Note from author: This column was revised and updated for publication in the Spring 2005 issue of Media Magazine, the official publication of the Canadian Association of Journalists.
Journalists will usually react with skepticism to any controversial release, digging deeper, asking tough questions and refusing to conform to the newsmaker’s agenda. There is, however, at least one exception. When it comes to scientific studies that affect our health, media will sometimes amplify and exaggerate the seriousness of the ‘threat’.
This is no idle accusation. It’s a conclusion I’ve drawn from years of media observation. I write a media analysis column for The Express newspaper in Newfoundland and, last year, did some research to substantiate my theory.
My conclusion is that, when it comes to health stories, even the most respected news outlets will not read the fine print or delve into the science, rushing to conclusions that are sensational, not necessarily factual.
MAD COW UNEASE
The crisis over mad cow disease has been devastating Canadian cattle farmers since the first outbreak in May of 2003. It continues to generate above-the-fold headlines, following the recent court decision in Montana which blocks the reopening of the U.S. border to Canadian beef.
Yes, the story is significant. But it needn’t have dealt such a terrible blow to our cattle farming industry. How many news items have clearly explained the real health threat of mad cow disease? How many have compared our situation with that of the United Kingdom?
Reporters in Canada were quick to report on the crisis as its ramifications rippled into external markets, but they failed to offer balancing information that might have tempered the situation. Two years later, I still haven’t seen an effective reality check from media. If anything, they’ve been fanning the flames of confusion and fear around this story.
Reporters might have explained that, in the United Kingdom, cattle were fed animal carcasses infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease for years. Estimates are that anywhere from 50,000 to one million infected cows were consumed in the UK. So far, more than 100 people have died from the disease (though more cases are bound to surface). Given the size of the UK population and the apparently widepsread consumption of the BSE virus, this is a relatively small number. (U.K. residents might better focus their concerns on second hand cigarette smoke, which kills more than 11,000 people per year in that country, according to a British Medical Journal study.)
In Canada, we have learned from the UK experience. We have much greater awareness, more stringent health and safety controls on beef, and four known cases of BSE in cows. As far as we know, no infected meat has been consumed in Canada or the U.S. No one has contracted the human variant of this disease, and the real danger to consumers is practically nil.
I am aware that this story is not exclusively about health concerns. The protectionist agenda of the American cattle farmers is also a factor. Which reinforces the need for greater clarity around the actual health threat posed by BSE.
I am not suggesting that reporters should build in such balancing information in their early news coverage. When I worked as a reporter, if someone had suggested I include "softening" information in breaking stories I would have told them to take a hike. However, this type of information does have a place as a story unfolds, when the public is looking for background information to better understand the issue.
SOMETHING FISHY
The headlines were pretty scary: ‘Eating salmon may pose health risks;’ ‘Farmed salmon laced with toxins;’ ‘Scare over farmed salmon safety’.
These headlines were collected on the Internet from news sources around the world, reacting to a 2004 study in the journal ‘Science’ about toxin levels in farmed salmon.
The report was reasonably credible in its research, at least on first glance. However, the story it generated contained a major flaw in logic.
Articles in both ‘The Globe and Mail’ and on the BBC News web site took a similar approach to this story. In the top paragraphs, they summarized the findings as alarmingly as possible.
“Farm-raised Atlantic salmon… are so laced with PCBs and other pollutants that they should be eaten only infrequently,” said the Globe in its lead sentence.
Then they brought in opposing viewpoints from health officials and the salmon farming industry, but they came across as defensive and self-serving. (Could it have sounded any other way, given the scandalous tone of the lead sentence?)
The truly telling information came out in the bottom half of The Globe piece. Farmed salmon had up to 50 parts per billion (ppb) of PCBs, which is well below Canadian federal guidelines of 2,000 ppb. However, one of the report authors suggested that this standard, developed in the 1970s, is out of date and should be reduced to 50 ppb. Which means that the highest concentration of PCBs found in this study would meet the proposed, more stringent regulations – information that renders the entire story almost completely pointless.
The reporters in this case did manage to slip in key balancing information, even if it might best be described as ‘nullifying’ information. And not before playing the most sensational allegations first and loudest, thereby whipping consumers into a frenzy and possibly causing major damage to the fish farming industry.
If a government department had announced a new development scheme that contained an equivalent flaw in logic, the media would catch it and make this gaffe the focus of their story. But when our health is at issue, they set aside rational thinking and run shrieking onto the airwaves and into print.
I invited The Globe and Mail via email to respond to this item, but received no reply. That said, The Globe is not the only offender here. Pretty much every major news outlet played this story the same way. And the hysteria created by this coverage is being perpetuated on the Internet, as a quick Google search for “toxins farmed salmon” will show.
