob has placed its blind trust in a great leader whom they believe can do no wrong.

I guess life is easier when you don't have to think for yourself.

But it's got me thinking, did someone put something in the water, or what?

And if so, how come it's not affecting me?

I'm on the Bay Bulls Big Pond supply too.

Still, even cynics like myself can't help but be amused by the absurdity of it all.

Like the press releases being cranked out by the provincial government, which now has more communications directors and PR people on staff than ever before in our history, a veritable propaganda machine.

Take this little gem that was spun out Friday.

It heralded one million dollars for road work in St. John's.

Here's the lead paragraph.

"The St. John's area is the latest benefactor of the Williams' government's unprecedented 66 point five million dollar provincial roads improvement program under Budget 2007."

Unprecedented is right.

The St. John's area, which has nearly half the population of the whole province, is getting a whole one million dollars out of the 66 million the government is spending this year.

If you cut through the cram of the rest of the release, you'll see the money will pay for the repair of one bridge and the erection of some dividers along a small portion of the Outer Ring Road.

"Government is committed to providing all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador with a safe, reliable transportation system," said Transportation Minister John Hickey.

"We have therefore made this significant investment to improve transportation infrastructure in St. John's."

Meanwhile, Labrador, where Hickey is from, is getting some 34 million dollars worth of road work this year.

It may actually be more than that.

I lost count of the projects and funding for the region.

Now I don't begrudge anyone in Labrador their road work.

But it seems passing strange that a place with less than six per cent of the population is getting over half the provincial roads budget.

That's what I mean by surreal.

That, and the comments of St. John's MHA's Bob Ridgely and Tom Osborne who are waxing eloquent in their praise of the crumbs Hickey is leaving for them.

Has Hickey even driven the arterial road between CBS and St. John's I wonder, with its patchwork quilt of potholes, ruts and crumbling asphalt?

More people drive that road every day than live in Labrador.

On a good day, the road is a threat to every car's suspension, shocks and tires.

On a bad day, when it's raining or snowing, the road is a menace.

But hey, I should be grateful.

Everyone else is.

We're getting a bridge fixed and some concrete dividers.

Big Brother really is looking out for us.

Pass me another glass of that water, would you?

For The Morning Show,

I'm Craig Westcott.

Change is becoming a Regular thing

2007-05-07T08:35:00.000-02:30

Eighteen months ago, Ken Regular left his job as video-journalist with NTV to take a position as a web journalist with CTV News Online.

Now Regular has taken a new work role, with the CTV Toronto newsroom. In an email exchange, Regular said he will be leaving the national newsroom, where the web service is based, and going to the local Toronto TV newsroom.

“My work at the website was focused on Toronto news, so I was regularly in contact with the local newsroom's assignment desk and reporters,” Regular wrote. “In about three weeks I'll start the new position as a writer. The plan is to begin 'learning the ropes' towards producing with some opportunities for field reporting and other roles along the way. It's one of those 'open door' kind of positions where it could evolve into so many things with time… It is a return to the television business for me and one that has me feeling very excited.”

This is not to suggest that Regular didn’t benefit from the web exposure. “It was an amazing experience that honed my writing skills, offered me endless opportunities to see my photography published, and allowed me to report on a variety of stories that ranged from simple crimes to detailed political issues,” he said.

“We did a number of things there but the most memorable was our municipal election coverage last year. We did a 2.5 hour webcast for the site. Only 30 minutes of the program aired on television. The rest was seen exclusively online. Imagine a full studio, anchors, reporters in the field via satellite, and real-time results produced only for a web audience. It was - as far as we can tell - the first time it had ever been done in Canada. And the effort won CTV Toronto an award at the RTNDA this year.”

So can we expect to see Regular filing pieces soon for Lloyd Robertson? “I think national CTV News stories are a little ways away yet,” said Regular, pointing out that he will start by “getting my feet wet in a host of writing, producing, and reporting roles.”

Stuart McLean makes watching the radio fun

2007-05-04T08:26:00.000-02:30

It’s amazing how many people are willing to pay good money to watch a radio show; a show that you will hear for free in a little while. Yet, that’s exactly what more than 2,000 people did last Tuesday and Wednesday (April 24 and 25) at the St. John’s Arts and Culture Centre.

Two sold-out audiences forked over $39.50 per seat for the privilege of watching Stuart McLean (right, Ben Flock photo) record live episodes of The Vinyl Café radio program for national broadcast.

And I can understand why. The Vinyl Café is one of my favorite national CBC radio productions, and it does the heart good to learn that I am not alone; to witness hundreds of people united by their devotion to Stuart McLean, a national treasure, a great storyteller and a three-time winner of the Stephen Leacock Medal for Humour.

The Vinyl Café also features live musical guests, and good ones at that. Special guests this time around were Ron Hynes, the Great Big 3, Rhonda O’Keefe Arsenault and Hey Rosetta! Ron Hynes was great as usual – his version of The St. John’s Waltz was the perfect encore to McLean’s opening monologue, which sought to capture the essence of our fair city (as McLean does for the host cities wherever he performs). The Great Big 3 were a trio of folk-singing women from New Brunswick, with a name apparently inspired by their physical size and large voices. I also enjoyed the solo vocal from Rhonda O’Keefe Arsenault (her and McLean go way back). The most riveting performances, however, came from Hey Rosetta! This alternative group, fronted by the charismatic and gifted Tim Baker, is destined for greatness, if they just keep on doing that thing they do.

Four of the show’s biggest stars do not exist in real life. They are the characters who populate McLean’s weekly stories, which revolve around Dave, owner of the World’s Smallest Record Store, his wife Morley and children Stephanie and Sam. While I do enjoy McLean’s opening monologues, they are a little predictable in their celebration of all things ‘local’. Yes, it’s the Dave and Morley stories that I like the most. Most often, they are side-splittingly funny, though they can be poignant on occasion too.

McLean read two new stories for this show which were a bit of a disappointment. One involved Stephanie’s experience working as a waitress; the other a strange disease that afflicts Sam, turning his skin green. They were okay, but not in the ‘classic’ category.

Two full programs – each about an hour long – were recorded live on both nights, with an intermission to break things up. (If you attended one night and are wondering what you missed on the other, you didn’t – the same shows were performed twice, giving the editors at least two takes to choose from when putting it all together.)

The first of the two locally recorded programs airs this coming Saturday and Sunday (May 5 and 6) and again on Thursday (May 10) in a new time slot. The second program will air May 26, 27 and June 1.

However, you will not see the funniest parts of the show, which were the occasional moments when McLean flubbed his lines whilst reading his stories and monologues. He was not afraid to milk a mistake for a laugh, occasionally stumbling over the same word to the point that the audience applauded when he finally got it right, thus ruining a good take – and making him crack up even more.

These were the moments that made the evening memorable for me. You won’t hear them on the radio, so I encourage you to get a ticket to the live show, the next time it comes to town (don’t hesitate – they sell out quickly).

For more on Vinyl Café, visit the official web site.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

2007-05-04T08:10:00.000-02:30

General Rick Hillier's widely reported remarks recently, about how his soldiers were "pissed off" about media coverage of current events in Afghanistan, prompted a wonderfully succinct call yesterday from a female listener to CBC Radio's On The Go. I have paraphrased the comment below, but missed the woman's name whilst jotting this down. If you know who it is, feel free to correct this oversight in the comments section.

"It seems to me that, if the press didn't cover things that pissed somebody off, they would be reduced to reporting start times for card games and mall walks."

Indifferent about awards until given one

2007-05-03T08:49:00.000-02:30

Craig, in his Townie Bastard blog, wonders how I feel about journalism awards. Fact is, I was ambivalent about them for most of my career as a journalist. In my early days as a writer with The Newfoundland Herald, most of my stuff was crap; I learned how to write in public and am eternally grateful that none of that stuff is available online. So I didn’t even think about submitting award entries.

My writing style had evolved and matured by the time I started at The Sunday Express, but even then, neither myself nor my colleagues thought much about awards. Once in a while someone would say to someone else, ‘Hey that was a great piece – you should enter it for an award,’ but I don’t think we ever did. We were too busy chasing down the next week’s story list. There was absolutely no resting on your laurels.

The folks at the Atlantic Journalism Awards actually created an award for the Express during it last year of operation, apparently to correct the fact that we hadn’t been recognized up to that point (through every fault of our own). We were given a plaque-mounted Five-Year Award of Achievement, featuring an artist’s rendition of all staff members. I had been indifferent about awards up to that point but I must confess, it felt great to receive it… though I have no idea where it is now.

In 2003, I actually entered an awards competition for the Media Spotlight column I wrote for The Express newspaper. That submission won an Award of Merit from the International Association of Business Communicators. And it felt very good.

My take on awards? Easy to dismiss until you actually win one. I invite other journalists to comment on this subject…I am sure there are some interesting views to be shared.

Greg Locke’s journey picks up national coverage

2007-05-03T08:44:00.000-02:30

Photo-journalist Greg Locke appeared on the national CBC Radio program Sounds Like Canada yesterday (May 2). He was interviewed by host Shelagh Rogers about observations on his relocation from St. John’s to Grande Prairie, Alberta, where Locke is working as a photo-journalist with the daily newspaper there. Rogers is also interested in Locke’s blog, which is chronicling not just his own story, but those of the many Newfoundlanders he has been meeting along the way. Of course, the blog – Dispatches from Exit 0 – is also illustrated with Locke’s stunning photography. Check it out and keep listening to Sounds Like Canada – it looks like Rogers will be staying in touch with Locke on a fairly regular basis.

A time of transition for CBC Radio Noon

2007-05-02T08:03:00.000-02:30

With the retirement last Friday of long-time host Anne Budgell, what’s next for Radio Noon?

I put this question to Janice Stein, managing editor for news at CBC, who explained that the position will be filled through a competitive process, with a national posting that is open to all CBC employees.

In the meantime, we will be hearing a game of on-air musical chairs with the hosting duties rotating among a series of local personalities. For the next three weeks, John Furlong (host of Fisheries Broadcast) will be acting host of Radio Noon, followed for three weeks by Ramona Dearing (reporter and host) and three weeks later by Ingrid Fraser (producer of On The Go).

This will not be a ‘play-off’ for the position. At this time, there is no indication that any of the stand-ins are actually interested in applying for the position (although I would be happy with any of the above; all three are fabulous).

The recruitment and selection process will continue through the summer, with the intent of having a new host in place by fall of this year.

Cabbie stands in as computer expert

2007-05-01T13:39:00.000-02:30

Have you ever been caught up in a dream that turned rapidly into a nightmare? This, no doubt, is how taxi driver Guy Goma (left, BBC photo) felt when, through a case of mistaken identity, he found himself seated in front of a live BBC studio camera, and introduced as technology expert Guy Kewney.

It happened about a year ago. Kewney was supposed to be interviewed about the lawsuit between The Beatles' Apple Corps and Apple Computer over the use of an apple symbol. Instead, he watched in astonishment as someone else was interviewed.

How the mistake happened is not clear. Goma is black and bald, while Kewney is white and bearded. However, they both share the same first name, so Goma must have misunderstood and actually raised his hand when the studio assistant called for Kewney. The look on Goma's face when he is introduced on live TV as someone else is really quite priceless. And now that the nightmare is rolling, Goma gamely tries to brazen his way through the interview, with less than impressive results. The interviewer doesn't seem to get it at first; it looks like the director alerts her through the earphone and she soon cuts away to another expert.

Ah, the perils of live TV. You can read an article about the incident here, which includes a transcript of the interview and the actual video link. For maximum enjoyment, I suggest you read the article before watching the video (a Windows Media file).

Too much bitter and not enough sweet

2007-04-30T08:40:00.000-02:30

The final On the Go broadcast from the CBC Radio building on Duckworth Street was something of a letdown. I expected to hear more of the history of the building, drawing upon the wealth of archived material in the vault as well as memories of people who have hosted or contributed to the program in some way.

There was at least one historical item (the show hasn’t been archived yet so I can’t confirm any others) and some coverage of contemporary issues. And host Ted Blades (right, CBC photo) did emphasize at one point that programming will continue and life will carry on at the new location. However, the program was dominated by ‘farewell’ material that had a melancholy, slightly bitter aftertaste.

The show opened with an indulgent, overdone segment in which Blades walked to work for the last time (as of Monday, he will have to drive to the CBC Building on Prince Philip Drive).

Blades’ point was that a walk down Duckworth Street – talking with people on the street, reading posters in shop windows and inhaling the rich harbour air – presents a bottomless well of story ideas that will be lost in the move to the parkway. Indeed, the downtown itself came across as a muse that percolates by osmosis through most of what is broadcast from the grand old building.

During the middle of the show, Blades spoke about the thousands of historically significant stories and interviews that originated at 342 Duckworth. The piece he played – a profile of a traveling butcher produced some years ago for Morningside – was good, but it was long; I would have preferred more of a montage that brought in different voices and issues.

The program concluded with Blades taking a meandering final walk through the building, his voice echoing in the empty hallways. It left the listener feeling sad and empty, which was no doubt Blades’ intent. But it didn’t work for me. There was too much bitter and not enough sweet.

The closure of the building reminds me of a person who has died at a ripe old age – we mourn their passing but ultimately celebrate their achievements.

That celebratory feel was missing from the show and I can understand why. Blades does not support the relocation across town and feels, as demonstrated by the opening piece, that something priceless will be lost in the move.

Blades' final walk to work was not great radio; I am sure it was edited down but it was nonetheless long and not terribly illuminating. I do respect what he was trying to accomplish. The item was seasoned with a dash of rebellion and a pinch of protest, something I applaud in all journalists. I share anyone’s apprehension about moving from an office to a cubicle environment, and wonder what management can do to address this. (With all the space in the TV building, do they really need to jam people into cubicles?) And I do agree that CBC Radio is part of the downtown character, and vice versa.

However, I think the contention that walking to work puts one ‘in touch’ with the heart of the city and generates new story ideas is exaggerated. A stroll downtown and a detour to Hava Java may net a story idea on occasion, but it should only account for a small percentage of program content, especially given On the Go’s province-wide audience.

There is absolutely no substitute for a well-established network of contacts within the various strata of society, including the arts, business, government and not-for-profit sectors.

In this respect, I feel that programming on all of the local radio shows will actually improve in the months ahead, as producers, hosts and reporters work the phones, email and Internet much more in the pursuit and development of new story ideas. They will also benefit from new perspectives gained through collaboration with their colleagues in television.

And downtown is not that far away. There is nothing stopping any of them from taking a dash downtown for lunch, coffee or even a walk up Duckworth Street.

I wish all the employees well in their new location, and will be checking back in the weeks ahead to see how they are feeling about the move.

A new beginning for Anne Budgell

2007-04-27T11:19:00.000-02:30

I had a quick email exchange with Anne Budgell this morning, in which I asked her one question. Anne, as you must know by now, is retiring today after 34 years of service with the CBC in Newfoundland and Labrador. As this photo (taken during the last CBC strike, from John Gushue's website) would suggest, Anne has outlasted them all.

But first, a story. I prefaced the question to Anne by telling her about my own experience working in an old building. During the 1970’s, I served as a clerk at the Post Office in Toronto, at the main postal station on Front Street (in what is now the Air Canada Centre).

That grand old building was being phased out, with employees being moved to one of two new “super-buildings” further out in the suburbs. I was transferred to South Central, where they tried to train me on the postal coding machine; to key in the postal code on letters as they zoomed past, as fast as you could type. It was dehumanizing, as was the sterile environment with cameras everywhere. I told management to forget it; to send me back to the old building until it was phased out, at which point I would resign. (I did, and moved back home to Newfoundland, determined to ‘make it’ as a journalist, which is a story for another day.)

So my question to Anne was, did you time your retirement around the closing of the building on a matter of principle?

While her reply was diplomatic, Anne did confirm that the impending move had some influence on her decision about when to retire.

“I have been thinking of retiring for some time and it's been a tough decision since I do enjoy my work and have a lot of freedom to do what I want with this show,” Anne wrote. “Also, working with Paula Gale has been fabulous and there was no guarantee we'd be able to continue to work together. I went up to the other building to have a look at "my" cubicle and I was dreading having to work there. Paula and I have a small office with a door we can close and we close it numerous times a day. It's the only way we can hear ourselves think.”

“I am lucky because I have enough years of service so my pension will provide an adequate income,” Anne continued. “Being financially able to retire, in combination with other factors, like the building closing, it seemed like the time was right. I don't feel like I'm the only one leaving because everyone is packing their stuff and the place is emptying out. I'm going to take a few trips and I've got a book project to work on. Summer is coming and I've got a grin from ear to ear.”

If you read this on Friday morning, be sure to tune in to CBC Radio Noon to catch Anne’s last show. Also, visit the site to see all the neat stuff that has been going on with the show in recent weeks (and have a look at that movie poster, which has Anne’s head superimposed on Halle Berry’s body).

CBC Radio Building falls silent today

2007-04-27T09:54:00.000-02:30

It’s been part of the heart of downtown St. John’s for 54 years. And today, it all comes to an end.

The people and facilities at the CBC Radio Building on Duckworth Street are all moving to the TV building, up on the Parkway. The building has a long and colourful history, as we learned in the excellent retrospective series by Juanita Bates. It once hosted the Total Abstinence Society, the Capitol Theatre and was the location of the first public performance of the Ode to Newfoundland. But its most important role was no doubt home to CBC Radio, which has had a tremendous impact on the character of downtown St. John’s.

I love old buildings; love their convoluted passageways, uneven floors, dusty alcoves and locked rooms packed with artifacts. I have been in the building several times to be interviewed, or to meet with people there, and know that it is a special place (and quite haunted, according to some of the staff who worked late at night).

We will no longer hear Jeff Gilhooly talking about the brilliant sunrise over the narrows, or run into the staff on the street or in the lineup at Hava Java. The shows, of course, will continue and – who knows – they may even get better as a result of the move… though I know it won’t be the same for the staff, who move from the lively artistic and intellectual ferment of Duckworth Street over to the barrens of the parkway (say what you like, it is not the same environment over there).

If you want to learn more about the history of the building, go to the Total Abstinence Society site and this interesting tour of the old Capitol Theatre – with great photos – presented by the Newfoundland Urban Exploration Society.

Today, we mark the closure of an important chapter in our cultural and social history. You can expect to hear special programming all day long – the Morning Show had some great stuff, including interviews with former hosts of the show – so tune in if you can and, if you can’t, look it up in the archives later (go to the CBC site, click programs, then archives). Don’t forget Anne Budgell’s final show today on Radio Noon – it’s her retirement on top of everything else – and you can be sure On The Go will also bid a fond farewell to the building.

I tried to arrange an informal tour of the building, to talk to whoever I ran into and capture some quick memories (plus some photos), but my request was rejected by the public affairs people because there was too much going on with the move. I did pop in for a visit on Wednesday, to pick up something (a tape recording of an interview I did with Joey Smallwood that I lent On The Go, which aired last Christmas). During that visit, I snapped the photo at right of Ted Blades and Ingrid Fraser, host and producer of On The Go. I could easily have walked through the building and recorded a bunch of farewell interviews with whoever I encountered, but decided to behave myself. I already regret that decision.

Whilst standing on the sidewalk to take the photo above, the meter reader guy with the city walked by and said, “Downtown won’t be the same without it.”

I stopped, marvelling at how we all talk with the candor of neighbours calling over the fence, and said, "Yes, it’s gonna feel pretty empty around here.”

Nightmare in the Dominican Republic

2007-04-26T09:38:00.000-02:30

The harrowing experience of a couple from Labrador in the Dominican Republic is quite an eye-opener. On their first day at the resort, a “guest” who was clearly a local thug accused Andrew and Dawn Sinnott of stealing his cell phone. The hotel manager sided with the thug and the couple was taken to a fake police station where they were shaken down for a $1000 ransom. After their ordeal, the couple was ordered to leave the hotel by the manager, who seemed to be in cahoots with the thugs.

Fortunately, the item (by reporter Peter Cowan) was picked up by CBC national news, so this story will have an impact across the country. The questions that I would like to see answered in future media coverage include, how widespread is this racket? Will charges be laid against the kidnappers? Will the hotel manager be fired? The way the government of the Dominican Republic handles this case will tell you much about whether or not it is a safe vacation spot. I am also curious about other people’s experiences in this country. Have you been robbed while on vacation there? If so, please leave a comment.

A quick google search for “Dominican Republic nightmare” turns up some results, such as these resort horror stories, but I can’t see any references to kidnapping and extortion. This post will help to correct that.

A veritable feast for the eyes

2007-04-21T15:02:00.000-02:30

And now for something completely different. I offer for your consumption two links to photo sites that will make you look at fast food - and the refuse it produces - in a new way.

Let’s start with Fast Foods: Ads vs. Reality. Have you ever been served a take-out meal and thought, ‘Wow – that doesn’t look anything like what I saw in the TV ad!’ Click on the photo sequence at right to see what I mean. The Whopper in the promo pic (top) sits high and proud, with a dandy looking meat patty, light, fluffy bun and colourful lettuce and tomato. The actual burger (bottom) lacks colour, the bun is flat and lifeless and the stuff in the middle looks far less appetizing. There are several other great examples of fast food on this site that fail to deliver on the visual promise, a demonstration of the important role that food stylists play in the marketing of food. (Food stylists being those peculiar artisans who sculpt, spray, arrange and present food to its maximum visual effect, before the photographer starts shooting. Digital retouching does the rest.)

“Each item was purchased, taken home, and photographed immediately,” says the introductory blurb at the site. "Nothing was tampered with, run over by a car, or anything of the sort. It is an accurate representation in every case."

The quality of photography on the site is strictly amateur, but it adequately captures the reality of fast food. And I am not looking down my nose at fast food. I do indulge more than I should, and actually love the Whopper, pathetic as it may look here. Right now there are 10 fast food comparisons on the site. I hope they add more. (Caution: The fast food photos are the best thing here; don’t bother clicking around unless you are in the mood for low-brow, foul-mouthed humour.)

The other link is Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait, featuring a series of photo-realistic graphic works by Chris Jordan. In a nutshell, Jordan takes statistics that are normally hard to comprehend and represents them graphically. The piece above, for example, has been created with 106,000 aluminum cans, the number used in the U.S. every 30 seconds. Check this detail, showing just 416 cans, to see how it’s put together.

“This new series looks at contemporary American culture through the austere lens of statistics,” writes artist Chris Jordan. “Each image portrays a specific quantity of something: fifteen million sheets of office paper (five minutes of paper use); 106,000 aluminum cans (thirty seconds of can consumption) and so on. My hope is that images representing these quantities might have a different effect than the raw numbers alone, such as we find daily in articles and books. Statistics can feel abstract and anesthetizing, making it difficult to connect with and make meaning of 3.6 million SUV sales in one year, for example, or 2.3 million Americans in prison, or 426,000 cell phones retired every day. This project visually examines these vast and bizarre measures of our society, in large intricately detailed prints assembled from thousands of smaller photographs.”

I urge you to follow this link and linger for a while. It offers some truly mind-numbing images that will force you to view mass consumerism, and other societal issues, in an entirely new light.

POSTSCRIPT: Ed Hollett has a funny take on today's post over at The Bond Papers. Check it out.

NBC has an attack of good taste

2007-04-19T20:17:00.000-02:30

This makes for interesting reading indeed. Brian Williams (right) is Anchor and Managing Editor with NBC News, the network that received the package of text, video and photos from the Virginia Tech killer. In his blog, Williams describes how he and his colleagues wrestled with how to present the shocking material in the package. As it turns out, they used precious little of it, and for all the right reasons.

