Another take on the Mark Smith trial

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.

The new Current is drifting out to sea

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.

Former Current publisher goes on trial

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.)

'Current' sold to James Baird

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.