ACRIMONY OVER ACRYLAMIDES
In 2002, we had another major health scare in the form of acrylamides, which are chemicals reported to cause cancer in animals. Researchers in Sweden found acrylamides in fried foods, like french fries, and even baked foods such as bread and cereal. The acrylamide story received extensive coverage in this country.
In January 2003, CBC TV’s “Marketplace” reported that Health Canada was suppressing test information about acrylamide levels in foods, whereas governments in Sweden, Germany and Norway were issuing all sorts of precautions.
“Marketplace has learned… that our government is keeping information from you,” said reporter Wendy Mesley, who revealed that Health Canada was indeed not telling us about test results they had conducted on our food. And if acrylamides were proven to be dangerous to humans, it would have been a valid story.
But I was always suspicious about this one. Mankind has been eating bread and cereal products in large quantities for hundreds of years; why haven’t we noticed a cancer correlation?
I went to the CBC “Marketplace” web site and found an entire section devoted to this story. After some mining, I found what I was looking for under the heading ‘Is acrylamide in food a threat to our health?’
According to a scientist with Health Canada, “the amounts of acrylamide humans consume on a daily basis is slightly over 1/100th of 1 per cent of the dose, adjusted for body weight, that gave cancer to half of an exposed group of rats.”
By my calculation, this means we would need to consume 10,000 times more acrylamide than we do right now, in order to duplicate the experience of those unfortunate rats. If Marketplace had seriously considered this information, they might have concluded that Health Canada was right not to panic about this bogus health crisis.
I invited Marketplace via email to respond, but received no reply.
A LONG HISTORY
While doing Internet research for this article, I found a fascinating essay by David Ropeik, writing for CommonWealth magazine out of Massachusetts. (The magazine appears credible and free of any overt agenda.) Ropeik suggests that editors and reporters develop stories based on “risk perception”; a combination of value-charged factors that trigger audience reaction.
“In short, stories about health risks sell,” Ropeik writes. “Newspaper editors and broadcast news directors want stories the public will notice, stories that sell papers and boost ratings. And reporters — who aren't concerned with corporate profits but are interested in their work getting the widest possible audience — highlight the aspects of their stories that seem particularly frightening.”
To read the full article, visit http://www.massinc.org/commonwealth/mass_media.htm. (Update: This link is no longer working, and the site now has a subscription fee.)
The media health scare phenomenon is nothing new. I learned to be cynical about it at an early age from watching my father, Ken Meeker, when he worked as a broadcast journalist. I was just 12 years old in 1969, when the U.S. government banned cyclamates because they caused cancer in eight out of 240 rats that were fed the chemical.
My father covered this story but, to his credit, didn't take the scaremonger approach. He debunked the story by revealing that the lab rats ingested cyclamates at levels equivalent to humans drinking 350 cans of diet soda per day.
Is this starting to sound familiar?
I am not saying that reporters always over-react to such stories. Sometimes, they nip them in the bud. For example, subsequent health scares about other artificial sweeteners, most notably Aspartame, have not been amplified by media (despite falsehoods that persist on the Internet).
And sometimes, it's okay to panic. The media frenzy serves a useful purpose when the threat is real, or when public awareness is necessary. For instance, all the publicity given to SARS, frantic as it was, helped keep that disease from spreading.
What we need, however, are reporters and editors who look more diligently into the science before creating those alarming, sensational headlines.
Now, pass the salmon and french fries please.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
The Bagbys: Newsmaker of the year (December 2003)
A wise editor once told me that a news story is never really over; that its ramifications continue to ripple outward, affecting other people and triggering new events that are noteworthy unto themselves. Which is why it is so important to “follow” a story, even when it appears to have gone dormant.
The truth of this was driven home on September 3, when David and Kathleen Bagby went public over their frustration with the justice system, and despair over the loss of grandson Zachary. The Bagbys brought international attention to a story that many reporters said had come to a “conclusion.”
You could feel the Bagbys’ pain, and it was hard not to agree with their contention that the justice system had failed Zachary. Suddenly, the Turner story was back on the public agenda, and the Bagbys made it clear they were planning to keep it there. It became, without question, the story of the year in this province.
At the centre of this emotional roller-coaster have been David and Kathleen Bagby. They’ve shown remarkable strength, hanging on tenaciously as the story took some unexpected, at times heart-wrenching twists and turns.
I contacted Mr. Bagby, who consented to an interview. We discussed events and the ensuing media coverage more or less in chronological order, beginning with an article headlined ‘In defence of Shirley Turner’ which appeared in The Telegram on the Labour Day weekend. In it, writer Renee Pollett engaged in reminiscences of a year spent studying with Shirley Turner, as well as some armchair psychology about the plight of the single mother, to rationalize Turner’s behaviour.