"A critical piece of information in a huge national news story was dropped on our doorstep," Williams writes. "While I love my work, our task yesterday was extremely unpleasant. Yesterday was an awful day. There was no joy in this for any of us. To the contrary: opening each computer video snippet for the first time was a sickening and harrowing experience - and it's good to know that the worst of them - all now in the hands of investigators - will never see the light of day. As I said on the air last evening: we are aware that this puts words in the mouth of a murderer."

Yes, they did air some of the tape (I would prefer none at all). But Williams' comments are a very good start. Coming from a big American network, it is cause for optimism, in a country where the news business is so extremely competitive and, yes, sensational. One can't help but wonder what would have happened if CNN or Fox News had received the package...

Thanks to Darrell Smith for the link.

The CBC definitely gets it right

2007-04-19T13:39:00.000-02:30

There is a new letter from Tony Burman (left), Editor In Chief of CBC News, posted at the CBC web site. I interviewed Burman two days ago about CBC coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings, and you can read the entry two posts down. His column today offers a thoughtful reflection on how CBC has covered this tragedy. I urge you to read it.

For now, I draw your attention to the postscript that Burman attached to this column, after news of the manifesto package came to light. It's powerful stuff and I have copied it below:

Postscript: On Wednesday afternoon, a few hours after this column was written and posted, NBC News in New York announced it had received in the mail a package from the killer. It contained a compilation of 27 video clips, 43 still photos of him holding guns and a hammer and a largely incoherent 'manifesto' explaining why he had done it. On its evening newscast, NBC ran several minutes of excerpts, and this video has been rebroadcast by a multitude of other networks. At the CBC, we debated the issue throughout the evening and made the decision that we would not broadcast any video or audio of this bizarre collection. On CBC Television, Radio and CBC.ca, we would report the essence of what the killer was saying, but not do what he so clearly hoped all media would do. To decide otherwise - in our view -would be to risk copycat killings. Speaking personally, I have long admired NBC News and I am sure my admiration of their journalists will endure. But I think their handling of these tapes was a mistake. As I watched them last night, sickened as I'm sure most viewers were, I imagined what kind of impact this broadcast would have on similarly deranged people. In horrific but real ways, this is their 15 seconds of fame. I had this awful and sad feeling that there were parents watching these excerpts on NBC who were unaware they they will lose their children in some future copycat killing triggered by these broadcasts.

Today, I received the following internal memo, sent by Burman to all CBC journalists. It reflects nicely the messages contained in Burman's column, and shows that CBC really is walking the talk. I don't publish every internal memo that crosses my desk but have no hesitation in using this one, since it reflects so well on both Burman and his network.

To all CBC news and current affairs staff, and contributors-

As most of you probably know by now, CBC News has decided NOT to broadcast any of the pictures or sound from the collection the Virginia Tech killer sent to NBC News. Our reporting of this should be limited to saying, in words, the essence of his largely incoherent message. It can be accompanied, as it was on last night's National, with a straight head-on freeze frame of his picture, but not those showing him brandishing the guns, hammer, etc.

This applies to all CBC programs and services on Television, Newsworld, Radio and CBC.ca.

Our interest here is to ensure that our coverage of this story does not have the unintended effect of encouraging copycat killings. There's a fuller discussion of this in the CBC.ca 'letter' I posted yesterday on this subject. I urge that you read it. It was written a fews hours before the NBC tapes became known, so I added a 'postscript' this morning at the bottom to deal with this part of the story.

I have attached it here (below). I also suggest you check out the link because the reader responses, which I am certain will grow during the day, are quite illuminating.

LINK

I am sure that you will note that CBC's handling of this issue is quite different from most of the other broadcast and print media, and I hope you're not uncomfortable with this. Canmadians expect a lot from the CBC, and we need to live up to those expectations. There is no place in heaven for journalists who merely follow the pack, and there's no patience anymore for the 'garbage-in/garbage-out' theory of 'news'. We don't simply transmit that which falls on our head: we make editorial
choices every moment of our day, and they need to be the correct ones.

I think that with this decision - as well as last week's handling of the Afghan hostage video, which I wrote about on Monday- - Canadians are telling us that we have made the right call.

Thank you and onward,

Tony

While CBC is taking some brave and principled steps in the right direction, I have come to the conclusion that we need a legislated solution in both Canada and the U.S. There should be an outright ban on the publication of the killer's name, photo or homemade video. We can discuss the contents of the manifesto, as long as we don't mention other killers' names. Just deny them their 15 seconds of fame. I know I am tilting at windmills here, and I don't expect either country to impose such "limits" on freedom of speech. But I feel strongly about this, enough to keep repeating the message. And I ask you: do we really need to know the killer's name and see his face?

Surprise, surprise: killer produced manifesto

2007-04-18T22:19:00.000-02:30

Man, I hate being right all the time. My post of two days ago described all too accurately what arrived at NBC offices today. It was a package sent by the Virginia Tech killer, containing "a rambling and often-incoherent 1,800-word video manifesto, plus 43 photos, 11 of them showing him aiming handguns at the camera," according to this article in The Globe and Mail. There's not much I can add about this, except that the deranged young man knew his tape would make global headlines.

In his manifesto, the killer actually refers to "martyrs like Eric and Dylan", the teenagers behind the Columbine massacre. I know it's easier said than done, but we need to open a discussion about the idea of somehow not publishing these glorified suicide notes. By doing so, we fulfill the killer's ambition to live in infamy and quite likely inspire other nutbars to try a similar stunt of their own.

The killer actually shot two people at the dorm building before walking to the post office to calmly mail his package, apparently satisfied that his killing spree would proceed as planned. The effort he put into assembling the content of this manifesto, and the fact that he mailed it to media just before the slaughter began, demonstrates that the killings were a twisted public relations device; a way to ensure maximum coverage of his hate-filled and demented world view.

The top headline on page one in the April 18 Globe and Mail had a large picture of the killer and one of the victims. The headline reads: "Cho Seung-Hui was a dark and demented student. Liviu Librescu survived the Holocaust and tyranny. They will be remembered for their final moments."

Don't try this at home, kids. Please.

CBC Editor In Chief weighs in on Virginia slayings

2007-04-17T20:37:00.000-02:30

Yesterday’s observations on the mass murder at Virginia Tech included a postcript, in which I flagged an editorial by Tony Burman, Editor In Chief of CBC News, which includes news, current affairs and Newsworld. That item prompted an interview with Burman, who is in charge of editorial content on radio, television and the Internet.

In October of 2006, Burman wrote an editorial about the murder of five Amish schoolgirls in Pennsylvania. But the editorial could easily have been written yesterday about the tragic events in Blacksburg, Virginia. For the most part, Burton’s points were similar to those expressed by me in yesterday’s post.

In his editorial, Burman wrote that there were similarities between the Pennsylvania killings and other recent murderous deeds, enough to cause “considerable soul-searching in many newsrooms about what role the media are playing in these incidents.”

Burman quoted Prof. Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto and a specialist in personality theory, who believes that some people who commit these acts are seeking “post-crime notoriety.” Jordan told Burman that “idle speculation” by the media has no basis in fact and simply “glorifies” the act.

Peterson’s prescription is for “media to turn off the oxygen” by not naming the killers, or showing their photographs, and not reporting on their writings or motivations.

Interesting words indeed, coming from the most senior journalist in the CBC. After reading Burman’s column, I emailed him a note, asking for an interview. My key question: how have yesterday’s events affected his opinion – and CBC policy – on this issue? To my surprise, he called me the same afternoon.

“It’s such an awful event but one, as you pointed out in your piece, that is becoming so familiar in our culture,” Burman said “Like all news organizations, we’re trying to think through how we handle these things. In terms of your question, regarding what evolution there has been in that awful period since Dawson College and the Amish killings, there are certain things that are different for us at CBC now. Our focus is overwhelmingly on the victims… we’re trying to bring their stories to life in a way that I don’t think we have done in the past.”

So far, Burman said, CBC hasn’t included a picture of the killer on the web site and only “a couple of discrete mentions” have been made of his name.

“I think that was an issue. I know the argument, and you make it very compellingly as does Jordan Peterson and others. But I think that in the fullness of our coverage, we haven’t figured out a rationale for us to go throughout our comprehensive coverage without mentioning a name because I think a lot of people come to us to at least get a sense of who it might be. But I think we are incredibly conscious now of not doing anything inadvertently that tends to glorify him or his actions, or get into the realm of dime-store psychology about his motivation when all of us know so little about what actually went on.”

While I applauded Burman for the wisdom in CBC’s approach, I noted that the big networks in the United States are not about to change their policies anytime soon. It’s a highly competitive business and you can bet that hundreds of reporters are scrambling at this moment to come up with every shred of information they can about the killer.

“It’s interesting because in our daily meeting today I actually made that point,” Burman said. “I said we can’t be like the American networks because they are going to go to town on it, because that is… the competitive edge among all these fighting news channels. There is a lot of rumour out there, and so much stuff that gets circulated, but I think the so-called ‘established media’ has to separate the real from the unreal. I think history will judge us far from perfect on this one, but I think our coverage of this will be far more restrained and hopefully illuminating than perhaps it would have been a year ago.”

I asked Burman to speculate on the chances that his view and that of the CBC might someday gain traction south of the border. However, he is not optimistic on this point.

“I was having this discussion with somebody about gun control. The British coverage of this story has focused on the prevalence of guns, particularly in the Virginia area, and I think that’s a Canadian observation as well. But I am told that the so-called gun issue on a lot of the American networks is not that there should be more gun control, but why weren’t all the students and teachers armed to protect themselves? So I think there is no reason to expect that things are going to change there necessarily… I think this discussion is so incredibly valuable because it’s not the thing that everybody is going to focus on, but in some ways is one of the most important aspects of it.”

One final note: yesterday’s post drew a wave of interest from surfers the world over. It started when someone posted a link to this blog at www.reddit.com, a user driven site wherein visitors browse links and click those that interest them. Links are ranked by visitors and listed in descending order of popularity. For much of the day, the link to this blog held in the top 40, which is something of an achievement given that links are added to the site continuously. At last count, I had received more than 1,000 unique visitors, all originating from reddit.com.

It's safe to say, therefore, that Americans are very interested in this discussion.

Mass killers inspire others to similar acts

2007-04-16T20:41:00.000-02:30

Thirty three people dead, at last count. The largest mass murder in American history.

In the deluge of media coverage that will engulf us, following this terrible shooting spree in Virginia, there is one piece of information I don’t want to know.

Please spare me the name of the killer.

You see, I have a theory that the warped minds who commit these crimes do so, in many cases, with one primary motivation: notoriety. They want to be remembered as the bad-ass who went out in a blaze of glory.

It is my firmly held opinion that we shouldn’t give it to them. In mass murder situations like this, the news media should not report the killer’s identity. We should not see pictures of the killer posing in camouflage gear, wearing an AK-47. We don’t need to read the manifesto of murder posted at his web site. By doing so, we fulfill the killer’s wish to live in infamy, while inspiring other like-minded individuals to do the same thing.

As it turns out, I am not alone in this thinking.

“I reached that same conclusion some time ago,” said Elliott Leyton (right), a retired professor of anthropology at Memorial University whose research into mass murder is now applied by law enforcement agencies around the world.

“I think it has been a great mistake but it’s kind of hard to get the press to come on board with that idea. I agree with you that their names and details should be very cautiously handled. The victims should be getting the attention, not the killer. American culture is so saturated with intoxication about violence.”

Leyton’s voice already sounded a little tired when I called him at 7:30 pm. He had been taking calls from media outlets across North America. Before moving on to his next call, Leyton added one more observation, which he will be talking about on The National tonight.

“One of the greatest works of 20th century criminology was Archer and Gartner’s ‘Violence and Crime: A National Perspective’,” Leyton said. “In that book, they showed clearly that, every time there was a major war, there was an effect on the larger culture. People were bombarded with brutalizing images and it kind of validated violence more. Archer and Gartner studied every major war over the last hundred years and noted that, near the end of every war, there was a real surge in excessive violence. You know that the American murder rate dropped in the 90’s, where they weren’t invading anyone at the moment… So when I gave my last lecture at the university last year I said, ‘You watch, if Archer and Gartner are right – and I think they are – we should expect a big increase in homicides as the war grinds on. And it looks like that’s what’s happening. The homicide rates in all the major cities are going away up.”

I can see Leyton’s point. In order to build public support for their foreign conflicts, governments will attempt to glorify the war effort. Certain American networks are keen to play along, playing the ‘shock and awe’ video to its maximum, desensitizing effect. Is it any wonder Americans are killing each other?

Going back to the first point, persuading media to stop reporting names – and every mundane detail of the mass murderer’s life – is easier said than done. The competition to ‘get the story’ is too intense and any attempt at enforcement through legislation would be challenged – probably successfully – as an infringement upon freedom of speech.

In the meantime, one can’t help but wonder how many sick minds are watching this story unfold, fantasizing about stealing dad’s semi-automatic and making some history of their own…

UPDATE: I came up with this theory on my own and was buoyed to learn that Elliott Leyton had similar views, but I am not the first to state this point of view. Check this link for a good editorial summary about the issue, written in 2006 by Tony Burman, Editor In Chief at CBC News.

Westcott speech continues to make ripples

2007-04-15T18:13:00.000-02:30

Craig Westcott’s March 29 speech to NOIA, the full text of which was posted on this blog back in March, continues to have an impact. Between five and 10 percent of the hits here continue to originate from a Google search for ‘craig westcott speech’ and they’ve been coming from all over North America.

The hits have actually seen an uptick over the last few days, and I have pinpointed the cause. Macleans’s has posted an article at its web site about an ‘Alternative narrative to the Danny Williams success story’, which appears in the April 16 edition. I have copied the full text of the article below, and you can link to it here.

Questioning the Williams juggernaut:

An alternate narrative to the Danny Williams Success Story began circulating in Newfoundland last week

By CHARLIE GILLIS, Maclean’s, April 16, 2007
It's taken some time to gain traction, but an alternate narrative to the Danny Williams Success Story began circulating in Newfoundland last week, finding a receptive audience both inside and outside the province. In a manifesto-style speech to a gathering of oil industry types in St. John's, Craig Westcott, publisher of the upstart newspaper the Business Post, painted the province's tough-talking premier as a power-mad demagogue whose hardline tactics against offshore oil developers will soon beggar his people. "Danny Williams loves power," said the veteran journalist, who is known as a tough talker in his own right. "He lives for it. He revels in it. He likes to show everyone he's the boss." The result, said Westcott, is a population afraid to speak out against actions that are damaging the economy. "You've got to watch your Ps and Qs, stroke his ego," he said in his address.

To put it mildly, Westcott is swimming upstream. The premier's approval rating stands at a stunning 74 per cent; even members of Westcott's audience seem uneasy with his stridency. "As at the end of any speech, he was given customary applause by the audience," says Ted Howell, president and CEO of the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association, who was careful not to endorse any of Westcott's depictions of the premier. As for Williams himself, a spokeswoman dismissed Westcott as a serial exaggerator who has been "incredibly, incredibly critical" of the premier in the past.

Perhaps. But Westcott's methodical attack seems to have struck a chord, drawing record readership when transcripts surfaced on political blogs in Newfoundland, generating rich fodder for open-line radio shows. By Monday, his words were filling the inboxes of government and media types in Ottawa. Not quite a groundswell, Westcott cautions, but the buzz just might cause some Newfoundlanders to start thinking critically about their leader. "I've never seen a guy enjoy so much popular support," he says. "Personally, I think it's kind of dangerous."

- end -

For his part, Westcott says his speech has generated a flood of attention that is almost overwhelming. In the April 11 edition of The Business Post, Westcott writes:

“All week, the phone hasn’t stopped ringing and the email hasn’t stopped filling up with messages about the speech (as of this writing there are 105 emails that I haven’t had a chance to open yet)… Since the speech was delivered I’ve been approached by VOCM Radio (twice), CBC Television, Canadian Business Magazine, Maclean’s Magazine, The National Post, CBC Newsworld, numerous bloggers and everyone from fellow business people, PC Party insiders and even municipal leaders wanting to interview me or express thanks for having pointed to the Emporer’s state of undress.”

I know what Craig is talking about. I saw the traffic firsthand when I posted his speech on this blog. On the first day the speech appeared, hits rocketed from an average of 250 per day to more than 1,100, thanks to numerous links from other blogs (it’s amazing how quickly a hot story spreads on the web). On the second day, the hits peaked at more than 2,000 before tapering off slowly.

You can read the full text of the Craig Westcott speech here. And if you are interested in this subject, you should also check out the David Cochrane speech here.

Sledworthy needs to ramp up on safety

2007-04-12T14:24:00.000-02:30

It was a bizarre coincidence. While browsing the headlines yesterday, I stumbled upon a CBC story about the high number of snowmobile deaths in the province. With four snowmobile drownings already since January, we are positioned to break the record of six, set in 1997.

Then I glanced through my ‘to read’ pile and picked up a copy of Sledworthy, a locally produced tabloid about snowmobiling, and concluded that they are part of the problem.

Sledworthy is a professionally-designed publication (their banner looks great) brought to us by Focused Publications, the same people who produce Thrive (formerly Business Dynamics) magazine. There is clearly a demand for this type of publication, given the healthy amount of advertising that packs its 16 pages.

However, in the February/March issue, there are no articles about safety, on the ice or on the trail. Quite the opposite. There is, instead, a focus on machismo, speed and risk-taking that is quite out of step with the current reality. The stat above, don’t forget, is for drownings. It doesn’t include the two people who died on a trail near Gallants, or the man killed by the avalanche on the Northern Peninsula, both during March.

I browsed all back issues, which are available online at the Sledworthy web site, and found a lot of daredevil stuff but not a lot about safety. There was one very good article in the February ‘06 edition, wherein Gary Reardon describes a near-death experience for a group of sledders, stranded in a blizzard on a high plateau in -30 temperatures. It is written in a respectful tone and ends with some good, clear safety pointers. Early issues also ran a series on effective use of GPS systems, and an occasional column about safety.

However, I have not seen any articles about safe snowmobiling on frozen fresh or salt water, nor any expose on that bizarre practice of running at high speeds across open water. I’ve seen nothing about escaping from the water once you fall in. And there is nothing about recognizing potential avalanche situations, or what to do if one strikes. To the contrary, there are repeated references like the following, which you can read in full at the Sledworthy site:

“We spent all day driving into bowl after bowl of fresh, untouched snow, then tearing them up one by one, climbing, jumping and dropping until the once pristine hillside was transformed into a ragged tapestry of snowmobile tracks, waving, weaving, and encircling each other so you couldn't distinguish where one track ended and another began.”

The machismo is evident in this story, which turns a trip across the tundra into an Operation Desert Storm situation:

“Little did I know that this planning would put me in a battle that I was determined to win… This land reminds me of the desert, reaching my destination became a battle, much of what I picture of the soldiers in the Middle East driving through barren, sandy country trying to secure victory… The planning began and at this time I started a battle that I was unaware I had declared… Disheartened I returned, but coming from an athletic background and being a little competitive I was even more determined to win against this country. Seeing what I saw, I believed it was doable, but required a different plan of attack. The enemy had showed some weakness and I planned to exploit it.”

There is the incredible account in the first edition of a snowmobiler who doesn’t attend the safety briefings (“I had to GO – you all know what I mean!”) and then rides up one side of Mount Peyton at full speed, explodes onto the peak to discover an insufficient plateau, and shoots straight over the other side. He jumps off, skids for a while but comes to a stop, as his machine plunges over the cliff and is destroyed.

There is quite a harrowing tale of a wilderness trip in Western Newfoundland that descended into a near-death situation. This lead paragraph sums it up nicely:

“Darkness is falling; we’re in remote and unfamiliar territory; there are no trails, fuel is critically low; the cargo sled is split wide open. There’s only time to pick one route off the topo map and go for it. If it doesn’t work we’re bunking out in the middle of the Long Range Mountains in February! Was I nervous? Yes. Would I do it again? Maybe. Did I regret doing it? No, because you ‘Only Lives Once’!”

Deep into the trip, the snowmobilers encounter major problems. “… steep, tree lined river valleys were cut deep into the mountains and proving very hard to navigate. The sheer size of the group and the challenging conditions made it almost impossible to keep everyone together, or to make up any time… I still remember the concerned look on Geoff and Chris's faces as we poured over the maps trying to pick likely routes through the maze of rocky peaks and river valleys as the sun started to set. I'm sure my face looked the same. Nobody blamed us for the situation, but having organized the trip we did feel responsible.”

I do not dispute that these trips were exciting. But if there is a safety message that I can take away from the above article, I am not sure what it is. Except perhaps, to not plan a trip based on this cursory assessment: “A quick look at the maps showed we could shoot along the edge of Buchans Plateau, swing around the southeast corner of Little Grand Lake, pick our way northward through the Long Range Mountains, then onto woods roads to Gallants where we would take a groomed trail to Camp OLO in the Lewis Hills. It all sounded simple enough!”

When you hear about snowmobilers perishing after becoming lost or disoriented in the woods, look no further than the above for enlightenment. A common theme seems to be lack of preparedness.

Perhaps certain stories should be rejected outright, because there is nothing to be gained from them. In the latest issue, for example, Scott Crosbie talks about a stunt in which he drives hard up a sharp incline to leave a “high mark” around a tree, then struggles to keep his machine from tumbling head over heels as he careens back down the cliffside.

“I expected a big round of back slaps,” the author writes at the end, “but what I got was a whole bunch of ‘Are you nuts? That was the stupidest thing I’ve seen. You were nearly killed!’ They were right of course. I put a sorry look on my face and expressed my embarrassment along with multiple apologies for stressing them out, but deep down, now that it was over, I felt like I had won something. I’m much more careful now of course and wouldn’t do the same thing again, but on that day I had set the bar beyond where anyone else would go.”

Yes, a real inspiration to hot dogs everywhere.

I don’t mean to be too critical about Sledworthy. They can turn this problem around, and quickly, by insisting that writers build clear safety messages – the ‘moral of the story’ or what not to do – into all such adventure articles, and play these messages high. They should either stop celebrating the near misses and death-defying stunts, or at least balance them with an equal measure of sobering information. (You see plenty of glib rationalizations for acts that might easily have been suicidal.) Above all, they should look at the statistics for snowmobile deaths, assess the causes and ask themselves: What can we do to prevent future incidents? By doing this, they will quickly become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

NOTE: The photo above is from Corey Ford’s blog, which is certainly worth a visit. Corey lives in Gander and his interests – besides photography – include snowmobiling. He had his camera with him on the day that this mishap occurred, the result of a snowmobiler stopping in the middle of the trail. There were a couple of broken bones (Corey’s) and several severely damaged machines but, as Corey notes, it could have been much worse. You can read his full entry here.

The Muse takes satirical aim at The Independent

2007-04-11T08:03:00.000-02:30

Okay, so April 1st has already faded into last week. But it took the folks at the Muse a little while to make their annual April Fool's media spoof available online, so I bring it to your attention now. You can download the entire production as a pdf file by clicking right here. This year, they parody The Independent, which has been dubbed the Self-Reliant. My favorite line is the teaser on top of page one: "NL gets raw deal, See story every page". My favorite promotional blurb: "To read the online copy of the Self-Reliant’s 162 point series The Cost Benefit Analysis of Newfoundland’s Terms of The Union With Those Soul Crushing Tyrannical Autocratic Dictators Known As Canadians please visit us on the web at www.selfreliant.ca, that is of course if you can afford a computer after those blood sucking Canucks have ripped your livelihood right out from your VERY SOUL. Advertising rates also available online." The humour is a little juvenile at times, but there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments here as well. Caution: Some material is not suitable for work, children or the easily offended. These are students after all, and it's clear they are having a bitchin' good time.

The farewells and tributes begin for Anne Budgell

2007-04-10T09:13:00.000-02:30

I remarked recently on her enthralling, at times shocking edition of Crosstalk with David Bagby (April 2). That was followed by a Crosstalk about literacy (April 4), in which caller after caller exposed a number of gaps, shall we say, in federal funding support for literacy.

I am talking about Anne Budgell (above, CBC photo), host and producer of Radio Noon on CBC Radio. Budgell always does a strong show and is an exceptional interviewer, but lately she’s really been on a roll.

Unfortunately, it’s all going to end pretty soon. Anne Budgell is retiring from the CBC later this month. Her last day will be April 27.

It will conclude a distinguished 34-year career in which Anne has performed in almost every on-air job there is. According to her CBC bio, Budgell has been “a news reporter, the first female host/reporter on the legendary radio program ‘The Fisheries Broadcast’, co-anchor of the supper hour TV show ‘Here and Now’ and host of the weekly television show ‘On Camera.’ She was executive producer of radio news and current affairs for a while and pleaded to be allowed to go back on the air.”

As the host of the call-in program Crosstalk, Budgell figures that “by now she's probably spoken to you on the air and if not you, then someone in your family.”

Although she is well known for her aggressive interview style (when it is called for), Budgell also has a soft side which is apparent whenever she deals with sensitive or light-hearted subjects. The recent Crosstalk about ‘What Makes You Happy’ (March 26) was pretty off-the-wall and had the potential to fall on its face, but Anne pulled it off in style, delivering one of her most entertaining programs ever.

The good news is, you can listen to the Crosstalks noted above whenever you like, and all other Radio Noon programs going all the way back to May of 2005, by visiting the Radio Noon archive .

In the meantime, try to tune in to Radio Noon as much as you can over the next 17 days and listen live to Anne Budgell, a host who is leaving at the top of her game. It’s hard to imagine CBC Radio without her.

When rumours shouldn't make headlines

2007-04-09T08:11:00.000-02:30

Some people have asked why I haven’t written about ongoing rumours concerning the marital issues of one of our elected officials; or, more to the point, why other media haven’t reported it.

There’s a simple reason for that. It really isn’t news. We might want to know about it, in a gossipy kind of way, but is the public interest served by revealing the personal affairs of our public figures? I submit there is, but only when such entanglements affect that person’s ability to function effectively in their position.

A hypothetical example: one of your neighbours has an affair with a co-worker, the spouse finds out and the marriage subsequently fails. It makes for interesting chatter at backyard barbecues, but the criminal code has not been broken and life goes on. It isn’t news. Generally speaking, the same standard should apply to public figures.

Otherwise, we are on a slippery slope into tabloid journalism, in which good reputations get damaged for the wrong reasons and media become obsessed with sensationalism over substance.

My colleagues and I at The Sunday Express dealt with a roughly similar situation, while covering the federal election of 1988. The Sunday Express was widely viewed as a muck-raking investigative newspaper (we wore the badge proudly). But when news reached us that one of the election candidates was gay, we took a time out and discussed the issue.

The Sunday Express was not a democracy – Michael Harris always made the final call on stories – but he encouraged lively debate and listened to all arguments before making a decision. On this occasion, cases were made for and against running the piece, though most of us were against it. Then Michael decreed that we would not do the story. There was no law against homosexuality at the time. Furthermore, the candidate was a brilliant person with great ideas and experience, so why should we care if that person is gay?

I listened in shock a few days later when CBC reporter Maudie Whelan put a microphone in the candidate’s face and asked, “Is it true you are gay?” The candidate replied that the question was not relevant to the campaign, but the reporter persisted, demanding confirmation or denial. The question was not dignified with an answer, but I felt sorry for the candidate.

We’ve come a long way since then. We now have federal politicians, such as Scott Brison, who are popular with their electorate despite being openly gay. In the United States, the American public and news media ridiculed Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, but seemed to learn from it as well, gradually coming to the realization that Clinton was a brilliant man despite his sexual peccadillos.

It would seem that a similar sense of maturity is evolving among the media in this province as well.

A cute little ditty from Al Clouston

2007-04-07T19:37:00.000-02:30

Back in the 1980's, while working with The Newfoundland Herald, I wrote an in-depth profile of Al Clouston, who died in 2004. In fact, I played a role in taking Al in a new career direction around that time. Al had a couple of books and albums on the market and was doing some gigs as an after-dinner entertainer. I was looking for a new humour columnist and suggested the idea to Al.

He was quite hesitant and refused, in fact. "I couldn't do a column every week," he said. "There's no way."

So I suggested that he take material from his book, re-write it into a column format, then give it to me for further editing. He agreed, rather reluctantly, but it worked exceptionally well. Al quickly developed a wider fan base, and soon came into his own as a writer, providing fresh columns written from scratch. It was inspiring watching this man, who was in his seventies at the time, take his career in a fun new direction.

During that interview for the Herald profile, Al told me a great little story that originated through his previous career experience selling insurance. He insisted it was true.

I do not know the date, but it happened when wire messages were the standard mode of communication.

On this day, a message was received at an insurance office in downtown St. John's. It was from a merchant around the bay, and it said:

"Urgent. Fish plant is on fire. Need insurance immediately. Stop."

The insurance people scratched their heads, then prepared to reply with the unfortunate news that insurance didn't work that way. But before they had an opportunity to send it, another wire message arrived:

"Further to previous. Fire is now out. Please cancel insurance. Stop."

Nelson Hart confession tape to air on CBC TV

2007-04-06T17:06:00.000-02:30

On March 25, I told you why TV viewers didn’t get to see the crucial confession tape at the Nelson Hart trial. There’s been a major development in that story, and the videotape is being released exclusively to CBC Here & Now. It will air Tuesday, April 10.

“We had to go to court to get it,” said CBC national reporter Peter Gullage, who did a superb job in covering this story. “There was a point where we thought it was going to be released, and then it wasn’t going to be released… so we had to appear before the judge in Gander on Monday, and then it took all week to get it. The RCMP had to digitize the undercover officers and alter their voices before it could be released.”

The agreement to release the tape was negotiated between the CBC lawyer and the judge, so Here & Now has the exclusive.

There are more than two hours of tape relevant to the confession – the incriminating scene on the wharf at Gander Lake is 15 minutes alone – so TV viewers will not see all of it. They will, however, see the most relevant and damning clips. Gullage says the tape is “quite something” to watch.

“People will find it creepy,” he said. “I mean, you watch movies and TV shows and they are catching bad guys all the time. And that’s entertainment. But this is the real stuff.”

Gullage is not certain, however, if it will influence public opinion about Hart’s guilt.

“Some people have decided (that Hart is guilty) and it will confirm everything they believe. Everybody else who is on the fence about the case, people on the other side, who believe his defence – that it was a false confession – will they be swayed by it? I don’t know… What he says and the way he says it is so convincing that it might change some people’s minds.”

Gullage also conducted a lengthy interview with Hart last week, at Her Majesty’s Penitentiary, in which Hart continued to profess his innocence. “What I find amazing about the whole thing is the guy doesn’t feel he was responsible for any of it. He doesn’t see it as his responsibility. When he said that to me, I could not believe it.”

I expect there will be a lot of viewers tuning in next Tuesday. If you are one of the many visitors to this blog from outside the province, you can watch that (or any) edition of Here & Now soon after it airs by going to the CBC web site and clicking on Latest Newscast. It will remain online until it is replaced by the next day’s newscast, 24 hours later.

I was going to post a photo of Nelson Hart to accompany this item, but decided to use an image of young Karen and Krista instead. They, more than their father, deserve to be remembered as the central characters in this terrible story.

A failing grade for math program changes

2007-04-05T07:45:00.000-02:30

As a parent of two children in the school system, I listened with great interest yesterday to Education Minister Joan Burke's plan to improve the provincial math curriculum. The province is going to spend $11 million in a pointless attempt to fix the curriculum, rather than scrap it altogether. This is a major mistake, and I can say this based on personal experience with my own children, and from talking to teachers and parents at school. The program puts too much emphasis on problem solving while giving short shrift to learning basic fundamentals.

Education Minister Joan Burke (above, CBC photo) admits there are problems and flaws with the curriculum, but says it can be fixed by hiring 25 specialists to help teachers better understand it.

In this CBC story, university professor Sherry Mantyka - who has closely studied math performance - said the government is making the wrong decision.

"This curriculum, in its design, is fundamentally flawed," she told CBC News. "There's no amount of teacher professional development that's going to correct that."

As one who has pulled his hair out, trying to help his child figure out complex problems before that child has even learned his mathematical tables (as one example), I agree wholeheartedly with Mantyka. Even teachers have quietly confided, over the last several years, that the curriculum is fatally flawed.

Burke, of course, has a phalanx of education experts advising her that the parents are wrong, the teachers aren't properly trained and the solution is to dig the hole deeper. It makes you wonder who is actually running the department...

Greg Locke follows human tide to Alberta

2007-04-04T11:53:00.000-02:30

Talented and renowned photo-journalist Greg Locke is leaving the province, according to an email he sent out this morning. Locke has accepted a job offer in Alberta, and will start a personal documentary project about the people and events he encounters on his journey. Here's the text of Greg's note:

"The economy, employment and business environment in Newfoundland is so bad that it is foolish to try and carry on a business here... but you all knew that.

"With the end of offshore exploration and Hebron not proceeding many of my major clients have left town and there is simply not enough local work to make a living. So, I'll be joining them and the rest of the economic refugees from Newfoundland and heading west.

"I've been offered a job in Alberta and always being one to exploit any opportunity to the last drop I have piggybacked a personal documentary project on this adventure. One that started last year in Fort McMurray.

"The blog portion of my website will cease to be News from Newfoundland and will become an ongoing documentary carrying the stories and pictures of the expat Newfoundlanders I meet along the way as I cross Canada and travel the west with my new job.

"See you on the road.

"Greg Locke

"...somewhere along the TCH West."

You can read a more thorough farewell from Greg by clicking here.

Recognizing quality journalism

2007-04-02T15:16:00.000-02:30

Did anyone hear CBC Radio Noon today? Much of it was themed around the Zachary Turner murder case, opening with a riveting interview with Elliot Leyton, who was on the committee appointed by the Child and Youth Advocate to investigate how the murder of little Zachary was permitted to happen. Leyton laid it on the line and was not shy about apportioning blame. That was followed by the Crosstalk call-in show, with David Bagby as special guest. Bagby spoke about his new book, "Dance With the Devil" (the devil being Dr. Shirley Turner). You can truly hear Bagby's anger when he talks about this case - anger that simmers close to the surface even now. It was difficut to listen to this program without having your emotions yanked from anger to grief to compassion to outright shock... such as when Bagby said that his only regret is not killing Shirley Turner while he had the chance. You don't hear radio like this every day, and I congratulate Anne Budgell and the crew on putting together such an unforgettable show. (You can hear it by going to the CBC Radio Noon archive.)

While on the the tragic story of Zachary Turner, congratulations are also in order for Chris O'Neill Yates of CBC Here & Now, who is nominated for an Atlantic Journalism Award for her continuing coverage of the Turner case. Chris's coverage of this story was indeed probing and relentless (in a good kind of way) and I congratulate her on the nomination. Incidentally, Chris is also nominated for an award in the Enterprise category for her stories on the Dr. Chandra case.

There are numerous other nominations for local journalists, including Dennis Mulloy, VOCM (spot news); CBC Radio newsroom (spot news); Glenn Payette, Here & Now (spot news); Pam Pardy-Ghent, The Independent (feature writing); Susan Rendell, The Independent (feature writing); Chris Brookes and the rest of Battery Radio (feature writing, radio); David Cochrane, Here & Now (feature writing, television); Rob Antle, Saltscapes (profile writing); Deanne Fleet, Here & Now (sports reporting); Angela Antle, CBC Radio (arts reporting); and Ryan Cleary, The Independent (commentary).

Congratulations to all, and good luck at the awards ceremony, which takes place May 12 in Halifax. To read the full release, click here.

Ken Meeker and his adventures at the front

2007-04-02T09:25:00.000-02:30

I was but a youngster when the anti-seal hunt movement got its start, but my Dad, Ken Meeker, was in full career flight and covering the story as a reporter with CBC Here & Now. He is and will always be Dad, but for now I will call him Ken. Knowing that he is always good for a story – and having already heard some good ones over the supper table – I interviewed Ken about the seal hunt.

He went to the front twice, in 1977 and ’78, when St. Anthony was alive with crowds of protesters, fishermen, DFO types, police, media and a few movie stars as well. He was there when Brigit Bardot showed up, propelling the seal hunt to international headlines, but didn’t see a lot of the French bombshell.

“I saw her when she arrived in St. Anthony, but never got too close to her. They snuck her up to the ice on their own helicopters and had her picture taken with a seal, then brought her back to Blanc Sablon on the Quebec side. The camera crew went over there to cover her news conference but I didn’t bother going – I was busy trying to get my film out of there and back to St. John’s.”

Ken had a closer encounter with actress Pamela Sue Martin, star of the Nancy Drew Mysteries and another famous protester to visit the front. He interviewed the starlet one particularly cold day.

“We were interviewing Pamela Sue down by the waterfront and it was a bright clear day but very cold. I was shooting my own movies of her, and got my footage of sound man Kevin Hanlon blushing as he reached up underneath her sweater to put the microphone on! I always carried these two little airline bottles of rum in my parka pocket. It got me out of jams and came in useful many times. Pamela Sue was obviously very cold so, after the interview was over, I pulled out the little bottle and asked if she would like a drink. She said ‘Oh yes, would I!’ and I got a shot of her sipping down the little airline bottle of rum. She drank it straight.”

These days, such footage would have been a big part of the story. But tabloid TV didn’t exist back then, and Ken was too courteous to use the footage on the air.

But Ken’s most interesting celebrity encounter happened that same year, with two American congressmen – Leo Ryan and James Jeffords – who were in St. Anthony to observe the hunt.

“They arrived in the late afternoon,” Ken said. “I had sent the camera man out to get their arrival on film, and when he came back he said they were beat out. They had been on four different flights just to get there from where they started. When they got to the motel, whatever room they had booked wasn’t ready and I just happened to be walking through the lobby, so I said ‘Hey guys, my room is right there and I’m going down to get supper now, so go in and get yourselves settled down, get sorted out and there’s a bottle of Bacardi on the table, and when your room is ready, fine.’ They said thanks very much and went in. They were still there when I got back after supper. Their room still wasn’t ready for them because the place was really blocked off. So I went in and spent some time talking with them, and they knocked off three quarters of the bottle of Bacardi. Jackie Spiers was there, his Executive Assistant, and she promised to replace the bottle – but they never did.”

Just a few months later, congressman Leo Ryan was in Jonestown, Guyana to investigate Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple religious cult. Ryan’s visit was likely the spark that caused Jones to explode and order the mass suicide and murder of 913 people. Leo Ryan was shot and killed while trying to board his airplane. Jackie Spiers was also shot, but survived by ‘playing dead’.

The protesters were well known for their propaganda, Ken said, but the folks at Fisheries and Oceans were also capable of stretching the truth a little.

“The DFO people told us that as soon as you approach these seals, the mothers would abandon their pups and go down through a hole in the ice. They let us go out on the ice a day before the hunt opened, and I had my camera with me. There was a little seal pup and we were shooting film of this great big mother harp seal. But on the way out there in the helicopter, it was so damn cold and my hands so numb that I dropped the camera on the floor and screwed up my vewfinder. So I could just see shapes but no detail. I was down on my knees shooting this mother harp seal and all of a sudden the guys started yelling ‘Meeker look out’ and here she was coming straight at me. And I got it on film, for a few seconds, before I got the hell out of there. She was huge and she was coming after me. Discretion was the better part of being a good cameraman, believe me!”

One of the most memorable encounters between sealers and protesters happened at the Loon Motel, where protest leader Brian Davies was stationed with a small squadron of helicopters.

“On this day, about 50 or 60 fishermen tried to block Brian Davies from getting to his helicopters. In fact, a couple of them threw snowballs at Davies on the way out. The Mounties were there, and so were two of the American networks, as well as the French, German and other networks. Two Mounties would grab one fishermen and carry him off. The Mounties were mostly from local detachments and knew each other, so when they carried them away they were talking to each other in a friendly way. And the Americans were shaking their heads. Later on, the Americans were telling me that they were waiting for the blood to be spilled. In the States, they said, the truncheons would have been out.”

This blog gives me a great excuse to call my dad at random and get him reminiscing about major stories he has covered, and the people he has interviewed. Stay tuned for more. And if you’d like to watch some fascinating footage from that same Pamela Sue Martin and Leo Ryan trip, visit the CBC archive.

Scott Feschuk on Williams' equalization battle

2007-04-01T11:24:00.000-02:30

God, I love this. Have you seen Macleans columnist Scott Feschuk’s take (in his blog) on Premier Williams and the equalization controversy? It is so funny. Even diehard Williams supporters are going to laugh out loud. Heck, Danny himself will grin at this. Get into an April 1st frame of mind and go check it out. But be warned that Feschuk is a humourist first, and everything else second. It also helps if you appreciate the truly wacky stuff like Monty Python, Codco and Stephen Harper’s pyjamas. Before following the link, read this generic sample to see if you can tolerate Feschuk’s brand of inspired lunacy:

‘Burger King, the world’s second-largest hamburger chain, says it will begin buying eggs and pork from suppliers that do not confine their animals in cages and crates. Animal-welfare advocates are describing it as an “historic advance” and “important trigger for reform,” while animals are describing it as “oink” and “cluck”.’

Part 2: Media coverage of current events

2007-03-31T12:38:00.000-02:30

Dr. Wade Locke is an economist who has conducted considerable research into the failed Hebron project. He says the precise benefits from the development, had it proceeded, would be hard to measure, due to the various factors involved (such as oil prices) and the lack of precise information on the deal that was almost reached. But he does feel that there are consequences associated with the failure of Hebron.

“The significance of it being gone forever are different from the significance of it being delayed for a period of time,” Dr. Locke said in an interview. “If it’s delayed a year or two that has consequences but not as severe as if it’s delayed indefinitely.”

I probed Dr. Locke on a subject that he rarely discusses: public perceptions, and the role media play in shaping them. Dr. Locke agreed that the true significance of the loss of Hebron, and its potential benefits, is lost on some people. Part of the problem was timing, he said.

“The first time we rolled out anything of any significance was during the NOIA conference (of 2006). Some interesting numbers came out at that point in time. But what happened at the same time was, the spending scandal started… and the Minister of Natural Resources resigned. So (our message) got lost in the pandemonium and excitement.”

While he has no specific complaints with media coverage in the ensuing months, Dr. Locke is concerned about the level of emotion that has entered the public debate.

“The perspective that somehow we’re having somebody stand up for us because we’ve been done wrong all these years has good currency in this particular province,” he said. “The unfortunate part of this stuff is that we go on emotion, so emotion dictates how we react to stuff. If we sat back and thought about the logic or what’s the incremental benefit versus the incremental cost to these kinds of things, we might not behave in certain kinds of ways. We’re all emotional beings. Emotion is a good thing; it defines our character as people. There is nothing wrong with that. But sometimes you want to step back from emotion and say ‘Is this really what I want to be doing? Is it really in my interests to do that?” And that I think is the step that we’ve missed here.”

Locke said that the real issue is the need to create an environment that encourages growth and development in the oil and gas industry. “We want the companies here, we want success, and we want (projects) going forward… I don’t think we have that now, in part because of what happened with Hebron and the ongoing disputes between the provincial government and oil and gas sector. Those are not positive in terms of creating an environment for enhancing economic development.”

Locke said no one disputes the need to develop the industry, and that it is in the best interest of all parties – the government, oil companies and people of Newfoundland and Labrador – to make it happen. However, he says that clearer heads must prevail.

“To me, at this point in time, it’s not clear that we’ve sat down and done the calculus; for example, to figure out exactly what’s in our interest. I know we’ve done the emotional calculations. So we’re happy enough that we are standing up for our rights and all these patriotic kinds of things. I’m not sure we’ve sat down and done the real economic calculations to find out what’s in our interest. That to me is unfortunate… So I think it may not be fully appreciated, the significance or the consequence of our particular position on oil and gas. And that may turn out to have long term consequence for us in terms of how fast the industry progresses, and whether or not it progresses to its full potential. But that’s the unfortunate part about this stuff.”

Locke is talking specifically about Hebron, but I think the emotion to which he refers is connected intrinsically to the anger and outrage that surrounds the equalization issue. I don’t think anyone will disagree that this anger is fueled more by a collective, cumulative sense of victimhood, and less by fact and rational thought. A great number of people are spouting arguments that are red-hot with rage but cool on facts (for an extreme example, see Wallace Ryan’s comments in the Westcott speech post). I think this is cause for concern. A bit of information is good, but a lot of information is better. And cooler heads should always prevail when important decisions must be made (on equalization, Hebron and any other major issue).

Are people getting that information? As noted above, they are certainly getting some. But I do think the media have contributed, mostly in a benign way, to the near hysterical tone to which public debate has risen. (As noted, strong reporting is also happening, such as David Cochrane's Hebron anniversary piece, which you can view here.)

Firstly, I think media need to work a little harder. As I explained in an archived post, all news stories are driven by conflict (yes, there are other elements to a story, but conflict is the essential binding agent). It is easy, then, for a reporter to compile a story that contains comment from both sides – charged with rhetoric and bombast – and consider it a balanced piece. And on the surface it is.

But reporters need to think a little deeper and work a little harder; to not pull up short when they’ve bagged the hot quote. Above all, they should push more aggressively in their questioning. For example, I would like to see a story that says: “When pushed, the premier did agree that…” The keyword is pushed. If he bridges from a tough question about impacts over to the “no more giveaways” line, pull him back. Keep asking the question, even if the giveaway stuff makes for a great quote (they should use that too, of course, it being part of the story).

Secondly, reporting on the premier’s ongoing battles has been linear and narrow. Media have been diligently reporting on the day’s events in Newfoundland, Ottawa and elsewhere, repeating what was said, gathering the obligatory reaction quotes, and so on. They should also be taking time out as often as possible to explore new angles and bring in new perspectives. They could start simply by bringing more voices into the mix; seeking out feedback from the wider strata of Newfoundland and Labrador society. This would extend beyond the occasional quote from a political scientist at MUN, to include economists (such as Dr. Locke), historians, union leaders, business people, Newfoundland nationalists, students, artists and other ‘opinion leaders’ (as well as the person in the street).

For example, an intrepid reporter could start by parsing Liam O’Brien's contention (in comments section to part 1 of this post) that Stephen Harper did not lie about equalization. Liam has studied a lot of documents and is adamant about this, and has posted numerous links to support his argument. (While it may be that the promise can’t be found if you mine into speeches, policy and platform documents, I still find it difficult to get past the ‘No small print. No excuses. No caps.’ line. Still, Liam’s position warrants closer scrutiny. If my emotional reaction to that line is actually unfounded, I want to know this.)

Finally, there are a number of soft and hard nationalists among the local media community, just as there are among the general public. They have every right to their opinion, but I would hope that this bias does not creep into the editorial decision-making process. We, the public, can’t make good decisions unless the information is presented fully and without bias.