“Obviously, it was irritating, aggravating and infuriating, but (the writer) cut herself off at the knees in the first paragraph, when she wrote that she hadn't had contact with Shirley Turner in over 20 years,” Bagby said. “Who cares what Turner was like as a kid… What's important is what she's done since then.”
The Bagbys went public to vent their feelings just days later. However, they were not driven to do so by The Telegram article. They were waiting for the police to finish their work.
“The police were still investigating,” Bagby said. “We wanted to make absolutely sure they didn’t uncover anything else… and they publicly confirmed that it was murder-suicide. We had a meeting with the investigating officer who gave us a summary. So we had our facts straight and were ready to tell the public what we thought about it.”
The delay also gave the Bagbys time to collect their thoughts and get the details right, he added. “If I had stepped in front of a camera the day after Zachary had been murdered, I’d have been a lunatic.”
The news conference was an emotional event and some controversial statements were made, but Bagby makes no apologies for it. “We want impact, and the impact we want is change. I don’t know how to get it exactly but we had to make that statement to get it off our chest partly and also to make sure that the public at large saw as much as possible about what happened.”
A FLOOD OF COVERAGE
The tactic worked. There was a flood of media coverage about the Turner case, in the weeks and months after the Bagby news conference. The Telegram, NTV and local radio followed the story on a daily basis. There was a sensitive and insightful interview with the Bagbys in The Express.
National media also followed the story closely. A member of Shirley Turner’s family gave the National Post access to Turner’s personal diaries, in which Turner wrote to her baby in the months before she killed him. Turner ostensibly planned to give the diaries to Zachary when he turned 18. However, the diaries didn’t ring true. Turner insisted she was innocent, and described Andrew Bagby as her “best friend”. A more cynical observer might suggest that Turner was trying to manufacture ‘evidence’ that might be used at her trial.
The most in-depth and compelling coverage came during November, through a series of investigative reports by Chris O’Neill-Yates of CBC TV’s “Canada Now”. The documentary series gave new momentum to this story, and raised new questions about the Turner case.
The Bagbys worked with CBC in producing the series. “She wanted to get the story out there, in detail, and that matched our goal, so we cooperated fully with her and asked people we know, including the police in Pennsylvania, to cooperate with her. We were very happy with the result. She has hit all the major points and it was extremely powerful.”
Working on the piece meant the Bagbys had to make some gut-wrenching decisions about showing photos of Andrew’s body, lying face down in that parking lot. They agreed to allow the use of photos taken at some distance from the body.
“We would not have wanted close-ups or pure sensationalism,” Bagby said, his voice breaking with emotion. “But we did want responsible people to see that this is what the words on those pieces of paper meant! And somebody who even probably did that needs to be treated with a great deal of care.”
O’Neill-Yates series introduced new information, including evidence from Pennsylvania about the case against Turner, and revelations of how Turner’s behavior deteriorated in the weeks before Zachary’s murder (including harassment of a new boyfriend). It was apparent from the evidence that Shirley Turner was a woman who couldn’t deal with rejection.
In part four of her documentary series, O’Neill-Yates dropped in a subtle detail that might have been crucial to Zachary’s fate: at his first birthday party, the child ‘rejected’ Shirley Turner, reaching for his grandparents instead. This is not unusual behavior in young children, but it may have cost young Zachary his life. O’Neill-Yates didn’t say this; she just included the information as part of her piece, leaving us to draw our own conclusions.
You can view the entire series by O’Neill-Yates, along with related stories, by visiting http://stjohns.cbc.ca/features/shirleyturner.
STAKEHOLDERS WEIGHED IN
What was fascinating about the Shirley and Zachary Turner story was the way so many different stakeholders weighed in with their positions, especially after the Bagbys went public on September 3.
On September 4, the Minister of Social Services defended his department, saying it did everything it could to protect Zachary and that all protocols were followed. But the following day, apparently still feeling some pressure, the Minister ordered a full report on the services his department provided to this file. The report was delivered to the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, which is conducting an independent investigation.
Also on September 4, the Newfoundland Supreme Court lifted a publication ban on evidence in the Turner case. The court lifted the ban in response to an application from the CBC, but who can say what role the Bagbys news conference played in that decision?
On September 5, we heard from a criminal defence lawyer, who said that the system worked as intended. “The Bagby’s concerns, grief and anger with the system are very understandable,” said Bob Simmonds, in an interview with Jeff Gilhooly of CBC Radio. “Having said that, that does not mean the system malfunctioned here.”
On September 13, lawyers with the Canadian Bar Association issued a statement that judges should not be singled out for the decisions they make, asking the public to respect the integrity of the justice system. The Bagbys intend to comply with this request, at least until the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate has completed its investigation.