UPDATE: An editorial in today's Telegram (Saturday) attempts to explain the equalization issue in simple terms and still finds Harper guilty of deception. I congratulate the paper on taking this initiative, and wonder what Liam O'Brien thinks of its conclusions.

Part 1: Media coverage of current events

2007-03-30T13:17:00.000-02:30

This province stands at a pivotal point in its history. Critical decisions are being made and actions taken by the provincial government that will have repercussions for generations to come. And the news media often fail to bring clarity to some complicated, critically important issues.

I am talking, of course, about the direction that Premier Danny Williams is taking this province. Is he leading us to the promised land… or toward disaster?

Premier Williams has approval ratings in the stratosphere. But how aware is the public about the many issues that are on the table? Is their approval fueled more by emotion than rational thought? Is the media bringing clarity to complex issues? Are they connecting the dots and showing the cause and effect between various issues?

Yes, there is some good work happening right now. Last night’s political panel on CBC Here & Now was the most enlightening and honest discussion about current events that I have seen in many months. Mike Rossiter of CBC Radio News has also been doing some good work, as has Jeff Gilhooly of the CBC Radio Morning Show. Moira Baird and Rob Antle of The Telegram have also been filing solid stories. (There are no doubt others – I may have missed some things too.)

However, an astonishing amount of coverage and commentary is still obsessing over whether or not Prime Minister Harper lied, and tracking the obvious fall-out.

It is abundantly clear to even the most passive observer that Harper deceived us. This has been demonstrated and proven beyond a doubt. And the denials from Harper, Flaherty, Hearn and Manning have been too cute by half. A lie is a lie.

More to the point, an election promise was broken; a first, I am sure, in the history of politics in this country and province.

But we haven’t gotten past the anger. The real question is, what do we do now? The media are reporting diligently on the Premier’s national ad campaign, but not pushing him on strategy.

For example: What do we hope to achieve through revenge, by turfing out the three provincial Conservatives in the next election? What if Harper wins a majority? Will he take vengeance by vetoing Marystown’s chances to win a major naval supply ship contract? What about federal loan guarantees on the Lower Churchill? How about these other provincial plans, which are all contingent on federal provincial cooperation? There is certainly an air of foreboding in this story. What we have here, according to David Cochrane from last night’s Political Panel, is “a complete detonation of federal/provincial relations.”

Should the media be content collecting saliva on their microphones, or should they be digging deeper and really pushing on these critically important questions?

The media could also be doing a better job connecting the dots between various issues; to put things in context and help us understand the confluence of events that have brought us to where we are today.

One example: There was much wringing of hands in the media about the people who stood in their thousands last November, outside the Capital Hotel, looking for work in western Canada. But I don’t think any media outlet made the connection between that spectacle and the failure of the Hebron negotiations. Yet, that is why most people were there that day.

Another example: Premier Williams' most frequent response, when pushed on issues of economic impact, is to bridge to a different answer: “There will be no more giveaways.” Most of the time, the media accepts that answer and rolls over to the next question.

Well, here’s the thing. The Hebron project was not a giveaway. It was, in fact, a tremendously good deal no matter how you look at it. Had it proceeded, we would not be worrying today about sheltering our transfer payments from our earned income. The day would be fast approaching when we could stand on our own bloody feet and say to hell with handouts from Canada.

The full details of the tentative deal were not released publicly, but we do know that Hebron would have been worth about $10 billion in royalties and taxes to provincial coffers, at an oil price of $50 per barrel. We know that prices will likely average higher, thus increasing provincial revenue by another billion or two. And this doesn’t include the $5 billion investment in construction and $6 billion to drill the development wells, which would have created thousands of jobs, stimulated business growth and sustained industry momentum. This in turn would fuel further exploration and possible new discoveries.

Had it proceeded, Hebron would have given us the capacity to pay down – totally eliminate – our provincial debt of $12 billion, the highest per capita debt in the country. Provincial budgets would no longer be saddled with those enormous debt servicing charges. Think about that: a single project would have made us a ‘have’ province.

How many people are aware of this? How many reporters are even aware of this? I don’t expect media to be cheerleaders for Premier Williams or the oil companies. But I would like to see them dig a little deeper, ask tough questions and insist on real answers.

There is a lot of heat right now, but very little light.

And there is so much at stake...

Coming soon, part 2: An economist’s viewpoint.

Westcott's speech draws record traffic

2007-03-30T07:26:00.000-02:30

Yesterday's post of the full text of Craig Westcott's speech to NOIA has drawn record traffic to this site. Thanks to Liam O'Brien, Craig Welsh, Ed Hollett, John Gushue, Mark Watton, Simon Lono and the others who linked to this site. The post also drew considerable attention from the mainland, including a link from Paul Wells of Macleans magazine. More than 1,100 unique visitors have stopped by since 3:00 pm Thursday, which is much, much more than usual. As of 7:00 am this morning, there are more than 400 unique visitors, which doubles my usual daily traffic. I hope some of you come back! I am working on a new item, in which a prominent local economist weighs in on the lost opportunities of Hebron, and offers an interesting view about the public's grasp of this issue.

Oh, and if you posted a comment below and are wondering why it was deleted, it's because anonymous entries are not permitted. Please sign your name to your comments.

Weighing the cost of lost opportunities

2007-03-29T14:31:00.000-02:30

Craig Westcott, owner and editor of The Business Post, loves to raise a little hell. A former reporter with The Sunday Express, The Telegram and CBC Radio news, and a former managing editor of The Newfoundland Herald, Westcott is one of the province's best known - and most controversial - media personalities. His weekly commentaries on the CBC Radio Morning Show (every Monday) always stimulate discussion and feedback from callers. But Craig is not provocative for its own sake; his opinions, contentious though they may be, are always carefully considered and difficult to dismiss. He is one of the few journalists in the province to openly challenge the confrontational style of Premier Danny Williams. Westcott was the keynote speaker at a NOIA luncheon today, at the Delta. He has kindly agreed to make the complete text of his speech available here.

Weighing the Cost of Lost Opportunities
Luncheon Address by Craig Westcott
To the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Ocean
March 29, St. John's

Thank you to the NOIA committee for inviting me here today.

When Harry Pride and the other NOIA committee members asked for a title to today's speech, I blurted out the first thing that came to mind: Weighing the cost of lost opportunities.

I could have subtitled it: 'Stuck in the middle with you.'

As Jeff noted in his introduction, I publish a business newspaper called The Business Post.

I started this venture last June. On the very day in fact, when Premier Danny Williams said he was feeling "annoy-yed" by NOIA.

You'll remember he uttered those remarkable words right in the middle of the annual offshore petroleum conference.

During that same conference, the premier chose to go on province wide television to announce he was firing his minister of Natural Resources, Ed Byrne.

He actually scheduled his press conference so that it would be carried live on the supper hour news.

Given the circumstances of Byrne's constituency allowances, we all know now that he had to step aside.

But you've got to wonder about the timing.

During that same convention last year, it seemed to me, in covering it, that Williams did his best to avoid attending any of the functions.

I think he actually showed up at one.

Here was the world's oil industry in town to talk about our oil and gas prospects, the very resources that are driving the economy and giving our government the kind of revenues and balanced budgets we haven't seen in years, and the premier stayed home.

Well actually it was worse than that.

He didn't just snub the industry.

He insulted the people in it, particularly the members of NOIA.

Just before that, at the OTC, Williams had done the same thing.

This was just after the breakdown in talks over Hebron.

If there was ever a time when we needed our top guy at the world's biggest oil show working the rooms and making our case, that was it.

But Williams stayed home.

Even during some of the lowest years for the oil industry in Newfoundland, the premier of the day usually went to Houston for the OTC. Because that's where relationships are made and business gets done.

We're getting ready now for NOIA's 2007 offshore conference here in St. John's.

And we already know that this coming one is going to be missing a major element.

Earlier this week, DMG Media announced it was pulling the plug on the annual international trade show that accompanies the offshore conference.

For the first time in nearly two decades, there will be no trade show during the conference.

I'm told that many companies, from the operators down to many of the local suppliers, didn't think it was worth their while to allocate money and staff to a booth.

The work just isn't here to justify it.

How's that for illustrating the title of today's talk. Weighing the cost of lost opportunities.

Like many of you in this room, I too am dependent on the local oil industry for my living.

I've published 14 issues so far of The Business Post.

One of the very best ones, revenue wise, was number eight, which was distributed to every business in this region just before Christmas.

It was our first Top 50 issue.

A look at the Top 50 players in our oil patch.

People who have invested their money, and their time and their energy, their precious life energy, into building a new industry for Newfoundland.

An industry that pays better than average salaries.

An industry that provides government with better than average revenues to pave roads, and fix schools and buy equipment for hospitals.

An industry that means a bright future for thousands of young Newfoundlanders who want the choice of staying at home for work instead of having to leave their parents and friends to move away.

And not just young Newfoundlanders. But people my age and older too, who find themselves commuting to Alberta, or moving North for work in increasing numbers, now that Danny Williams has all but killed the near and medium term prospects of this industry.

Where did it all go wrong?

Before I try to answer that, let me make one thing clear.

I am not aligned with any particular party.

Over the years, I've voted for all of them at one time or another.

I even published a short-lived, official PC Party newspaper when Loyola Sullivan was leader.

So what I'm about to say is not partisan and it's not meant to be personal or negative towards Danny Williams.

But it's impossible to avoid being negative about a leader who is so negative himself, especially about his critics and some of the people who try to do business in this province.

Getting back to where things went wrong, I would argue that it all started nearly four years ago with the election of a new government.

Those of us who live here will remember that four years ago, the consortium of oil companies that have the development rights to Hebron were just getting ready to tee-up Newfoundland's fourth big oil project.

This was two years after 9-11 in the 'States.

The Americans were at war.

Oil prices were inflating as a result of all the growing risk in the world.

The United States government itself was looking for more secure energy supplies.

The time was never better to start a new oil project offshore Newfoundland.

Then Danny Williams came to office.

He was full of dreams to make Newfoundland prosperous and to, as he put it, "end the giveaways."

Laudable goals.

Then last spring, after months of negotiation, Williams called reporters together to say there would be no deal on Hebron.

Only one side was negotiating in good faith, said the premier.

And that was the government.

For their part, the consortium maintained that never before had a group of oil companies offered as valuable a package of revenues and benefits to Newfoundland for the privilege of developing one of its oil fields.

Clearly, there was a communication breakdown between the two parties.

They couldn't even agree on what they had disagreed about.

Stuck in the middle were the rest of us. Many of whom had spent thousands and in some cases millions of dollars and precious time getting ready to bid for work on Hebron.

To this day, neither the premier, nor the oil companies, have revealed exactly what happened during those talks.

But what happened afterwards is plain to see.

The premier has made a campaign of attacking what he calls, "Big Oil."

Big Oil is out to get us, if you believe Danny Williams. To take advantage of us, to put one over on us like Hydro Quebec did at Churchill Falls.

If you believe Danny Williams, Big Oil is the Bogeyman hiding under our beds, waiting for us to fall asleep, so that it can sneak out on the Grand Banks and rob all the oil.

Now I'm no expert on high stakes negotiations.

But it seems to me, a common principle of business, whether you're selling hot dogs out of a cart on George Street or trying to get a major oil company to develop your resources, is that you treat your prospective partners and customers with respect.

It's not uncommon for negotiations to fail.

Negotiations often fail.

A good deal, as we all know, should be a win-win situation for everybody.

Sometimes that's not always possible.

But when you don't reach a deal, how wise it is to publicly vilify the people you were negotiating with?

It would be like me going into Hickman Motors or Penny Mazda and after looking at all the cars and haggling over the prices, deciding not to buy. For the moment.

I say for the moment, because at some point, I'm going to have to get a new car.

So how sensible would it be for Bert Hickman or Dan Penney to call a news conference and say, 'We couldn't reach a deal with that guy Westcott. He was negotiating in bad faith. He didn't want to pay a fair price for our car. But we decided there would be no more giveaways."

What are the chances of me returning to either one of those car lots if something like that happened? Is that the way to do business?

We all know what's happened since then.

Chevron, the lead operator on Hebron, has all but pulled out of Newfoundland.

ExxonMobil, one of the other partners, has shuffled its checklist of projects, tucking Hebron/Ben Nevis back to 2010 or 2011 before it gets another look.

Hibernia South is on hold.

Even worse, grassroots exploration is at a near standstill.

We need millions of dollars worth of seismic work and exploration drilling every year to find the next big oil field, but we're getting diddly.

It looks like Big Oil has given up on Newfoundland, at least for the time
being.

It appears the oil companies, which have projects all around the world they can chase and advance, are content to wait Williams out.

And if you look at our recent past history, that may seem like it makes sense.

Most premiers don't last all that long.

Brian Tobin lasted four years. Roger Grimes two. Even Clyde Wells, the man of iron will who stared down the country over Meech Lake lasted just over six years.

Most premiers don't last very long. The job burns you out.

But Danny Williams isn't like most premiers.

I've covered politics in this province for 20 years.

I was in the boardroom on the eighth floor of Confederation Building when an exhausted and frazzled Brian Peckford was on the verge of getting out.

I covered Clyde Wells during the hydro debate and the fight over Meech Lake.

I had the pleasure of watching Brian Tobin run to a waiting car to get away from me so that he couldn't face any more questions.

All those guys liked power, but power wore them out.

Danny Williams is a different kettle of fish.

Danny Williams loves power.

He lives for it. He revels in it. He likes to show everyone he's the boss.

All those other premiers I mentioned had their brown nosers and their sycophants.

It was comical after Clyde Wells came to power, how many of his cabinet members waltzed around using the word unconscionable, which was Clyde's favourite phase.

When Tobin was in office, his people were always busy "ramping up" for great things that were going to happen "at the end of the day."

The brown nosers have a way of taking on their leader's mannerisms and pet phrases.

And so it is with this crowd.

Everybody in the PC Party today is "drilling down."

I don't know where they are drilling towards exactly, but I think a lot of the time it's towards the latest phone to call VOCM Open Line.

The Minister of Business, Kevin O'Brien, and the Member for Terra Nova, Paul Oram, seem to have been assigned to monitor the open line shows religiously and to call up whenever anyone utters a bad word about the premier.

Maybe that's what drilling down means.

But you know, most good leaders are sensible enough to know that along with the flatterers and opportunists who inevitably jump onto their coat-tails, they need other leaders with them to share the load.

People who are not afraid to argue a point, or tell them things they don't want to hear.

Frank Moores had John Crosbie.

Brian Peckford had Bill Marshall.

Clyde Wells went and recruited Ed Roberts back from private life and drafted him into his cabinet as an un-elected minister, because he knew the value of wise counsel.

What has Danny Williams done?

He's done just the opposite.

Anyone who is as strong or as smart as he is has been isolated, or forced out.

He expelled Elizabeth Marshall from his cabinet three years ago because she had the audacity to object when he interfered in her department without telling her.

The woman had been Auditor General of this province for 10 years.

She was a deputy minister before that. And a chartered accountant. Nobody in his caucus is more respected, or knows government better.

But none of that matters, because she stood up to Danny Williams and now he won't have anything to do with her.

It's been three years since their spat and she is still on the backbenches.

Most of us know that Loyola Sullivan was a pretty bright fellow.

If you believe the inside accounts of what happened during the Atlantic Accord negotiations, it's clear it was Sullivan who presented the key arguments and had all his facts and numbers in line.

Yet, when Sullivan resigned as finance minister at the end of last year he got absolutely no credit for it from Danny Williams.

'Loyola was a good minister,' Williams told reporters. 'When I was negotiating the Atlantic Accord, he always did what I told him.'

Folks, Danny Williams loves power.

He feeds on it.

He's addicted to it.

And like most people who love power that much, he'll do anything to keep it.

And do you know what the really scary thing is?

He has a lot of people fooled.

He loves their adulation, whether it's deserved or not.

The fishery is dying.

The forestry industry is struggling.

Rural Newfoundland is shrinking by the day.

And he's all but killed the economy's real breadwinner, the oil industry.

And what is Danny Williams doing this week?

He's campaigning against the Prime Minister in a federal election that hasn't even been called yet.

And why?

Because he's got people fooled into thinking that he is fighting for them.

He lives to hear himself praised.

I suspect he listens to the open line as much as Kevin O'Brien does.

I know he follows what people are saying about him on the blogs. He has even threatened to sue some of them!

He's making time for that apparently, during his busy day.

Danny Williams is another Joey Smallwood.

Whenever things were going terrible for Joey on the home front, when the factories he imported weren't working, or some minister was involved in a scandal, Joey would look for an enemy from the outside.

Like island populations everywhere, Newfoundlanders rally when they perceive a threat from the outside.

For Joey it was John Diefenbaker or H. Landon Ladd of the I-W-A.

For Danny it's Big Oil and Abitibi and Stephen Harper and whoever else happens to stand up to him.

Nothing is being done at home to develop this economy, because Danny has all guns now trained on Ottawa.

I'm too young to have been in business when Joey Smallwood was premier.

But I am told by people who know and whom I respect, that Joey was a vindictive man.

That you had to be a friend of Joey to get a contract with government, or even to get a job in the civil service.

You had to be Joey approved.

Well, it's been 36 years since Joey left office.

We've had reforms such as the Public Tendering Act, implemented, directly as an effort to rectify those kind of abuses.

But if you ask me, Joey is back in power.

I happen to coach two minor hockey teams.

So I spend a lot of time in hockey rinks throughout this region.

I spoke with a man one day, a consultant, I won't say who, because I don't want the wrath of the premier coming down on him.

But he said to me that that people in his business are growing increasingly nervous about bidding on government work.

There is a real fear that things might reach the point where you could spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours preparing a bid on a government job that might all be in vain if you are deemed unfriendly to Danny.

People are afraid that the quality of their work, or the price they submit may not count when they look for business with government.

Some people are genuinely afraid that the real deciding factor might soon be whether they are seen to be a friend or foe of Danny.

You see, with politicians like Danny Williams, you're one of two things: You are a friend, or you are an enemy.

He doesn't allow you the luxury of being independent or unaligned.

I know this from personal experience.

As I've said, I've been covering politics in Newfoundland for 20 years.

I've covered seven premiers.

I've written things about Roger Grimes, for instance, that were truly hurtful.

No doubt I made him angry.

No doubt, like other pundits, I wounded his pride.

But he was always professional.

Danny Williams isn't.

Danny Williams can't take criticism.

A week after I wrote a column about his handling of the F-P-I debate in the provincial legislature, his press secretary informed me that I was being cut off from all future interviews with the premier.

She said I was unfairly critical. That I should have checked with the premier before running my column.

She has since phoned a number of the publications I write for to tell them the premier's office has nothing to do with me.

Telling them, in other words, you shouldn't do business with this guy, if you want to continue to have access to the premier.

Likewise, the business I started last June.

The Business Post is mailed to every business on the Northeast Avalon.

Every issue, I pay Canada Post to mail a copy of the paper to every business in St. John's, Mount Pearl, Conception Bay South, Paradise, Torbay, Portugal Cove-St. Philips and the Goulds.

The paper is distributed at most major business events in the city as well as at trade shows in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and this coming May in Houston.

In other words, The Business Post is hitting the target audience of anyone who wants to reach a business clientele.

And yet, the paper has not received one ad, not one ad, from the provincial Department of Business, or the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

And it's not from lack of asking.

These two departments advertise their business funding and assistance programs all the time in other publications.

But they won't advertise with me.

Why?

Because I have dared to criticize the Great Leader.

Under the regime of Danny Williams, you pay a price for being independent.

And it doesn't matter if you're as big as ExxonMobil or Bell Aliant, or as
small as the local media outlet.

You've got to watch your Ps and Qs, stroke his ego, be careful that you don't go afoul of the premier.

Folks, that's not democracy. That's dictatorship.

Why would anyone, whether it's an oil company or anyone else want to invest in this province if the ground rules are everything has to please Danny Williams?

That you've got to do everything his way.

Where anyone who holds a different view is deemed to be unpatriotic or out to get Newfoundland?

How can you do business fairly and safely in a place like that?

And so I ask you, what is the cost of all this fighting with Ottawa and big business?

What is the cost to Newfoundland?

To the people who need a prosperous economy to pay for their roads, and schools and hospitals?

Who need productive companies and employers, so that their children can find work at home?

What is the cost to you, the business leaders of this province, who watch as the oil companies close their offices and pull out of town leaving you behind with all your investments and hard work going down the drain?

What is that cost?

It is the cost of lost opportunity.

It is the cost of a resource-rich province that will forever be dependent upon hand-outs from Ottawa, because the man who leads us is unable to negotiate, or take sensible advice.

It is the cost of lost hope, cast in the eyes of every father who kisses his little boy goodbye at St. John's Airport as he boards the plane for Alberta.

That is the cost.

What we have to ask ourselves is, is that a cost worth paying?

I say it is not.

And if it is not, what do we do about it?

Well, the first thing we have to do is try putting this guy in his place.

Because Danny Williams is not going away.

Trying to wait him out is not an option.

Not when he is at 74 per cent in the polls and is addicted to power.

Even when the public does wake up years from now and realizes what he has done to them, he still won't go easily.

He pretends now and then that he's fed up and ready to leave.

But that's just to get people's pity.

No, like Joey Smallwood, Danny Williams is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming from office.

He'll be digging his fingernails into the desk trying to hold on.

For a man like that, power is everything.

So it falls to us to somehow circumscribe that power.

To limit it, to blunt it, to lessen the damage of his reign.

I'm not telling you to vote or campaign against him, or to fund other political parties.

But I think you shouldn't be afraid of telling Williams how you feel about the job he is doing so far.

Neither should you hold back from letting the clique of yes men around him know how you feel.

Most of all though, you have to educate your friends and neighbours. The people who think Danny can do no wrong.

Let them know what he is doing to your business and your industry.

Tell him how their future is threatened, because of this guy's inability to put his province ahead of his own ego.

And let me add one thing.

You also have a duty to talk to Big Oil.

To let the leaders of the oil companies know that you care about this industry.

And that they should care about it too.

That Newfoundland is a good place to do business.

That their future prosperity depends in part on developing high class fields like Hibernia and Terra Nova and White Rose, in what is perhaps the safest place in the world.

Unfortunately, Big Oil often makes it really hard for people to like them.

Because when they put projects like Hibernia South on hold, and do things like challenging the Supreme Court ruling on how much they should spend here on R & D, they're not punishing Danny Williams.

They're punishing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And it's the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who give Danny Williams his power.

So what Big Oil should be doing is making its case directly to them.

Telling its side of things.

Showing Newfoundlanders that they value our resources.

And if Big Oil does that. And if you do your part to educate your fellow Newfoundlanders, maybe we can get things back on track.

Maybe Newfoundlanders will look twice at Danny Williams.

And nothing is scarier to a man who is obsessed with power than an electorate that thinks for itself.

And that, my friends, is an opportunity that is too good to pass up.

Thank you.

What do reporters think of the 'media table'?

2007-03-28T08:45:00.000-02:30

If you attend a lot of business luncheons and conferences, I'm sure you've seen it.

If you're a journalist, you've been told to sit there.

I'm talking about the Media Table; the half-empty stall in the corner where a cluster of journalists do their best to make small talk, having sat in the same company on numerous previous occasions. Heck, they may have just spent the morning together, at a news conference.

There may be some wisdom in segregating media to a table of their own. If there is, I’d like to hear it. Because I think it’s a mistake to do so.

Last year, I handled media relations for a conference of local business leaders. I had confirmation from two or three reporters, so, when the organizers asked how many would be sitting at the media table, I told them none. They were surprised when I said there wouldn’t be a media table, and that reporters would sit with the rest of the guests.

The reason? First, I think reporters are bored of seeing so much of each other. It’s also awkward when there is an unpleasant vibe between competing outlets and/or individual personalities.

Second, I think it’s healthy for reporters to mix with the rest of humanity. They hear what other people are saying about the issues and may even get some decent story ideas.

Third, I think the invited guests also welcome the opportunity to meet reporters, who have a higher public profile and thus a certain air of ‘celebrity’. Many people would be eager to bend the ear of a reporter with their opinions and story ideas, if given the opportunity.

The only potential downside, of course, is the chance that an off-the-cuff remark or revelation could end up on the evening’s news. To mitigate this, you need to make sure everyone at the table knows a reporter is present (most reporters are quick to introduce themselves for this reason).

At the conference referenced above, I actually sat with one of the media people, the editor of a local magazine. One of the conference presenters joined us, and the conversation was animated and interesting. The editor contributed extensively to the discussion, and took away a great deal as well.

Several weeks later, the many threads of that discussion formed the fabric of the Editor’s column at the front of the magazine. And a good column it was! That wouldn’t have happened if media had been consigned to a lonely table at the back of the room.

What do other reporters think about this? Do you prefer to gather at the media table, or would you rather blend into the crowd and sit where you please? If you have an opinion, please post a comment.

Most frequent search subject: Father Wayne Dohey

2007-03-28T08:30:00.000-02:30

I have a visitor counter on this page which offers information about visiting traffic. Especially useful is the “Referring URL” feature, which tells me what site visitors came from before visiting mine. If they found this blog through a search engine, I can actually click on the subject of their search and the results it generated. For quite a while, the most frequent search subject was David Cochrane’s speech on patriotic correctness. However, that has changed over the last two weeks. For a while, fully 30 percent of all hits to my site came from a search for ‘Father Wayne Dohey’, which brings them to my post of March 13 (‘We should think about the victim first’). Almost all have come from other points in North America, with only a few local inquiries. The number has dropped to about 20 percent now, but it is still the single most popular search subject.

This intrigues me. Why would so many people, in places as far flung as California, Texas and New York, have an interest in this story? Are they expatriate Newfoundlanders? Are they church leaders, lawyers or law enforcement officials? If you just landed here as a result of a Wayne Dohey search, please drop me a note (geoff_meeker[at]yahoo.ca) explaining your interest in the subject. I’d love to hear from you.

A candid exchange between journalists

2007-03-27T09:19:00.000-02:30

Today, an open and frank look at how journalists express themselves when one of their own is under the gun.

The following exchange is copied directly from the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) ListServ, an online bulletin board operated by the CAJ. Its purpose “is to provide a forum for Canadian journalists on issues pertaining to all facets of journalism, including: trade craft, standards, ethics, media and related issues.”

In these posts from late February, journalist Peter Evans in the UK opens a thread of discussion about criminal harassment charges against CBC reporter Paul Piggot in Labrador. Piggot is a friend of Evans, who is clearly upset with the RCMP’s prosecution of the case and CBC’s reporting of it.

Evans’ post is followed by a reply from Canadian journalist James Bell, who brings a voice of reason to the discussion.

I think Peter Evans is perhaps a little distraught at the prosecution of his friend, and is speaking in anger. I do not think the RCMP had a vendetta in their prosecution. If the RCMP went after every reporter who broke a bad story about the force, we would have seen a pattern by now. And there have been worse stories broken about the RCMP than the one referenced here. Either way, Evans’ comments are tempered nicely by Bell’s reply.

I thought twice about posting this, due to the personal nature and tone of Evans’ post. However, I think it provides a revealing, starkly honest reflection of the kind of debate that goes on among journalists (I remember having similar heated discussions with my colleagues at The Sunday Express, especially while debating coverage of the Mount Cashel scandal). Furthermore, the ListServ rules make it clear that all posts are considered part of the public record. “Keep in mind that 600 - 800 of your colleagues, publishers, students and editors - and assorted others - are reading,” the rules state. “The CAJ-L is open, public and all on the record.”

We begin with the post that started the thread:

Peter Evans wrote:
“On Friday, CBC St. John's radio and TV (Here & Now) carried stories based on releases served up by RCMP Goose Bay, announcing that a Goose Bay CBC radio reporter had been charged with criminal harassment. The reporter is a close friend of mine, as is his wife. In fact, I was in their wedding party. I'm deeply saddened by the demise of their relationship, but these things happen to us all. However, I'm furious at the actions of the Mounties and CBC staffers, actions which, in lazy concert with one another, may have ruined this reporter's career, forever damaged his family and social networks, and destroyed his personal reputation in the community. This all might have been avoided if CBC staffers had removed their heads from their navels.

“Link to CBC radio story:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/02/24/reporter-charge.html

“This story was featured prominently for several days on the CBC website, and included in their automatic email digests. It featured near the top of Here & Now's broadcast on the same day (not archived), accompanied by one of the two headshots which have recently featured on CBC's website alongside the reporter's work; naturally, they chose the haggard one that best illustrates the charges. All of these reports were essentially rewrites of RCMP PR pap, lacking craft, art, or meaning.

“(CBC's local competitor VOCM did not run the story. I'm told that the Evening Telly ran it, but it was not posted to their website.)

“What the CBC reports failed to mention is that the reporter is a notorious thorn in the side of the local constabulary. The reporter has humiliated Goose Bay RCMP several times in the last few months, most recently with typically aggressive reporting on the treatment of a female Inuit prisoner who was held naked in a cell for two days. (The reporter was later thrown into an adjoining cell – an irony that could not have been lost on the Mounties, if they have the capacity for such things.)

“Link:
http://origin.www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/01/05/lockup-mother.html

“This work resulted in the extraordinary measure that one of the small group of officers had to fly to Nain to apologize to the woman. Just one of a number of incidents involving the RCMP and this reporter's excellent, ballsy journalism.

“So how did CBC staffers at St. John's decide that this press release, concerning an award-winning employee with nearly ten years of service to Labrador and the Corp. was an issue of public interest? Was it fear that their competitors would run the press release, making the CBC look bad by omission? If so, why is the reputation of the Corporation more important than the reputation of a flesh-and-blood human being – not just any human being, but a loyal and hard-working employee?

“Have journalists fallen so deeply in love with PR hacks in yellow-striped trousers that the possibility that the RCMP might be paying particular attention to this reporter did not even cross their minds? Might it not have warranted even a passing mention to the public? Did the reporters even contact the RCMP before running it, beyond the switchboard, did they ask any questions of the RCMP's handling of this case – especially its promotion as a public matter – at all? Why did CBC not attempt to contact the reporter for an interview?

“He most certainly would have given one – and he might have alerted them to this obvious possibility.

“Did the RCMP follow its normal policy and procedures in handling this case from the beginning, or did they rise too quickly to the possibility of getting a reporter they might hold some ill-will toward? Do they send out press releases on all similar charges (nearly a full week after the charge was laid)? If they do, they must have very sore fingers.

“It is amazing that, after all we have learned in the last few years about the many ways in which the RCMP-Press relationship is animated by little acts of vengeance, exploitation, co-dependence, and sloth, that these things are still happening.

“I urge the CAJ and the Canadian Media Guild to keep an eye on this event as it develops and works itself out.

“Peter Evans, Cambridge, UK”

James Bell wrote:
“This is very sad news, Peter. I've known Paul Piggot for a long time. He's a great person and an outstanding journalist, a beacon of competence and dedication within an organization that's stuffed with mediocrities and time-servers.

“I believe, however, that you may be jumping to conclusions that are not supported by evidence. You're suggesting that CBC St. John's conspired with the RCMP to blacken the reputation of a reporter whose recent work created embarrassment for the RCMP. That's a very serious allegation.

“Criminal charges like this are usually laid because someone goes to the police to make a complaint. Once they take the complainant's statement, the police, perhaps after seeking advice from the Crown, usually have no choice but to lay a charge. In most jurisdictions it's now standard protocol for a charge to be laid automatically if the complainant is a woman seeking protection from a spousal partner. So I think it's likely that Paul's work with CBC was irrelevant to the RCMP's decision. It's likely they would have processed this charge against just about anybody, regardless of their position.

“The real question is whether the story is newsworthy.

“That's a tough call. A reporter is not a public figure in the same sense that an elected official is a public figure. But a reporter is usually well-known to the public, performs vital public functions and is supposed to conduct himself in a manner that inspires trust.

“On balance, I think CBC made the right decision. You suggest, Peter, that CBC St. John's committed a breach of ethics by reporting the charge in collusion with the RCMP. I think, though, that if they had not covered it they would have been guilty of an even greater ethical breach. And they would have created the impression that they were doing so to protect one of their own.

“I also don't think there are any relevant inferences to be drawn from the fact that VOCM did not cover the story.

“The news story is sloppy. It didn't mention Paul's employment status. Will he be suspended without pay pending the outcome of the case? Will he stay at work? The news story doesn't say. And it doesn't appear as if anyone bothered to go to the court house to dig up the information sheet for the charge, which would have listed when and where the incidents are alleged to have occurred, and other reportable information.

“So I agree with you that the news story on their web site is badly written. But bad writing is standard at CBC now, especially on their web sites. Many CBC staffers may be illiterate -- but that doesn't make them unethical.

“Remember, Peter, if Paul is not guilty, he will get a chance to defend himself against the allegations in court. If you have any concrete evidence that might suggest the RCMP are subjecting Paul to a vindictive prosecution, then I would suggest that you get in touch with Paul's lawyer ASAP...

“And if there's a trial, that's where CBC will face its biggest journalistic test...”

- end of post –

As a postscript, I emailed the regional director for CBC Newfoundland more than a week ago, trying to open a discussion on how the Piggot case was handled, but received no reply. (This topic is of genuine interest as I am sure there is intense internal debate over how such stories are handled.)

As well, the comment about writing quality at CBC web sites is unfair. I am reasonably certain that the web site content is transcribed directly from the radio news stories, which are well written. Furthermore, I know two reporters who work on the CBC site and you won’t find more literate journalists anywhere.

If anyone would like to add to this discussion, or takes exception to any of the remarks above, please post a comment.

An epitaph for The Express

2007-03-26T02:11:00.000-02:30

Craig Welsh, former associate editor with The Express, has a nice obituary for that paper in his Townie Bastard blog. There's a touch of bitterness here and there, which is quite understandable, but Craig restrained himself admirably overall. I was expecting the written equivalent of the final scene in "Scarface", with bullets zinging everywhere, but no, Craig's tone is even and respectful.

Why we didn't see crucial videotaped evidence

2007-03-25T20:13:00.000-02:30

Did you observe something odd in last week’s media coverage of the Nelson Hart trial?

Did you notice that there was an abundance of videotaped evidence presented, mainly from the early police interrogations of Hart? If so, then you may have noticed that the most climactic and important videotape – hidden camera footage of Hart’s re-enactment of the alleged crime – was not on TV at all. Instead, we had reporters describing what was on the tape.

I noticed. And made some calls to ask why. Turns out I was onto something.

There is a court order in place, preventing media from revealing details that could identify the undercover police officers involved in the sting operation. Last week, CBC Here & Now aired some videotape that, in the opinion of the RCMP, came close to violating the court order. The RCMP were not happy. As well, the RCMP weren’t pleased with some descriptive terms that appeared in a Telegram story.

The result? No more videotaped evidence for the media. Which is why you heard about – but didn’t see – that dramatic footage of Nelson Hart on the wharf in Gander Lake.

I placed a call to the regional director for CBC Newfoundland, asking if they felt aggrieved by this, but did not receive a reply prior to post time.

However, Russell Wangersky, Managing Editor of The Telegram, confirmed that the paper had received a warning from the RCMP lawyer around the same time. “They told us we were skirting close to contempt,” he said. “After dealing with our lawyers we felt we were on safe ground with the material and nothing has happened since.”

Marketing your own company can be tricky

2007-03-24T09:44:00.000-02:30

Please indulge me while I draw your attention to an article in the March issue of Progress magazine about yours truly (click the image to read the story). Yes, this does fall partly into the 'shameless self promotion' category, BUT it is a media article about a subject that is near and dear to me (Photo is by Paul Daly). And my experience in pitching this story to media on my own behalf - as opposed to a client - was eye-opening indeed.

Jellybean Row is a series of original, highly detailed home decor pieces celebrating our bright downtown row house imagery. They are rich in architectural detail, mass printed and then plaque mounted. You can mix and match from 10 different designs (as well as a Christmas series) to create your own Jellybean Row combination. They are available in two sizes; the standard 4.5" by 8" and the large 9" by 16".

In launching this product last year, I engaged in a fairly aggressive marketing public relations campaign, generating coverage in The Telegram, The Express, The Business Post, and on VOCM. The Progress article was secured last November, but glossy monthlies have very long lead times. The pitch - and it is a good one - is that Jellybean Row is the first product to elevate downtown heritage home imagery out of the craft category and into home decor. They are architecturally detailed, not loose and impressionistic. And they are targeted at a mass market comprising local people, tourists, convention goers, expat Newfoundlanders and others. My markets truly are global.

I perform media relations work on behalf of my clients almost every week, but doing this work on behalf of my own company has been enlightening.

For one thing, it is difficult to become detached from the product. When I pitch a story idea on behalf of a client, I am once removed and therefore able to "talk up" the selling points in a most unabashed way. However, when pitching my own product I was often self-conscious about blowing my own horn. I am not inclined to bragging, so I found it slightly awkward to tell people how great the product is.

Rejection was also difficult. When an editor turns down a story pitch I make on behalf of a client, that's simply a name crossed off a list. It's not good, but it can be processed on an intellectual level. However, when an editor rejected my pitch about Jellybean Row, it was hard not to take it personally. 'You mean... you don't like it? You don't think my baby is pretty?'

I did well in pitching the Jellybean Row story and generated considerable coverage, but, in looking back, I wonder if I might have done better had I hired a PR colleague to do the work on my behalf. Their objectivity might have been an advantage.

I know that this blog attracts readers from all around the world so, if you are interested in this elegant little piece of home (*blush), visit the Jellybean Row web site. The e-commerce piece is still under construction but you can place national and international orders through the site, with payment by regular post, for now.

Does it make us angry... or uncomfortable?

2007-03-24T00:43:00.000-02:30

Here we go... Another columnist saying something nasty about us folks down here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Check this out:

"...all (Stephen) Harper stands to lose in Newfoundland is three seats, far fewer than the number he stands to gain by 'standing up' for Ontarians and the other hard working Canadians of the most populous provinces who are tired of having their pockets picked by their continuously begging poor cousins."

How long will it take before the Open Lines go crazy on Monday morning, burning with the ire of a thousand offended callers? Actually, they won't light up at all. Because the comment was not made by a mainlander. It came from our own Craig Westcott, a true Newfoundlander and someone who is not afraid to call it as he sees it. It's an excerpt from an editorial in the latest edition of The Business Post (March 26).

It's strange how we won't stand for it when a mainlander writes something "insulting", but fall silent when one of our own makes a dig. What's that about?

It's easy to get angry at an outsider, but more difficult when an obviously intelligent local person says something that makes us uncomfortable - especially if it contains a kernel of truth.

Craig Westcott will appear as the Keynote Speaker for a NOIA luncheon event, March 29 at the Delta. The title of the address is 'Weighing the Cost of Lost Opportunities', so you can bet that Westcott will be rattling a few chains. For information on registering, click here.

The Express has folded... it's gone

2007-03-23T15:52:00.000-02:30

The Express newspaper is -30- . As the following release makes clear, it published its last issue yesterday. My condolences to editor Steve Bartlett, reporter Kim Kielley and the rest of the crew. I know how it feels to have a newspaper yanked out from beneath your feet. This raises questions about how The Express went from being a profitable paper (they made some fuss about this a few years ago) to what is now a money-losing operation. Looks like Craig Westcott, Ryan Cleary, Greg Locke, Craig Welsh - and others who predicted the paper's demise some time ago - were right on the money. I will have more on this later. Here's the news release:

NEWS RELEASE

the ex/press.ca WEEKLY TO CEASE PUBLISHING

St. John’s, NL, March 23, 2007 – the ex/press.ca newspaper will cease publication effective today. The last issue was distributed on Thursday, March 22, 2007.

the ex/press.ca, a free distribution weekly, served over 40,000 households in the metro St. John’s, Mount Pearl area.

“This was an extremely difficult decision but the ex/press.ca had been struggling financially for quite some time, well before it was purchased by Transcontinental Media in 2004,” said Mr. Miller Ayre, Group Publisher of Transcontinental Media’s NL newspapers. “Despite significant investments in the publication over the past two years – including a complete redesign of both the print and internet versions of the newspaper – efforts to turn the publication around unfortunately did not attract the expected advertising dollars.”

“We wish to thank all our readers and advertisers who encouraged and supported us through the years,” added Mr. Ayre.

While the publication employed ten people, it is expected that the maximum job loss will be four. Every effort will be made to secure positions for these displaced employees at other Transcontinental facilities where opportunities exist.

-30-

Anne Budgell skewers sloppy cartoonist

2007-03-19T16:11:00.000-02:30

Bravo, Anne Budgell! The host of CBC Radio Noon neatly exposed Anthony Jenkins, an editorial cartoonist with The Globe and Mail, as too lazy to get his facts right.

The subject of the interview was a cartoon Jenkins did for the March 17 edition of The Globe. You can see the cartoon here.

In case the link goes down, the cartoon was split into two panels. The first was an image of Mars, with the heading: “2007: Euro space probe determines Martian south polar ice cap over 3 km thick.”

The next panel, also an image of Mars, reads: “2025: Joint Innu/Newfoundland space shuttle lands on ice cap to conduct feasibility study on clubbing to death young of life forms found there.” A word balloon pointing to the planet’s surface says, “She’s some thick here, St. John’s… ‘n’ Bardot-free d’jeez!”

Anne Budgell called the cartoonist and probed him about his knowledge of the hunt, pointing out that the Innu do not hunt seal. Jenkins was also unaware that we no longer club seals, referring to that old video from the 1980's as his source. His voice became shaky upon realizing that his lack of knowledge of the issue had been exposed, and he began muttering something about banana peel jokes. It’s a great interview and you can hear it by clicking here. You can also read more here (though you have to hear Budgell's interview - it's priceless).

Editorial cartoons are a form of journalism, so it is essential that cartoon writers get their facts right. In this case, Jenkins didn’t do his homework and was called on the carpet for it. The question now is, will he also get a rebuke from his bosses at The Globe and Mail?

Another take on the Mark Smith trial

2007-03-17T21:38:00.000-02:30

Interested in learning more about the trial of former Current publisher Mark Smith, which I wrote about a few posts down? Then check out Greg Locke's site. He has posted an in-depth article by Roger Bill, Mark Smith's former business partner at Current. Bill has been attending the trial whilst taking some pretty detailed notes. For example, you can find out what I was talking about when I referred to "shaky testimony" from Kevin Breen. Bill makes a pretty persuasive case as to why the Crown has no case at all.

Stay tuned... more on the way!

2007-03-16T10:47:00.000-02:30

I am about to go 'under' for a few days while I do the final push on meeting a client deadline.

Some colleagues have already asked me how I manage to update this blog each day, while doing client work. The truth is, my blog entries are written as a first draft the night before, then edited in the morning, over a cup of tea, and posted usually by 9 am. At that point, I am free to get on with my day of client work.

I am pulling together some interesting, perhaps controversial material that will start appearing early next week. Be sure to keep checking back for updates.

In the meantime, if you are looking for some interesting browsing, check out this list of the best magazines ever, as compiled by Good Magazine (with an insightful intro by Graydon Carter)... and thanks to John Gushue for this link. In fact, if you want some enjoyable surfing, spend some time at John's site. It's fabulous.

If you like to browse local photography online, check out Kim Goodyear's blog. Her model work is fine, but I am most impressed by her travel material. (The photo above is Kim's, of course.) I also enjoy Kim's written commentary on her craft; in particular the photojournalistic approach she takes to wedding photography. Be sure to dig through the archive... there is some great stuff in here (and if you look around, you will find the Brad Gushue & Krista Tibbo wedding, which I understand is getting a lot of traffic).

A few bad apples in the retail barrel

2007-03-15T09:29:00.000-02:30

This morning, on the CBC Radio Morning Show, Dave D’Entremont of Long’s Hill Convenience said it was offensive to suggest that shopkeepers were pulling a fast one, and were anything other than honest, upstanding citizens.

Yesterday, in an interview on CBC Radio On the Go, Mike Randell of Atlantic Lottery Corporation said there was no proof that retail operators were somehow cheating prize winners out of their loot.

I beg to differ! And I am not suggesting that retail stores or their staff are all crooks. However, these are the facts: those who sell lottery tickets have won 10 times more often than the rest of us. Either these winners are exceptionally lucky, or they are cheating.

And I don’t believe they are lucky.

This is fresh on the heels of a CBC investigation into the Ontario lottery system, which found that storeowners repeatedly cheated ticket holders by advising them that winning tickets were worth a nominal amount when they were actually worth tens or even hundreds of thousands. So we have very good reason to be skeptical.

One point that Dave D’Entremont failed to make in his interview – and a point in his favour – is that the number of retail winners in this province is actually quite small (just 15). So D’Entremont is right: the vast majority of storekeepers are honest, even if there are a few bad apples.

That said, there is potential for shopkeepers and staff to win unfairly with the break-open tickets as well, and I am not certain if such cases would even be noticed by the corporation. In this scam, the shopkeeper keeps careful tabs on how many winning tickets are being sold in any particular set. Sometimes, there may be a small number of tickets left with a good booty of prizes still unclaimed, and I have heard of instances where shopkeepers bought all remaining tickets, knowing that they would hit the jackpot.

It is possible, then, that the cheating is more prevalent than we think. There is potential for a good investigative piece to be done on this subject…

The new Current is drifting out to sea

2007-03-14T11:45:00.000-02:30

The latest edition of Current – the first under new publisher James Baird – has hit the streets.

And I don’t see a lot to be excited about.

Right off the top, quality control is poor. The writing is spotty – good in some places, abysmal in others – and the editing is slipshod throughout, with an unacceptable number of typographical and punctuation errors.

First, the writing. There is a substantial list of contributors on page three, including some names I recognize. However, only a few have bylines, which is a glaring oversight. There are numerous articles and reviews written in the first person – plenty of “I” and “me” pronouns – but the writers are anonymous. In many cases, such as the cover story, music review, pub story and aikido article, this makes a certain amount of sense because they are poorly written hack pieces. However, the editors should be aware that nationally syndicated columnists like Josey Vogels expect to receive credit for their work.

The problem can probably be traced back to the editor, Baird himself, who had this line in his first editorial: “It will be said that I attempting to relive my youth, other will respond that I have never left it.” Two glaring errors in one sentence! Ouch. Editor, fire thyself. But seriously, a second set of seasoned editorial eyes is clearly what this publication needs.

The magazine has been redesigned, but the look is ho-hum; change for its own sake. The new sans-serif font (Helvetica, I believe) looks cheap and the point size is too large. The image area of each page is contained within a two-point border (even the advertising is contained in the larger box) which prevents photographic bleeds and inhibits creative layouts. As an example, ‘Clarkes Beach’, a new graphic feature by artist Robert Clarke-Davis, has some potential but right now it’s boxed, tiny and looking too much like an advertisement. Let it breathe, please! Alas, this conservative new design looks more like a low-budget newsletter than a provocative magazine.

Which brings up the real issue for me. Current is no longer provocative. Yes, it still contains the sex column by Josey Vogels, but that’s it. They’ve dropped the column on gay issues, presumably alienating 10 per cent of the readership, and sanitized the language. Meghan Beresford is still listed as a contributor, though I can’t see her byline or unabashedly frank – and highly entertaining – writing style.

Most importantly, there are no more controversial, funny or breaking news stories on page three. According to media interviews given by James Baird, the paper is moving away from that sort of coverage. There will be no more of the nastiness and controversy; a lot more arts and entertainment coverage.

That’s fine, if we are given penetrating and insightful arts coverage. Thus far, we haven’t seen that. For example, the cover story on the Ennis Sisters is lightweight filler that ignores the meat of the story. What about the relationship between the Ennis Sisters and their record company, which I hear is strained at times? Why is their new CD only available on the tour, but not in stores? These are questions that the old Current would have asked. (And I am not criticizing the Ennis Sisters in any way. I like them. That’s why I am interested in hearing the real story, not a fluff piece.) I am not even going to mention that odd, almost incomprehensible sidebar, in which the sisters offer quick answers to apparently random questions, such as this reply to 'How Deep is Your Love?':

“Karen’s is miss safety net one of empathic compassion with everyone at a distance, whereas Maureen is the drama queen where everything is an extreme it is either the absolute best or so bad.”

Am I coming down too hard on the paper? I don’t think so. Though some of the credited pieces are okay, there really isn’t anything here that I would offer as recommended reading, and much that made my brain hurt.

The previous publishers – at various times Tom Thorne, Mark Smith, Roger Bill and Greg Locke - worked hard to make Current a truly entertaining, probing and unpredictable read. I didn't always agree with everything they cranked out, but I respected what they were trying to achieve, which was a true Newfoundland and Labrador "alternative".

This is the legacy that James Baird bought into. He knew that everyone would be watching the next issue closely and that he couldn’t afford to come out with an inferior product. Yet, that is exactly what has transpired.

I am hoping for better, much better, in the next edition.

We should think about the victim first

2007-03-13T08:45:00.000-02:30

As one who watched the Mount Cashel scandal unfold, from a front row seat at The Sunday Express, I was a little disappointed by some of the reaction last week to sexual assault charges against Father Wayne Dohey.

A Roman Catholic priest in Placentia, Dohey was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation, for incidents that allegedly happened between 1996 and 2000. Dohey has been placed on administrative duties until the case has been tried.

Parishioner Ian Walsh of Placentia was interviewed by CBC News. He was “surprised, shocked” to learn of the charges, but did not approve of the decision to suspend Dohey, expressing concern that it might drive parishioners away from the church.

"I sincerely hope that they leave him here,” Walsh told CBC. “He's done a lot of good. I believe it would be a negative signal to the parishioners."

Details of the Father Jim Hickey case, as well as the Mount Cashel scandal, have been seared into my memory and Walsh’s comments have an eerie echo to those terrible days.

Back then, loyal parishioners seemed to lend a deaf ear to the many people who complained of sexual or other abuse. Instead, they stood behind the priests or brothers, saying they were “good men” and had done so much for the community.

I know that Father Dohey is innocent until proven guilty, and that the crimes for which he has been charged pale in comparison to the terrible deeds of Jim Hickey. However, they are serious and, until dealt with by the courts, Dohey should not have direct contact with potential future victims. The church’s response, in arranging counseling for Dohey when it became aware of the allegations in 2001, is questionable, since “counseling” – rather than justice – is also what the Christian Brothers at Mount Cashel received during the 1970s. The church had no choice but to remove Father Dohey from active duty, once the charges were finally laid.

Rather than worry about how these charges might impact the parish, Ian Walsh should consider the impact these alleged actions had on the complainant. He might ask himself how he would feel if the complainant was his own daughter.

That, to me, is the Christian thing to do.

Former Current publisher goes on trial

2007-03-12T08:26:00.000-02:30

Whenever a magazine publisher goes on trial for a criminal offence, that’s big news. However, when the justice system goes to great lengths to try someone for one of the least serious offences in the criminal code, that’s bigger news again.

Last week saw the beginning of the mischief trial against Mark Smith, the former publisher of Current magazine (and, it should be disclosed, a former business partner of mine, though we haven’t stayed in touch).

Smith is charged with defacing the campaign signs belonging to Kevin Breen, during the municipal election of 2005. Someone had gone to great effort to produce labels that matched the colour and font of Breen’s slogan, changing it to read ‘A record of lying’ (photo by Greg Locke).

I understand that it cost Breen $160 to print new labels to cover up the offending word. Otherwise, no one was hurt by the crime. The police reaction is, therefore, a little out of proportion to the seriousness of the act itself.

I do not suggest that police ignore crimes involving damage to property. In fact, this is precisely my point. I have heard stories over the years about inadequate police response to crimes involving break and entry, theft and property damage. I am sure you’ve heard them too.

It happened to Mark Smith’s defence lawyer, Bob Buckingham, on the same weekend that the Breen signs were defaced. There was a rash of vandalism to property up and down his street, with considerable damage (certainly more than $160) including a sign that was torn from the front of his building.

“I picked up the sign and maintained it because I am familiar with fingerprint work,” Buckingham said in an interview. “But they wouldn’t take it for fingerprints because it was ‘exposed to the elements.’ Now they were wrong, but that was their line. Later on they got a suspect and I offered to give the sign to them in case the suspect had a record, but they still wouldn’t take it.”

Interestingly, the police did check the Breen sign for fingerprints that night, even though it had been exposed to the elements as well. “They did fingerprinting and nothing came up… so they sent it to the RCMP Latent Fingerprint Lab (in Ottawa) to check into it. They said this was common practice.”

The fact that they took fingerprints at all, for a crime with $160 in damage, is surprising to me. During their investigation, the police also followed Smith for some time. Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but I suspect that many more serious crimes involving theft and property damage do not get investigated as extensively as this. Buckingham said that, right from the start, the police threw themselves into the investigation “with great gung ho-ness”.

“You had the police officer reporting continuously and constantly to Breen on every little aspect and component of the investigation,” Buckingham said. “They went out of their way to please him. Why they did that is all speculation. It could be related to who’s who in the power structure, municipally and provincially, but that’s pure speculation.”

And what of the evidence itself? The fingerprinting came up with no match for Mark Smith, though they did find a print belonging to someone else – which doesn’t help the Crown’s case at all. However, they were able to prove that Smith ordered and paid for the sticky labels that were used in the commission of this crime.

But that is not enough.

Perhaps the police were unaware that Smith operates a graphic design services company and could easily have brokered this print job on behalf of a client. It is not a crime to design and order labels imprinted with the word ‘lying’; the onus is on the Crown to prove who actually affixed the labels to the signs. This, combined with some shaky testimony from Breen on Wednesday, adds up to a flimsy case indeed. How it even made it to court I will never know, but I am curious about what this trial will cost taxpayers.

Based on the evidence presented to date, Buckingham has asked the judge to deliver a directed verdict, which would essentially mean the case is tossed out. That application will be heard in April.

(As a sidebar to this story, I illustrated a cover for Current in March 2006, lampooning former police chief Richard Deering. That was my last contact with Smith. My first thought was ‘Is there a police vendetta because of this cover?’ I am pretty sure the answer is no. First, the cover appeared more than six months after the municipal election. Second, the police did not make the connection to Smith or Current until well into their investigation, after investing significant time in the case. So I don’t think their investigative zeal was motivated by a grudge against Current.)

A little-known chapter in our history

2007-03-08T16:59:00.000-03:30

Wednesday evening's edition of CBC's Here & Now featured a touching, eye-opening segment of 'The Finest Kind', by Deanne Fleet. It was the story of Andreas Barban (and his wife), Jewish immigrants who were accepted into Newfoundland in 1947, having escaped from Germany to the Far East. I had certainly heard of Barban, who died in 1993, but - like many others, I suspect - had no idea about the impact he had on the social and cultural fabric of this province. Frankly, if not for this item, I never would have known so kudos to Deanne Fleet for bringing it to our attention. (Why it aired at the very end of the newscast I don't know; it certainly deserved to be higher than that in the lineup.)

Fleet's piece set me to thinking about Jewish immigration, and Newfoundland's place in one of the nastiest chapters in modern history. In the years leading up to World War II, ships carrying Jewish refugees were denied landfall in North America and sent back to Europe, often to certain death. (Shown in photo are refugees on board the "St. Louis", which was denied entry by Cuba and the U.S. in 1939.)

Our acceptance of Mr. Barban and a handful of other Jewish immigrants was noble enough, but was it mere tokenism? Did Newfoundland turn away other refugees by the thousand?

I conducted some Internet research into this question. It took some time, but I came up with a fascinating, thoroughly researched article (citing numerous local sources) from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. It's called "Attempts to Settle Jewish Refugees in Newfoundland and Labrador, 1934-1939", written by Gerhard P. Bassler. You can read it here.

"It may come as a surprise to students of the Holocaust and of Newfoundland history that the Dominion of Newfoundland occupies a place in the history of the Jewish Holocaust," writes Bassler. "Due to its traditionally liberal refugee legislation, low population density, moderate climate, and challenges for immigrants with skills and capital, the island of Newfoundland and the territory of Labrador, which also belonged to the Dominion of Newfoundland, were widely considered a more suitable haven for European refugees than places like Shanghai and the Dominican Republic. In 1934, 1936, and 1939, proposals were advanced for Jewish group settlement, entailing ambitious plans for the economic development of Newfoundland and Labrador. The proposals envisaged spectacular possibilities for the refugees as well as for Newfoundland, and at least one of them came close to fruition. The contemporary public debate on these proposals and on the desirability of admitting Jewish refugees has been forgotten, and the pertinent historical literature contains no reference to it.

"Also unknown, therefore, is the fact that of the thousands of refugees petitioning to enter between 1934 and 1941, the Newfoundland government turned down all but 11 petitions. At the same time, the much smaller, poorer, and far more densely populated Dominican Republic offered sanctuary to 100,000; and the distant, overcrowded, and climatically unsuitable city of Shanghai took 20,000 refugees from Nazi persecution..."

Things were complicated by the fact that Newfoundland was living under Commission of Government at the time, so immigration policy reflected the whims and even prejudices of the appointed commissioners.

"In the 1930s the actions of the Commissioners speak louder than words. Newfoundland and Labrador might have afforded sanctuary to 10,000 or more refugees if the absorptive capacity assigned to the country by settlement experts had become a criterion for admission. Instead, the Commission turned down all the requests and petitions received by and on behalf of more than 12,000 Jewish refugees from Europe. Newfoundland's eight refugee nurses were recruited in London, not because they were refugees, but because they were the only qualified nurses available in 1939 to assume duties in the fishing outports, for which no one else could be found. The search for ways to keep refugees out on grounds other than economic appears to have been one of the chief concerns of the Commissioner for Justice. In their efforts to bar Jewish refugees from the country, the Commissioners looked to Canada as a model. Since British and Dutch farmers continued to be solicited, the systematic exclusion of non-Aryan refugees was clearly discriminatory."

Would things have been different if Newfoundland was an independent country? That is hard to say, and perhaps pointless to debate. However, Newfoundland society has always impressed me as being tolerant and relatively untainted by racism, so I suspect that we would have made a greater effort to save these people. At least, I like to think so.

He won't be a free agent for long

2007-03-08T08:46:00.000-03:30

Once again, we are all indebted to George Murphy. The lineups were long last night as people queued to fill their tanks, alerted by Murphy to an imminent increase in the price of gasoline.

Murphy (at right, CBC photo) warned us that the price would increase by at least 7 cents per litre, and the actual increase was close to 8 cents. For drivers able to get out last night, especially with larger vehicles, the savings were substantial indeed.

No wonder then that, when George Murphy talks, people listen.

It’s amazing that George, a taxi driver with no training in economics, is able to duplicate with uncanny accuracy the work of the province’s Petroleum Pricing Office, working from the basement of his home with nothing more than a computer and an Internet connection.

Equally impressive are Murphy’s public communication skills. Prior to his volunteer work on oil and gas pricing, George had no training or experience in communications. He is now one of the province’s best-known and most respected public policy advocates. He is quick on his feet, talks with confidence and handles media interviews in a friendly, forthright manner. When he talks, people listen. Reporters are quick to answer or return his calls. People trust him.

George Murphy has what I like to call ‘trust equity’ with the public. Combine that with his great media relationships and you have probably the most effective spokesperson in the province.

As noted above, George is driving a cab for a living. There’s nothing wrong with that – it’s a noble occupation for sure – but Murphy is certainly under-employed for his skills and status within the community.

That’s about to change. Murphy is switching lanes onto an entirely new career path, having just completed a public relations program at CompuCollege. He is now qualified to work in communications and has already performed some contract work for clients.

Any company or organization that would like to put a consistent public face on its public and community relations should give George Murphy careful consideration. Heck, they should grab him while they can! I predict that he won’t be a free agent for much longer…

Time vs. Maclean's: and the winner is...

2007-03-07T09:10:00.001-03:30

A piece of junk mail caught my eye this week; an offer to subscribe to the Canadian edition of Time magazine. I am an avid reader of Maclean’s Magazine, so this piqued my curiosity. Which is the better magazine for the money?

Hands down, Time is cheaper. They are offering me 56 issues for $30 and two years for $35. One year of Maclean’s will set me back $57 and two years will cost $100, more than triple the cost of Time. However, that’s where Time’s advantage ends.

Unless you have an affinity for superficial coverage of American news and don’t give a fiddler’s fart about what’s going on in Canada, Time is a waste of paper. The Canadian edition is a misnomer, since the two recent issues I examined had almost no Canadian content. There was one article in the January 1 edition about the Canadian Man of the Year (Stephen Harper) and the February 12 issue was Canuck-free. Calling the magazine ‘Canadian’ borders on deception.

MacLean’s, on the other hand, is a remarkably good magazine. I have been a subscriber for more than 10 years, and have seen the magazine evolve from a dry, dust-gathering fixture at the dentist’s office to a vibrant and challenging read. When editor Anthony Wilson-Smith left in 2005, to be replaced by Ken Whyte, former editor of the right-leaning National Post, there was concern that the magazine would tip too far to the right. While this influence is there, on the editorial page and in the appointment of former National Post writers – such as Mark Steyn – it is clear that Whyte’s priority, first and foremost, is to create a quality magazine packed with provocative reading.

Maclean’s has abandoned its dry weekly news wrap-up format, in favour of a more featurish, analytical and subjective writing style (which is essential, since weekly glossies cannot compete with daily newspapers and electronic media for straight news coverage). The magazine has also gotten bigger, increasing content by 30% and more.

My favorite columnists in Maclean’s are Paul Wells (penetrating political commentary), Andrew Potter (intelligent, left leaning) and Scott Feschuk (the funniest man on earth). The arts and entertainment section is bigger and better, and the writing throughout is always good and often excellent. If you haven’t read Maclean’s Magazine in a few years, I strongly recommend you pick up a copy. You will not be disappointed. (Hint: it is much cheaper to subscribe.)

Above all, don’t waste your money on Time magazine!

Avalon caribou are safe for now

2007-03-05T08:12:00.000-03:30

The CBC Radio Morning Show had a great follow this morning (Monday) on an item it aired last Friday, about a grass roots movement to open up the Avalon Wilderness Reserve to snowmobile traffic. The small group of retired people behind the movement, who seem credible enough, say they respect nature and will behave responsibly. They also said the Avalon caribou herd that the reserve is intended to protect has dwindled from thousands of animals to hundreds, and that there were none left in their neck of the woods anyway.

That item resulted in a flood of calls from listeners, every one voicing opposition in a most articulate way to changing the regulations. This was followed by an interview with wildlife biologist Dennis Minty, who presented a persuasive case against opening the reserve to the machines. His key point: years ago, caribou numbers in the reserve had declined to a few hundred animals, and the reserve had been instrumental in bringing them back from the brink. Opening it up now can only cause harm to the herd, which has been decimated by a persistent outbreak of brainworm.

Host Jeff Gilhooly also made a good point: the proponents of this notion may well be responsible, but it would open up the area to "cowboys" with less noble intentions.

The environment minister is going to be interviewed on Tuesday, but it's safe to say that this issue is already dead in the water... or should that be lost in the wilderness?

Cochrane's speech had quite an impact

2007-03-02T10:42:00.000-03:30

The full text of David Cochrane’s speech to the St. John’s Board of Trade, which you can read in its entirety two posts down, has generated a lot of discussion over the last two days.

My blog is less than a month old so, up to now, I was getting about two hundred hits per day. Word of mouth is an amazing thing because, soon after the post appeared, I was getting almost a hundred hits per hour! The hits are still coming at a pretty steady pace, so I know that Cochrane’s speech is having an impact.

Thanks for this must go to Ed Hollett, Simon Lono, Craig Welsh and the six or seven others who flagged the Cochrane speech in their blogs.

The entry seems to have touched a nerve, because the majority of comments (on this blog and elsewhere) applaud Cochrane for expressing his views. Naturally, some people didn’t agree, and that’s fine too, though those people who accused Cochrane of political bias or hidden agenda did not get the point.

What Cochrane advocates is open discussion and debate of the issues; an environment where questioning the government’s approach is not equated with a lack of patriotism. This is essential to any healthy democracy.

I am a big fan of disclosure so, for those who don’t know me, it is no secret that I do a fair bit of consulting work for the oil and gas industry. That said, I am not a mouthpiece for the industry. I am at a point in my career where clients pay for my ideas and advice, and respect my counsel. They do not expect me to shill for them. My opinions – which will gradually unfold in the weeks and months ahead – are honestly held and based on a career that includes 12 years of journalism and 15 years in communications, working with technology, mining and oil and gas companies, as well as public sector and not-for-profit clients.

My political affiliations? I have none to any particular party. In the federal election of 2006, I volunteered to handle media for Liberal candidate Siobhan Coady, but this does not make me a Liberal. I simply have a great deal of respect for the candidate. In the last provincial election, I voted PC, because I liked Danny’s business background and believed that he could get the best deal for the province in resource development. Where I stand on that is a subject for another day…

Hickey's defamation suit is proceeding

2007-03-01T23:29:00.000-03:30

So, the comedy begins. I see that John Hickey filed his defamation suit today against former premier Roger Grimes. You can read about it in this CBC story.

To add to the joke, Grimes has now threatened to file a suit against Premier Danny Williams, for supposedly putting words in Grimes mouth that the erstwhile premier did not utter.

As noted in a previous post, this is a tactical error on Hickey’s behalf (and Williams too, if indeed he is pulling the strings here). The media is gleefully going to follow this story while it plays itself out, and there will be close scrutiny not only about what Grimes said, but also what Hickey did to prompt the remarks.

Let’s put this in some context. I have been filing expense and travel claims for various employers since 1984. Not once – not a single time – have I billed twice for any of my expenses. And I suck at math!

Once or twice, I found a Visa slip and wondered if it had been claimed. Knowing that my purchase would also be accompanied by a cash register receipt, I checked previous claims to see if it had already been reimbursed. I knew better than to submit the expense automatically.

The Auditor General found that John Hickey double-billed not once, but 20 times! The police investigated and found insufficient evidence to lay criminal charges. Is this “vindication”, as was claimed at the time? Whether or not there was criminal intent, there are still some good questions to be asked about the competency of whoever filed those claims. And these proceedings will drag this out, in painstaking detail. How can Hickey actually ‘win’ in the face of that?

As VOCM Open Line host Randy Simms said tonight on the CBC Here & Now political panel: “John Hickey should suck it up and move on.”

Let’s put aside tactics for a moment and talk about strategy. This suit against Grimes, and the Premier’s threat to sue others who “take down the reputation of people who are in public life” seems like an attempt to cast a libel chill over public debate in this province. In other words, ‘think twice before you criticize!’

If this indeed is the strategy, is it working? I don’t think so. The public seems to have become agitated by the Premier’s remarks, and are as vociferous as ever. The open lines are still abuzz, letters to the editor continue to pour in and bloggers aren’t pulling any punches at all. It’s going to take more than a legal threat to shut up the people of this province, saucy bunch of crackies that we are.

The media haven’t knuckled under either. The last edition of The Business Post (dated February 19, 2007) contained what is probably the most outspoken editorial I’ve ever read from Craig Westcott, who is known far and wide for his acid-tongued commentaries. I will have more on The Business Post in a future entry.

David Cochrane’s speech on ‘patriotic correctness’

2007-02-28T07:51:00.000-03:30

In the days following the collapse of the Hebron talks, the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) issued a news release, expressing concern about the situation and urging both parties to resume negotiations. Rather than address the points raised by NOIA, Premier Danny Williams ridiculed the association, saying they were here to "annoy ya". Many business leaders were shocked by this behaviour. Yet none spoke out. If you noticed this disconnect, then you aren't alone. On February 21, David Cochrane, Provincial Affairs Reporter for CBC Here & Now, delivered a controversial and hard-hitting speech to the St. John's Board of Trade, in which he demonstrated that, when politics and business collide, business loses. Following is the text of David’s speech...

By David Cochrane

"I’ve been covering politics and provincial affairs in this province full-time since the Fall of 1998. In that eight years, I’ve seen the worlds of business and politics collide many times. In almost every case, politics won.

I have covered stories about resource-based industries involving four different premiers, and intersecting with some of the biggest companies in the province. In almost every case, the government used the power of the legislature to change the rules under which business is conducted to determine a favourable political outcome.

The political climate in Newfoundland and Labrador is having a profound and negative impact on public debate. And the time is ripe for change.

Please note that I am not passing judgement on any of the actions I am about to describe. I’m merely pointing them out and outlining what I think were the consequences.

In almost every case, these actions had tremendous public support. But popular decisions are not always good decisions. And when everybody is nodding their heads in agreement, I think it is the journalist’s role to shout ‘Bullshit!’ from the back of the room.

In 1998, former Premier Brian Tobin was in the middle of highly charged negotiations with Inco over the development of Voisey’s Bay. The central issue was whether Inco should build a nickel smelter in the province. Inco had spent $4 billion to acquire Voisey’s Bay and was proceeding under existing development rules to start mining nickel. On November 17th of that year, Tobin and mines and energy minister Chuck Furey outlined a series of amendments to the Mineral Act. The key element was section 31.1 which gave the cabinet the right to order a mining company to complete primary processing in the province. These changes would be broadly applied. But the clear target was Inco.

The changes were retroactive so that existing discoveries such as Voisey’s Bay were included. And it could not be appealed. Tobin said this was to ensure that companies such as Inco couldn’t use “back door methods” such as the courts to get around that requirement.

This decision had tremendous public and political support. But it was a political decision to change the rules of the game after a company and its shareholders had invested billions of dollars to acquire the rights to a nickel deposit. Investors were not happy. Negotiations reached an impasse. And there was no deal on Voisey’s Bay until Tobin left and Roger Grimes became premier.

It was under Grimes that I covered the second major collision between business and politics. And it’s a dispute that continues today.

In the summer of 2001 Fishery Products International announced its intention to buy Clearwater Fine Foods of Nova Scotia. Shortly afterwards, FPI announced plans to cut jobs at its fish plants in Harbour Breton and the Burin Peninsula.

FPI is a publicly traded, private company. But it was created in the mid-1980s though a piece of legislation called the FPI Act. The Act included restrictions on share ownership and the sale of assets designed to stop the break-up of the company. But it was privatization legislation and not intended to give the government any direct control over the day-to-day operation of the company. However, starting under Grimes that legislation has been amended three times. In almost every case, it was in reaction to the company’s decision to cut jobs or reduce operations.

Most recently it was amended to attach operational and capital spending requirements to the company’s plans to create an Income trust and again to change the structure of the Board of Directors.

But the most controversial changes came under Grimes. Grimes put a halt to the Clearwater takeover bid and delayed the looming job cuts at the south coast plants until last year when the plant closed. He threatened to amend the FPI Act to give government an operational veto over FPI, a privately owned, publicly traded company. He toyed with the idea of legislating the government a seat on the Board of Directors.

Those options never happened. But the government struck an all-party committee that recommended a series of changes to the FPI Act. The most significant was the inclusion of a clause stating that the company and its shareholders could not sue the government, even if government’s actions financially damaged the company and caused its share price to plummet.

FPI may be the most unpopular company in the province. Its management and directors are cast as the current villains of the fishery. Each time the FPI Act was amended it enjoyed enormous public and political support. But each time the FPI Act was amended the industry and the financial sector recoiled. Fish companies complain that it has become increasingly difficult to get financing from Canadian banks. More and more of them are turning to Icelandic banks for loans. Bankers tell fish companies that the political climate in this province gives them cause for concern.

This was underscored in March of last year when the fisheries union held a rally outside FPI headquarters to protest job cuts at fish plants on the south coast. At that rally Tom Rideout, a lawyer, former premier and currently the deputy premier and attorney general of the province, climbed onto the back of a pickup truck, while wearing a fish union toque and accused FPI of breaking provincial law.

FPI has since been charged with illegally exporting fish. But at that time there was no completed investigation or public evidence of any wrongdoing. There was only a crowd of angry fishery workers. And the deputy premier in a toque. I’m not a lawyer, but I know of no jurisdiction in the world where trial by toque is the foundation of their justice system.

The most recent collision of politics and business is the failed Hebron negotiations (I exclude Hibernia South from this discussion because that one’s not over). Last year Premier Danny Williams and the Hebron partners reached an impasse. Williams wanted more then the oil companies were prepared to give.

There is a generic royalty regime on the books here. But that became a starting point for negotiations rather than the terms of a contract. Given ExxonMobil’s disciplined commitment to its business model and Williams’ negotiating style, I’m not sure if these talks will restart soon or if a deal is reachable. What I do know is that despite the stakes, the public debate around this impasse has ranged from “way to go Danny” to “lets go Danny.”

This has been the case in all of the examples I’ve outlined. Politically motivated changes to the Mining Act and the FPI Act had mass appeal, but made many people in the business community nervous or even angry.

But they stayed silent.

One of my frustrations as a journalist is that the business community in this province is soft. They are afraid to challenge the government or criticize it in any meaningful way. We see this now with Williams, a man elected to be the business premier; but a man who is making many in the business community nervous.

We saw it with Tobin, a premier who had arguably the worst fiscal record this province has ever seen. Tobin’s so-called balanced budgets were a house of cards; a shell game of one-time money used to mask enormous structural deficits. The business community knew this, but said very little. And instead of writing letters to the editor, they wrote cheques; donating thousands of dollars to the political parties they spent their time muttering about under their breaths.

When the world of politics and business collide, only half the story gets told because only half of the collision is talking. Business leaders shy away form comment if it even smells of conflict with the government. They react as if the first person to speak out would be like the first person to wander off alone in a horror film… never to be seen again.

Now this isn’t to suggest that business people don’t talk about politics or criticize their government. They just don’t do it in public

I have had hundreds of conversations with business people, many of them imploring me to do stories about the many, many problems they have when it comes to doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador. I agree to do a story if they will go on the record. But they won’t. This reluctance to speak is as understandable as it its regrettable.

There exists in Newfoundland and Labrador a phenomenon I like to call “Patriotic Correctness.” Like political correctness, it makes certain words or expressions unacceptable.

But most significantly, it has fostered an environment where informed dissent is seen as nothing short of treason. Where the simple questioning or criticism of the government or the premier is viewed as an unpatriotic assault upon the very fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Patriotic correctness manifests itself in times of conflict. Usually it pits the premier and the government against an outside force such as the federal government, a nickel company, Big Oil, or a fish company that happens to be run by a Nova Scotian. It creates an incredibly lop-sided public debate, one where all good Newfoundlanders and Labradorians must rally to the side of the government.

What matters most is a public display of loyalty; of being on side with the stated goal of getting the best deal, best return and most benefits for the province.

What matters least is a public debate about the merits of this stance. Or whether these goals are even reasonable or achievable. Or whether the government is acting in a way that is fair to all parties.

We saw this with Voisey’s Bay. We saw this with Hebron. We are seeing it to this day with FPI.

The first collision of business and politics I witnessed was the Voisey’s Bay negotiation. When I came on the scene, Tobin had won a second mandate after calling a snap-election just 30 months into his first term, supposedly to send a strong message to Inco and give him a “strong mandate” to negotiate the best deal possible on Voisey’s Bay. After all, “Not one ounce, not one spoonful of ore” would leave the province without a nickel smelter being built in Argentia.

The people ate it up. Tobin got an overwhelming mandate. Voters accepted the rhetorical fiction that a snap election was really about getting a mandate to negotiate with Inco. Or if they didn’t buy it, they ignored it, and embraced the blind hope that Brian Tobin – a Newfoundlander – might one day be prime minister. So he had to be supported at all costs.

Again, it was the rush to be “on side.” To embrace the populist myth that Our Leader needed Our Support to take on Them.

I was working for CBC for less than a year at that time and was new to the political beat. But I came to the conclusion very soon after the 1999 election that Tobin’s “not one spoonful” stance was an excuse for inaction. That his stance was so entrenched, the political stakes so high, that he could not possibly get a deal that would satisfy the public’s expectations. Expectations he created. Good politics got in the way of good economics and it became obvious that Tobin would never sign a deal with Inco. When I started to challenge Tobin on this I felt the sting of Patriotic Correctness.

I was new to the press gallery. And suddenly the halls of the legislature were buzzing with talk that I just didn’t understand Newfoundland and Labrador. After all, I was a mainlander. Liberal MHAs openly questioned how someone from up-a-long could understand this province’s long history of disappointment and bad deals.

Now, having been born at the Grace, raised in Mount Pearl and educated at MUN, nobody was more surprised by this than me. But it shows the way dissent – even in the form of legitimate questions – led to an attack on my very character.

For the record, Brian Tobin quit as premier just 20 months into his mandate to negotiate, he never did sign a deal with Inco, he moved to the mainland… and I’m still here.

This attempt to marginalize critics still happens today. When a particular political issue is causing the government grief, it dispatches hit squads to the open-line. Armed with talking points, they seek to hijack the debate. And if someone questions the government on an issue such as Hebron or FPI, the Us versus Them argument is re-opened.

A recent example of this came in the four byelections that we just had. Four MHAs resigned for very different reasons. But the Premier sought to make local elections about something bigger than what they were. These races were cast as a referendum on Danny Williams’ negotiating stance on Hebron and with the Prime Minister on Equalization. Williams said: “It's very, very important that the people I'm into battles with - for want of a better term - understand that I have the clear support of the people of this province."

Never mind what issues mattered to the district. Never mind what you think of the people on the ballot. This was about supporting the premier. This was about Us versus Them.

A vote against the Conservatives in these byelections would mean you didn’t support a better deal on oil. It would mean you didn’t support a better deal on equalization. A vote for a Liberal or a New Democrat would be a vote against a better deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I’m not saying people should vote against the government. I’m not suggesting they should vote for one party over another. But people should be free to make up their mind and vote in an election without having their patriotism questioned, before they step into the voting booth. Just as they should be free to question this government – and any other government – without having their love of place put to some sort of test.

Patriotism isn’t the only weapon in this strategy. There are also numbers. In the current government there is a group of backbenchers and new cabinet ministers who like to justify every action by quoting poll numbers. When I say something on the panel or do a story that questions government’s action, the next day at the House of Assembly, I am bombarded with the math of public opinion.

“You may not like it Cochrane,” they shout. “But 75 per cent of the province does.”

But as I said earlier, popular decisions are not always good decisions. Just as popular government are not always good governments. After all, Brian Tobin had poll numbers that rivalled Danny Williams’. Did that make Tobin a great premier?

The MHAs don’t like it when I remind them of that. They like it even less when I remind them that Time Magazine named Adolph Hitler its man of the year about eight months before he invaded Poland.

Good polling numbers are nice. But they are not a vaccine against dissent and criticism.

By all accounts this government has done a very good job of managing its finances. Soaring deficits have been replaced by surpluses. And the new Atlantic Accord is the arguably the most positive development this province has seen since the Hibernia project went ahead. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, or that people shouldn’t be allowed to talk about them.

That includes the people in the business community. Because while Newfoundland and Labrador might have solved its fiscal problem, it may well be on the verge of an economic problem. After close to a decade of leading the country in economic growth, some banks now project that Newfoundland and Labrador will be last in the country in 2008.

One estimate says GDP growth will drop to 1.7 per cent next year. The reason is the lack of any new projects. Projects like Hebron. For the first time since Hibernia, there is no ‘next’ project.

This has done more than just cripple GDP growth. It has single-handedly changed the real estate market in St. John’s, instantly transforming a sellers’ market into a buyers’ market.

It has led to increased anxiety in the local offshore industry and made Oil and Gas Week more of an irony than a celebration.

Now, on the surface, the employment picture looks far brighter. The government issued a news release this month boasting that the Market Participation and Employment Levels for January are at a historic high. But what’s missing from that news release tells a more important story. The Employment numbers for Newfoundland and Labrador include the hundreds if not thousands of people who fly to Alberta to work but leave their family behind. Their job is in Alberta, but their residence is in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because of the way Statistics Canada crunches the numbers, this boosts the employment rate and the participation rate of this province. So while more people from here are working, it doesn’t mean they are working here.

While the economy enters uncertain times, the population continues to decline. Since June of 2003, Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered a net loss of 10,105 people. That’s the population of Gander gone in three years. Of that group, 5,248 were between the ages of 20 and 24.

Instead of slowing down, the pace of the outmigration has increased each year of this government’s first term. There are still many proud young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They just happen to live in Calgary or Fort MacMurray.

These are enormous challenges that will be difficult to solve. But how can you have a larger public debate about the big problems, when it’s tough to openly discuss the small ones?

The sad reality is that for my entire adult life the intellectual leadership of this province has been confined to the legislature and the open line. I believe this has to change. The broader elements of our society need to participate in the larger discussion on how the government conducts itself and how it manages the economy.

People need to be free to question, challenge and criticize their government without fear of reprisal or of facing a public challenge to their patriotism.

Now I have to be careful about what I say here, because I don’t want to get sued. However, because of the recent spending scandal in the House of Assembly, I think I can safely say that politicians have – at least temporarily – lost their place on the moral high ground. And they’ve lost it as a result of their own actions.

This has all happened in an election year. This election will be about cleaning up government. But it should also be about the larger problems I outlined earlier.

The state of the economy. Outmigration. And unemployment.

That means there has to be a debate, one that should include the business community. But I’m not convinced that it will. My past experience leads me to believe that most business leaders will shun the spotlight of public discourse in this election and avoid the potential wrath of politicians.

Instead they will cut the cheques that are the oxygen of any political campaign and watch – as always – from the sidelines.

Yes, politicians can make your life difficult. Sometimes there is risk in speaking out. But what if they called an election and nobody donated any money? Each year everyone in this room is asked to donate to the various political parties. You are an IV bag filled with cash for them. They couldn’t survive without it. That annual donation is your ante to the big table; your licence to speak freely and openly about the government and the direction of the province.

It is a luxury that – quite frankly – the middle-class does not enjoy and cannot afford.

This dynamic presents an opportunity to break the pattern of patriotic correctness… something that needs to be done.

A society cannot progress unless it does so on the strength of its ideas. And good ideas require the courage and the intellectual leadership that isn’t always found in the legislature or from the caller on line 3.

Public debate cannot be ceded to the mob. Because when it is, the mob almost always chooses to free Barabbas and send the good man to the cross."

Poem foreshadowed loss of Ocean Ranger

2007-02-27T08:14:00.000-03:30

A few posts back, in my reflections on the Ocean Ranger, I referenced a poem written by Greg Tiller of Mount Pearl. Tiller was one of the 84 men who perished on the Ocean Ranger. Before the incident, Tiller composed a poem that foreshadowed – in a most evocative way – the loss of the "unsinkable" rig and, ultimately, his own demise. I was able to locate the poem and have posted it below as a tribute to Greg, a talented young man who died away before his time.

RIG

Huge Iron Island.
37 stories high,
two city blocks square,
impervious to the attacks of an indignant sea…
Our mutton-headed people trail behind this pied-piper,
bickering over the loose change falling through the holes in his pockets.
Mother Earth created us, raised us, taught us, sheltered us
and this is how we repay her.
Beware, she shall have her revenge.

- Greg Tiller

Rob Antle's IEC article will win awards

2007-02-26T10:59:00.000-03:30

I have to add my voice to the chorus of praise for Rob Antle, on his incredibly detailed and thoroughly researched article in Saturday's Telegram (February 24, 2007), exposing the sordid history of the Internal Economy Commission. Antle has sifted through a lot of information and presented us with a clear, easy to understand accounting of how the spending scandal evolved and was ultimately exposed. This article should be considered essential reading for every member of the voting public. However, you'd better set aside some time and pull up a chair: the article is more than 6,000 words long! You can read both parts here and here. There's no doubt that Antle will be winning an award or two for this piece of work.

Unionized anchors impede change at Here & Now

2007-02-26T07:55:00.000-03:30

In the comments section of the ‘CBC Here & Now could use a makeover’ post below, someone asked why there is so little turnover of hosts on the program. A good question, and one that merits an answer.

You will note that I suggested moving people around. That’s for good reason, since the union does indeed make it difficult – close to impossible – to make changes at the all-important anchor level.

As things are, the anchors cannot be ‘let go’ or demoted without cause. If the brass decides that change is necessary, they have to reassign the anchor to another role within the organization. However, he or she would retain full host salary, which is substantially higher than a reporter’s salary. This would distort the economics of the operation and blow the operating budget.

From what I understand, the union could not oppose the reassignment, but they would certainly watch closely to ensure that there is no loss of benefits or reduction in salary.

In a nutshell, you couldn’t freshen up the show as I described in my earlier post without the consent of the hosts. Nonetheless, my suggestions are still possible because I am suggesting lateral moves into other equally challenging, high profile positions.

The host position can be critical to the success or failure of any show, and the notion that you can’t change it as necessary is ridiculous. In an ideal world, any new appointments to such positions should be on contract. CBC does have the option of hiring on contract, a right they fought to uphold in the strike/lockout of 2005. However, the number of people who can be hired on contract is capped at 9.5 per cent of the full-time work force. I really don’t know if that is enough to address this problem.

The ideal solution is to permit reporters to accept anchor positions under contract – meaning it could end at any time – but allow them to return to reporting with full seniority and benefits, if and when the contract expires. The anchor role should be viewed as a temporary gig; fun while it lasts but not a position in which you are likely to retire.

Now that's a compelling editorial!

2007-02-26T00:20:00.000-03:30

When I heard in the news last week that the Students Union at Memorial University (MUNSU) had voted its own president's position out of existence, it struck me as odd... but the issue went away quickly and I thought nothing more of it. Well, a tip of the hat to Craig Welsh, a former Express reporter now working in Iqaluit, for bringing a recent editorial in the MUSE to my attention. The Muse, of course, is the student newspaper at Memorial University (and Welsh is a former reporter*). Now The Muse has had its high points and low over the years, but this editorial shows that the paper is still a force to be reckoned with. If you like to read strong opinions, presented in a gutsy, take-no-prisoners style, click here.

*Revised as per correction in comments.

Standing behind your opinion

2007-02-24T19:43:00.000-03:30

My previous post about CBC generated some comment, though all of it anonymous. My policy is to judge anonymous comments on an individual basis, and allow them to stay if they are expressing 'fair comment' in a reasonable way. But when comments go over the top, they are likely to be deleted. In fact, I just zapped a comment because it crossed the line. It was belligerent, insulting and anonymous. If you are going to leave a mean-spirited opinion that cuts someone else but don't have the nerve to sign your name to it, you can expect that it will be deleted.

Why do people prefer to be anonymous in these situations? I expect many are afraid they will be sued. Others may have a hidden agenda and could be using this cloak of anonymity to tear down a competitor or an opposing political party. Either way, I will have no part of it here. Please people... stand behind your opinions!

CBC Here & Now could use a makeover

2007-02-23T15:54:00.000-03:30

Heads are being scratched at the CBC, wondering why the new hour-long format and substantially improved program hasn’t resulted in better ratings for Here & Now. There’s no question that it’s a great program. The question now seems to be: are the viewers ever going to come back?

Part of the problem is, the show still looks very much the same as it did two years ago. The only major cosmetic change has been the addition of Jonathan Crowe as co-host, but his face is not exactly new. Therefore, when viewers come by to ‘sample’ the program, nothing leaps out and grabs them… it feels very much like the “same old”. Redesigned sets and new music are not enough.

Here & Now has some great talent, but things have gotten stale. They can shake things up partly by moving people around.

The first move should be a new assignment for Karl Wells. He has been doing the weather for as long as I can remember, and it’s time for a change. Karl is great when he interviews people, and would have made a good co-host of Living NL. Is it too late to rethink this, and move Erin Sulley back into news?

Here & Now lost a great opportunity when they let Krissy Holmes go last year. She filled in as weather host for a vacationing Karl Wells last summer, and positively sparkled. She had a quirky sense of humour and a great presence in front of the camera. Alas, she is gone now, over to Out of the Fog. For an excellent profile of Krissy, written for The Independent by Susan Rendell, click here.

Then there’s the anchors. I suggest moving Debbie Cooper into another role, one that takes full advantage of her journalistic skills (her interview last year with the Withers, about the loss of their daughter Renata, was mesmerizing). Debbie is warmer and more natural when inter-acting with people, as opposed to reading from the tele-prompter, though overall I make this suggestion primarily because change is good. Sometimes you just have to rotate your hosts.

As an alternate host, I would strongly recommend reporter Lynda Calvert, who has performed the anchor role many times in the past and is outstanding. They might even consider hiring someone completely new and totally unknown if they truly want to put a fresh face on the show.

I have no complaint with Jonathan Crowe. He has only been in the anchor chair for a little while so, if other changes are made, it would make sense for him to stay to lend some consistency.

The rest of the news team is great and the quality of the reporting is first rate. I do have one minor quibble with the new sportscaster, Jason Turnbull. He is certainly competent and there are no issues with the quality of his work. But his ascension means we no longer see any reporting by veteran sportscaster Don Power, who is not as young or handsome as Jason but has much more depth and experience.

Here & Now moves along at a pretty steady clip, but the show’s intro is lackluster and doesn’t build excitement. I have some ideas on how to fix this, but I’ll save that for another day. I will close by mentioning that, when Here & Now was at its peak, it aired at 6:30 pm. Viewers could watch NTV for half an hour, then switch to CBC at 6:30. I certainly wouldn't complain if Here & Now dropped back to this time slot, because I would like to see both programs. And it would definitely help to boost ratings.

The Independent threatened to sue blogger

2007-02-22T09:30:00.000-03:30

Last week, Anne Budgell of CBC Radio Noon interviewed blogger Ed Hollett, asking him how it felt to be singled out by the Premier as the possible target of a libel suit. During the Interview, Hollett mentioned that some time ago a local newspaper had also threatened to sue him.

This was something of a shock. Newspapers are commonly the target of lawsuits, but rarely the aggressor. Hollett has been known to write an unkind word or two about The Independent, and was quick to confirm my suspicion when I called him.

The letter was received quite some time ago and Hollett didn’t have it as his fingertips when I called. He did say that the letter asked him to stop making any further reference to the newspaper in his blog.

I then emailed Ryan Cleary, editor of The Independent, to get his side of the story. After all, The Independent is an opinionated newspaper that could not survive without freedom of speech, so it seems unusual to threaten legal action against someone else for exercising that right.

Cleary replied by saying that he didn’t want to be quoted in my blog, adding that he had no idea what I was talking about regarding a letter to Hollett. “If it happened, it wasn't while I was at the helm of The Independent,” he wrote.

For clarification, I went back to Hollett, who delved into his files, retrieved the letter, and sent over a scanned copy. The letter, dated October 28 2005, is from Ken Young of Derrick White Law, speaking on behalf of his client, Brian Dobbin (at the time, the owner of The Independent). It claims that Hollett made false statements about Dobbin and the newspaper, including speculation that the newspaper was on the verge of ceasing publication

“These comments are wholly inaccurate, misleading and damaging to Mr. Dobbin and The Independent,” the letter reads. “You are hereby put on notice that you are to immediately cease and desist making such statements, and any other defamatory statements regarding our client and The Independent… Should these statements be repeated in the future, Mr. Dobbin and The Independent will be forced to take legal action, and pursue their respective legal remedies to the fullest extent of the law.”

What do I make of all this? Well, as noted, I do think it’s ridiculous for a scrappy paper like The Independent to sue others for expressing alternative points of view. I appreciate that printing rumours about imminent closure can be harmful. I am more concerned about the “other defamatory statements” since these qualify as fair comment, no matter how critical they may have been. I would hope that the paper will cease and desist from such drastic measures in the future.

That said, I take Cleary at his word on this. I really don’t think he knew what Dobbin was doing, since the lawyer is clearly acting on Dobbin’s behalf.

And what did Ed Hollett do? At the time, he did cease and desist, though he continues to mention the paper occasionally.

“I just decided that it was not worth the crap,” Hollett said. “If I had my time back, I would have kept it up to see if they put their money where their mouth was.”

CBC erased priceless local programs (from 1990)

2007-02-21T12:25:00.000-03:30

I was browsing the Heritage Newfoundland web site and came across an entry about the history of television in this province. It refers to the breakthrough traditional program ‘All Around the Circle’, which aired from 1967 to 1979 and featured culturally significant singers like John White and Joan Morrissey. It also refers to ‘The Root Seller’, which aired in 1978. What the entry fails to mention is that almost all of these episodes have been lost forever, erased by the CBC to save money. I broke this story back in 1990, while working at The Sunday Express. I did feel some sympathy for Jim Byrd, who was forced to defend a policy that I’m sure he had no hand in. I think it is no coincidence that the shows were erased during that dark period when some elites looked down their noses at traditional Newfoundland music. For those who missed it, or weren't around in September of 1990, I am posting the article here.

CBC erased irreplaceable local shows
to avoid cost of preservation: official

By GEOFF MEEKER
Sunday Express Reporter

And now, from the tape archives of the CBC, a little bad news.

Almost all episodes of the classic CBC TV series All Around the Circle have been lost forever, erased over the years because of financial constraints, The Sunday Express has learned.

“Almost all of them (have been erased), unfortunately,” said Doug Laite, who was host of All Around the Circle, an influential program of traditional music that ran from 1964 to 1977 on CBC. “There are only two left, and I have both of them, as a matter of fact.”

The guardian of the nation’s cultural heritage felt those records of Newfoundland culture weren’t worth the cost of preserving them.

“It’s true to say most of them have been erased. Most of them have been wiped, eliminated – all the old black and white stuff,” said Jim Byrd, director of television with CBC. Much of the material was lost when CBC switched formats from black and white to color in the late ‘60s, Mr. Byrd said. At that time, he said, it was simply too costly to preserve all the old material.

Subsequent seasons of All Around the Circle produced in colour have also been erased, Mr. Byrd said.

“(The film) would all have had to be reprinted, because it was all so brittle. Then it would have had to be put on a $300 tape on top of that. And then we would have had to find a place to store it.”

Because of these costs, he said, the decision was made at the time to preserve only current affairs programs, such as Land and Sea. “If they had any kind of material that showed Newfoundland people, villages or industry – anything that might have been useful in a news story or current affairs sense – that was kept. Then what was kept was anything the Newfoundland Archive or MUN Folklore Department wanted.”

Phil Hiscock of the Folklore and Language Archive at Memorial University said it was “shocking” that the tapes had been erased.

Mr. Hiscock is a member of the Association for the Study of Canadian Radio and Television, a group dedicated to the preservation of culturally and historically significant TV and radio programs. “It’s exactly stories like that that got us moving… It’s a problem with all radio and television stations that that kind of stuff doesn’t get saved.”

As well, all episodes of The Root Seller, a musical comedy series that gave birth to the Wonderful Grand Band, have been obliterated, according to actor Greg Malone. Mr. Malone, who performed in the series, said when he requested copies of the program from CBC, “I was told they were erased – they’re gone.”

Mr. Byrd was unable to confirm whether or not The Root Seller tapes had been erased.

“They’re in there renovating the building at a cost of millions of dollars every year,” Mr. Malone said. “For the cost of a handful of tapes, a few hundred dollars, they have erased their whole history of the whole institution and the whole island… All those All Around the Circles were a history of the arts, culture, music and drama of Newfoundland. And The Root Seller was a very interesting little miniseries. I just can’t get a grip on it.”

In erasing the tapes, Mr. Malone said the CBC failed in its duty to preserve and promote Newfoundland culture and heritage. “It’s mind-boggling… That’s undervaluing their whole reason for existence. They can’t even show what they’ve done – they’ve erased it. I just get sick when I think about it.”

Mr. Malone said CBC has thrown away a valuable source of repeat programming. “There’s lots of airtime to fill and it would’ve cost them pennies. And people would love to see it as nostalgia. But they can’t – it’s gone. That was just absolutely unforgivable.”

Mr. Hiscock said CBC donated a number of audio tapes to the MUN archive several years ago, including “10 or a dozen” All Around the Circle sound recordings. As well, donations of audio and video recordings have been made to the Provincial Archives in St. John’s.

These tapes have not yet been catalogued, and may be found to contain original episodes or outtakes from All Around the Circle or other culturally significant programs.

Wangersky nominated for major prize

2007-02-21T11:04:00.000-03:30

The news is almost two weeks old, but it bears mention nonetheless. Congratulations are extended to Russell Wangersky, Managing Editor of The Telegram, on being nominated for the Commonwealth Writers Prize. An old colleague of mine from The Sunday Express, Wangersky is nominated in the Best First Book category, Canada and the Caribbean, for "The Hour of Bad Decisions", his critically-acclaimed debut collection of short stories. In June of last year, "The Hour of Bad Decisions" was the subject of a panel discussion for an episode of 'Talking Books' on CBC Radio. For more information on the nomination, click here.

'Living NL' is a great bit of fun

2007-02-20T19:40:00.000-03:30

I finally caught an episode of 'Living Newfoundland and Labrador' (Living NL) tonight on CBC TV and enjoyed it fully and completely. The show has a fast pace - they squeeze a heck of a lot into 30 minutes - so if one subject doesn't really grab you, it only takes a moment and they are on to the next thing. The production values are first rate and Krysta Rudofsky has really come into her own as a host.

I have to say, it is refreshing to see so many local faces doing interesting and fun things, and, unlike the newscast that precedes it, none are there for reasons of scandal, crime or controversy. It's a harmless and entertaining half-hour of frivolous fun, and that's fine by me. Despite the glowering picture at right, I am not serious all the time!

I am a little surprised that it took CBC this long to begin repeating the program in the evenings, but I suspect there wasn't a slot open until the recent cancellation of 'Canada Now'.

You can view recent episodes of the program by visiting the Living NL web site.

CAJ 'Media' magazine is highly recommended

2007-02-19T17:41:00.000-03:30

I assume you come to this page because, like me, you are fascinated with the workings of media. If so, I direct your attention to the web site of the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ).

No, I am not suggesting you sign up as a member (at least, not unless you are a journalist). But the site does have some great content that is available to anyone who drops by.

There is insightful commentary on issues that affect journalism, but I draw your attention in particular to the CAJ ‘Media’ magazine, which is one of the best association newsletters I’ve seen. It’s a quarterly magazine that is professionally produced and chock full of provocative articles about journalism in Canada and the world. You can download the full library of back issues in pdf format. If you are fascinated by the craft of journalism, you will absolutely love this magazine.

Check it out here or click the link on the right.

Russian deportee may have been killed

2007-02-19T08:01:00.000-03:30

CBC News is reporting that a local advocacy group has lost contact with a deported Russian, and there are fears he may have been killed. The Refugee Immigrant Advisory Council in St. John’s says that Alexander Kruglov was supposed to stay in touch by email when he was deported more than three months ago, but there has been no word from him. There were plenty of warnings about what would happen to Kruglov if he was sent back to Russia so, if he has been killed, there are people at Immigration Canada with blood on their hands.

In March of 2006, I highlighted Kruglov’s desperate situation in a media column for The Express. Things might have been different if Kruglov had received more media coverage, but that agenda was dominated almost entirely by the Portnoys (whose case was frivolous, to say the least). Check out my full column on the ‘Time to probe deeper on immigration’ link, below.

Another issue at play here is the fact that there is no Director General of Immigration in this province, but two in Halifax! The problem is, even if we can prove that Kruglov has been killed, we won’t get any comment from Immigration Canada because their policy is to not comment on specific cases. It is an abhorrent situation brought on by our privacy laws, which have created a cloak behind which public officials can conveniently hide when the questions start getting tough. For more on this, check ‘When privacy and accountability collide’ below.

Reflections on the 'Ocean Ranger'

2007-02-16T10:17:00.000-03:30

I was a young journalist - just 25 years old - when the 'Ocean Ranger' was lost. However, I was working the entertainment beat at 'The Newfoundland Herald' so I was not chasing the story the way my colleagues were; I watched it unfold more as a citizen than a reporter.

Word filtered out slowly about the severity of the incident and I became aware - one person at a time - that I knew four people on the rig. They were Ron Heffernan, Derek Holden, Ted Stapleton and Greg Tiller; all from Mount Pearl, where I grew up.

Of the four, I knew Ron Heffernan the best. He was one of the crowd I hung with at The Shack, a teenage hang-out where many, many Blue Star, India and Dominion mysteriously evaporated, though none of us were old enough to buy it. I saw less of Ron when we all finished high school, and the shack was abandoned for Chevy Novas and souped-up vans with plush interiors. I last saw Ron at The Roxy nightclub, some months before the Ocean Ranger went down. I asked him what he was doing.

"Working on the Ocean Danger," he said.

"You mean... the Ranger?"

"Yeah... but we calls it the Danger. Man, that place is scary."

I forget precisely what his complaints were, though I formed the distinct impression that safety was not a priority for the rig owners. I still get goosebumps when I recall that encounter.

Even more chilling is the poem by Greg Tiller, which foretold the disaster - and thus his own death - in a most eloquent way. I have been scouring my files trying to find a copy, but no luck yet. When I unearth it I will post it here, as an update. (And if any readers have a copy, I would be grateful if you could email it to me.)

For more on the Ocean Ranger, check the 'How Journalists Deal With Death' post in the archives below.

Speaking of errors...

2007-02-15T07:32:00.000-03:30

There was an innocuous yet significant error in Jeff Gilhooly's intro to the CBC Radio Morning Show today at 6 am. Pretty much the entire program is marking the 25th anniversary of the loss of the Ocean Ranger, and there is some powerful content here (I am still tuned to the show as I write).

In his opening remarks, Gilhooly said, in effect, that the people of this province awoke 25 years ago to news that the Ocean Ranger had been lost. I remember those terrible days clearly, and one of the most troublesome aspects was the lack of such information in the early hours. All we knew at first was that something was wrong. By midday, if memory serves, we knew that the rig was no longer showing on radar and several more painful hours elapsed before it was confirmed that all hands had been lost.

This is less a criticism than an observation. I can appreciate how perceptions of events can become compressed with the passage of time. And if you weren't here to experience the disaster, it's an easy mistake to make.

Quite a retraction from 'Consumer Reports'

2007-02-15T06:26:00.000-03:30

When a respected and trusted media institution makes a mistake, it can do a deadly blow to the subject of that error. ‘Consumer Reports’ is trusted by millions for the rigorous science it brings to product testing, and the objective way its findings are presented (the publication will not accept advertising or allow its endorsements to be exploited in advertising).

The February issue of ‘Consumer Reports’ contained the startling revelation that infant car seats were much less safe than presumed, and shocking crash test footage was released to media.

Soon after, Consumers Union President Jim Guest issued a complete retraction of the story, announcing that the side-impact crash tests – which were conducted by an outside lab – had been compromised by serious mistakes. The tests were supposed to have been conducted at 38 mph, but were actually “much more severe than that,” according to Guest.

The magazine took immediate and decisive action, publicizing its decision to “withdraw” the article and its rankings from the record. This is helpful to those accessing the online database, but will not undo the perceptions created among readers who didn’t catch the retraction (which no doubt received fewer headlines than those generated by the original report). Such is the reality of any major error that creeps into a story; almost invariably, the correction will get less notice than the story that engendered it.

While on the subject of retractions, I encourage you to check out the Regret The Error link on this page. It’s a comprehensive roundup of corrections from newsrooms large and small, the world over. The topics range from deadly serious to quite funny, such as this correction from the Sentinel-Review of Woodstock, Ontario:

< In an article in Monday's newspaper, there may have been a misperception about why a Woodstock man is going to Afghanistan on a voluntary mission. Kevin DeClark is going to Afghanistan to gain life experience to become a police officer when he returns, not to shoot guns and blow things up. The Sentinel-Review apologizes for any embarrassment this may have caused. >

'Current' sold to James Baird

2007-02-14T16:13:00.000-03:30

News flash! The saucy alternative monthly Current has been sold to James Baird, who indicates in a press release that he plans to go weekly with the publication. Baird bought Current from Roger Bill and Greg Locke. I'll have more on this later. In the meantime, the full text of the press release appears below:

St. John's Businessman Buys Current

Current Communications Inc. wishes to announce that its monthly newspaper, Current, has been sold. The eight-year-old alternative newspaper has been purchased by James Baird.

Mr. Baird says, "The potential for a weekly, arts and entertainment paper in St. John's has existed for some time and my organization believes Current provides a solid base on which to build a newspaper that reflects and supports our dynamic culture."

Current was launched in February, 1999 by Tom Thorne, a St. John's animation artist. Following a colourful and sometimes controversial beginning, Current was joined in 2003 by graphic designer Mark Smith. Smith, who was Current's publisher for 3 years, was joined by journalist Roger Bill in 2004, and with the addition of photojournalist Greg Locke the paper established itself as a regular fixture in the St. John's media marketplace. Bill says, "It took Current several years to get into the black, but the paper is financially successful, and we wish James Baird and Current continued success."

Greg Locke, a co-owner of Current Communications with Bill, is an experienced photo journalist and the first editor of the Sunday Independent. He says, "It's always a pleasure to be part of a publication that offers the public a unique product with intelligence, humour and high production values. Current always stood out from the crowd and truly was an alternative newspaper."

The next edition of Current is scheduled for distribution March 8th.

David Cochrane to address Board of Trade

2007-02-14T13:20:00.000-03:30

He's not a high profile politician or esteemed business leader, but David Cochrane's address to the St. John's Board of Trade (February 21 at the Capital Hotel) promises to be fascinating indeed. One of the smartest and hardest-working journalists in the province, Cochrane is the provincial affairs reporter with CBC Here & Now. He is also wickedly funny.

Cochrane is going to explore how companies and government have clashed over high profile resource development. "I will talk about the impact this has had on the business climate and the lack of a broader debate about these issues," Cochrane told me. "In my experience these incidents have led to largely one-sided discussions which are driven by the legislature and the open-line. I think this has led to a chill that has stunted public discourse, something I don't think is good for the province."

To find out more, visit http://www.bot.nf.ca/

Tactical error for Hickey and Williams

2007-02-13T23:25:00.000-03:30

Transportation Minister John Hickey’s decision to sue Roger Grimes – and the Premier’s willingness to pay for it with our tax dollars – is a major tactical blunder.

With the so-called “vindication” of Hickey, one would expect Williams to leave this mess behind and get on with the business of running government. Instead, he is getting sidetracked into a legal battle that will keep this issue in the media for months to come.

According to Simon Lono (http://offalnews.blogspot.com/), the premier warned that other commentators might be the subject of future lawsuits, including Ed Hollett (http://www.bondpapers.blogspot.com/) and Sue Kelland Dyer (http://nlpost.blogspot.com/). In fact, it sounded to me like Williams was firing a warning shot over the head of anyone with the temerity to criticize his government.

“I’ll tell anybody out there, if they are going to take down the reputation of people who are in public life, then they will have to basically answer for it… and they will have to answer for it in court,” Williams said in a media scrum.

Should you be intimidated by this? Should the open lines fall silent? Should we stop expressing outrage at the scandals coming out of Confederation Building? Absolutely not.

First of all, you can never, ever be sued for telling the truth – no matter how unpleasant or inconvenient the truth may be. Secondly, defamation law in Canada entitles each of us to make “fair comment” on issues of the day. Lloyd Duhaime of Duhaime Law in Vancouver sums it up this way:

“The author of the remarks may even go so far as to presume motives on the part of the person who's actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice.”

(To read more on this, click: http://www.duhaime.org/Tort/ca-defam.aspx)

The proven fact in this case is the 20 claims that were double billed by John Hickey; Grimes might reasonably argue that he was speculating on the proven facts.

Finally, the courts generally give more leeway to “fair comment” when the subject of derogatory remarks is a public figure. And that’s fair enough. When you enter public life, you invite such scrutiny and criticism. It’s part of the game.

Perhaps there was no criminal intent on John Hickey’s behalf. But the fact is, he did double bill according to the Auditor General’s report. This suit will inevitably drag out the embarrassing detail of how that happened, and there are going to be some tough questions raised about Hickey’s competence. It’s a can of worms that can only grow more putrid with the passage of time.

Williams and Hickey should let the matter drop and move on.

UPDATE: I hear on the news that Hickey is now going to pay his own legal bills, if the case proceeds. Which begs the question: did they not anticipate that the public, already angry from MHA spending scandals, would be unhappy about paying for Hickey's lawsuit? This is truly remarkable.

New sports paper could use a good editor

2007-02-13T23:08:00.000-03:30

There is a stereotype in media circles that broadcast journalists are not great writers; that they are good at talking their way through a piece but lousy at spelling and punctuation. I know some electronic journalists who are fabulous writers, but there is some truth to this notion. And The Sports Page, a new publication, bears this out. Owned by Carl Lake, a former TV sports broadcaster with CBC, it is plagued by poor writing, bad punctuation and sloppy design.

The Sports Page is a monthly eight-page tabloid that is distributed free of charge in the St. John’s area.

While the layout is haphazard and inconsistent, I could forgive that if there was something here worth reading. Alas, it sounds like the ‘writer’ of the articles – and Lake is not the only contributor – has dictated the story into a tape machine, then had it transcribed by someone with dubious knowledge of the English Language.

Read this paragraph, from the first issue, and try to figure out what it means:

< The night before I spoke with Geri, Ian was inducted into the Mount Pearl Sports Hall of Fame as a builder for his dedication and tireless work with the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey Association, Geri presented her husband for induction and the joke Ian made was that he had to have her do it so he could ensure she would be there and not the Fog Devils hockey game. >

Painful! And there is this sentence from the same article, which screams to be fixed:

< She says she tries as much as she can, as a Fog Devil parent, to do as much as she can with Ryan and not leave it as much to the association, it is there for him, they have a great system set up whereby they have drivers that will pick them up and take them to classes, take them to practice etc, however, Geri drives Ryan to MUN three mornings a week on her way to work because it makes sense to her to do that. >

This lead (or lede, for purists) from another story is the literary equivalent of nails scratching the blackboard:

< It’s basically out with the old and in with the new. The times have started changing.

Two venues in St. John’s have changed their name reflecting, what many see as, a necessity in these changing times.

Sports Organizations, and many will back this statement up, need help from the corporate community to survive. That’s no secret.

Well for many years it was known as the Prince of Wales Arena. However things have now changed. >

One can safely infer, from this intro, that something has changed.

In the second issue, Alex J. Walling, author of the book “Golden Gushue” (Nimbus), offers a rambling, almost incomprehensible account of how the book came to be. A better question would have been why the book happened at all, given the shoddy writing here. It also reads like an interview transcript. If this is the case, then the lack of editing does Walling a disservice. Check out this excerpt:

< But the publishers were after, not so much the competitive curlers, but rather the people across Newfoundland and this country who took in the Olympics. The example would be one can get a five star dinner at a great restaurant but this book and plenty of pictures is geared for McDonalds. Who sells more meals and attracts more families than anyone in North America? >

The Trivia Guy piece by Steve O’Brien is not bad, but there is precious little else to get excited about. Sports fans who are looking for more local content, and don’t care about the quality of what they read, will enjoy this publication. The rest of you should take a pass.

Note: You can download all three issues of the publication here: http://www.sportsphonenf.com/

It's time to probe deeper on immigration (March 2006)

2007-02-10T22:19:00.000-03:30

When you think about controversial immigration stories, what is the first name that leaps to mind?

Chances are, you said ‘Portnoy’.

This is not a surprise, given the massive amounts of media that the Portnoys have generated in recent months. Unfortunately, there are other, far more important immigration stories out there that are receiving little or no coverage.

Let’s strip away the emotion from the Portnoy case. If sent back to Israel, are their lives at risk? No. Will they live in poverty and hardship? Probably not. (In 2005, the United Nations ranked Israel at 23 of 177 countries in terms of life expectancy, education and income.) What occupational skills does Portnoy bring to this country? He knows how to make pizza. There’s also the murky area of Portnoy’s alleged criminal record and the fact that he lied to immigration officials.

Donna Jeffrey is the Director of the Refugee Immigrant Advisory Council, a volunteer group that advocates on behalf of those trying to navigate the immigration labyrinth. Before Christmas, Jeffrey was quoted in a media interview saying, in effect, that the Portnoy case was drawing public attention away from other more pressing cases.

In an interview last week, Ms. Jeffrey was more circumspect in her remarks, noting that some of her colleagues were not pleased with what she had said. She was careful not to criticize the Portnoys and emphasized that she did feel for their plight. “All I can say is, there are other cases. And I think the cases speak for themselves.”

For example:

Alexander Kruglov fled St. Petersburg Russia, after the political candidate he worked for lost the election. The winning candidate, an organized crime leader, promptly began murdering those who opposed him. Kruglov and his wife fled for their lives, leaving behind well-paying jobs, a comfortable home and a good life. But Immigration Canada has rejected their application and the Kruglovs will be deported. “This man cannot go back,” Jeffrey said. “He will be killed if he goes back there.”

Until recently, Igor Kharpol was in charge of quality control at Exploits Design, a textiles manufacturing facility in St. John’s. Kharpol’s immigration application has been denied and he will soon be deported, despite the fact that his skills are critical to the operation. Exploits Design will likely have to leave the province, taking five local jobs with it.

There are other examples, such as Vladimir Ronenson and Alexi Kolosov, but space doesn’t permit me to use them here (though I will say this – any reporter who invests 30 minutes talking with Donna Jeffrey is going to get some strong story material). On March 4, as I was writing this column, CTV’s W5 program aired a story about immigration, in which they used Newfoundland cases to demonstrate the heavy hand of immigration officials. (You can read the transcript at ctv.ca)

Another under-reported story is the fact that Halifax has two Directors General of Immigration while this province has none. (Talk about a declining federal presence!) What do officials in Halifax know about the life or death circumstances faced by our immigrant and refugee claimants? What do they care about how their expulsion affects our local economy? This situation is untenable and has to be addressed.

Why do the Portnoys receive so much media attention, when their case is nowhere near as urgent as the others? Three reasons. First, the Portnoy story has dramatic elements, including small children and a pregnant mother, that are irresistible to media. Second, a well-organized volunteer group in Marystown is pushing Portnoy’s case. Third, Alexi Portnoy knows how to manipulate media (one reporter who covered this story told me that he initially liked Alexi, but eventually realized that he was being exploited and came to resent it).

I have no problem if media want to follow the Portnoy case. But I will be concerned if they fail to give equal time to other, far more important cases.

Meeker On Media

Click below for new blog location

Click below for new blog location

Test driving the Nikon D80 digital SLR

Click right here for new blog location

Blog is now active at thetelegram.com

Update: Moving day is Monday

Karl Wells is retiring from the CBC

Big changes in store for this little blog

Newfoundland's senior reporter passes away

More interesting stuff on the way

Walsh leaves the bright lights of TO for St. John's

An all-out attack on freedom of speech

When editors stump at political rallies

First technology column in The Telegram

Atlantic Journalism Award winners announced

Rally numbers inflated by patriotic spin?

A shot of Rex you won't believe

One reporter’s take on our oil and gas industry

A commentary of Orwellian proportions

Change is becoming a Regular thing

Stuart McLean makes watching the radio fun

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Indifferent about awards until given one

Greg Locke’s journey picks up national coverage

A time of transition for CBC Radio Noon

Cabbie stands in as computer expert

Too much bitter and not enough sweet

A new beginning for Anne Budgell

CBC Radio Building falls silent today

Nightmare in the Dominican Republic

A veritable feast for the eyes

NBC has an attack of good taste

The CBC definitely gets it right

Surprise, surprise: killer produced manifesto

CBC Editor In Chief weighs in on Virginia slayings

Mass killers inspire others to similar acts

Westcott speech continues to make ripples

Sledworthy needs to ramp up on safety

The Muse takes satirical aim at The Independent

The farewells and tributes begin for Anne Budgell

When rumours shouldn't make headlines

A cute little ditty from Al Clouston

Nelson Hart confession tape to air on CBC TV

A failing grade for math program changes

Greg Locke follows human tide to Alberta

Recognizing quality journalism

Ken Meeker and his adventures at the front

Scott Feschuk on Williams' equalization battle

Part 2: Media coverage of current events

Part 1: Media coverage of current events

Westcott's speech draws record traffic

Weighing the cost of lost opportunities

What do reporters think of the 'media table'?

Most frequent search subject: Father Wayne Dohey

A candid exchange between journalists

An epitaph for The Express

Why we didn't see crucial videotaped evidence

Marketing your own company can be tricky

Does it make us angry... or uncomfortable?

The Express has folded... it's gone

Anne Budgell skewers sloppy cartoonist

Another take on the Mark Smith trial

Stay tuned... more on the way!

A few bad apples in the retail barrel

The new Current is drifting out to sea

We should think about the victim first

Former Current publisher goes on trial

A little-known chapter in our history

He won't be a free agent for long

Time vs. Maclean's: and the winner is...

More questionable marketing stunts

Avalon caribou are safe for now

Cochrane's speech had quite an impact

Hickey's defamation suit is proceeding

David Cochrane’s speech on ‘patriotic correctness’

Poem foreshadowed loss of Ocean Ranger

Rob Antle's IEC article will win awards

Unionized anchors impede change at Here & Now

Now that's a compelling editorial!