On the whole, Bagby feels that “most” of media coverage has been fair and balanced. But he doesn’t mind when articles or letters to the editor get it wrong because it gives him an opportunity to write a rebuttal, and put his case before the public once again. Bagby recognizes that, in order to effect real change, he needs to hold the attention of the news media.
“That’s a big part of it,” he said. “We will talk to just about anybody in the press who seems reasonable. We are also writing letters to various officials who might be able to influence change. And I can’t say any more about that until I get answers from them.”
The next critical milestone in this story ¬– and the next opportunity for major media coverage – will be the report from Mr. Lloyd Wicks, the province’s Child and Youth Advocate. The Bagbys have had one meeting with Mr. Wicks, in which they discussed the process of his investigation. A more thorough interview will follow in the new year.
“He has a big job to do,” Bagby said. “He has to investigate all the details about what happened in Zachary’s short life… Our greatest function here, other than trying to keep this in the public eye, is to assist Mr. Wicks in his investigation as much as possible.”
The Bagbys have faith in Mr. Wicks’ ability to get to the bottom of the story. “I think his heart is in it,” Bagby said. “I am convinced he needs to find out what happened, get it documented and presumably come up with recommendations of what is needed to prevent or cut the probability of this happening again.”
For the Bagbys, this is truly a story that will never be over. I wish them continued strength and resolve in their mission to bring about change to our legal system, and more accountability to those entrusted with ensuring the safety of children in unusual situations like this.
And I hope they somehow find solace and peace in their lives.
God knows they deserve it.
The truth of this was driven home on September 3, when David and Kathleen Bagby went public over their frustration with the justice system, and despair over the loss of grandson Zachary. The Bagbys brought international attention to a story that many reporters said had come to a “conclusion.”
You could feel the Bagbys’ pain, and it was hard not to agree with their contention that the justice system had failed Zachary. Suddenly, the Turner story was back on the public agenda, and the Bagbys made it clear they were planning to keep it there. It became, without question, the story of the year in this province.
At the centre of this emotional roller-coaster have been David and Kathleen Bagby. They’ve shown remarkable strength, hanging on tenaciously as the story took some unexpected, at times heart-wrenching twists and turns.
I contacted Mr. Bagby, who consented to an interview. We discussed events and the ensuing media coverage more or less in chronological order, beginning with an article headlined ‘In defence of Shirley Turner’ which appeared in The Telegram on the Labour Day weekend. In it, writer Renee Pollett engaged in reminiscences of a year spent studying with Shirley Turner, as well as some armchair psychology about the plight of the single mother, to rationalize Turner’s behaviour.
“Obviously, it was irritating, aggravating and infuriating, but (the writer) cut herself off at the knees in the first paragraph, when she wrote that she hadn't had contact with Shirley Turner in over 20 years,” Bagby said. “Who cares what Turner was like as a kid… What's important is what she's done since then.”
The Bagbys went public to vent their feelings just days later. However, they were not driven to do so by The Telegram article. They were waiting for the police to finish their work.
“The police were still investigating,” Bagby said. “We wanted to make absolutely sure they didn’t uncover anything else… and they publicly confirmed that it was murder-suicide. We had a meeting with the investigating officer who gave us a summary. So we had our facts straight and were ready to tell the public what we thought about it.”
The delay also gave the Bagbys time to collect their thoughts and get the details right, he added. “If I had stepped in front of a camera the day after Zachary had been murdered, I’d have been a lunatic.”
The news conference was an emotional event and some controversial statements were made, but Bagby makes no apologies for it. “We want impact, and the impact we want is change. I don’t know how to get it exactly but we had to make that statement to get it off our chest partly and also to make sure that the public at large saw as much as possible about what happened.”
A FLOOD OF COVERAGE
The tactic worked. There was a flood of media coverage about the Turner case, in the weeks and months after the Bagby news conference. The Telegram, NTV and local radio followed the story on a daily basis. There was a sensitive and insightful interview with the Bagbys in The Express.
National media also followed the story closely. A member of Shirley Turner’s family gave the National Post access to Turner’s personal diaries, in which Turner wrote to her baby in the months before she killed him. Turner ostensibly planned to give the diaries to Zachary when he turned 18. However, the diaries didn’t ring true. Turner insisted she was innocent, and described Andrew Bagby as her “best friend”. A more cynical observer might suggest that Turner was trying to manufacture ‘evidence’ that might be used at her trial.
The most in-depth and compelling coverage came during November, through a series of investigative reports by Chris O’Neill-Yates of CBC TV’s “Canada Now”. The documentary series gave new momentum to this story, and raised new questions about the Turner case.
The Bagbys worked with CBC in producing the series. “She wanted to get the story out there, in detail, and that matched our goal, so we cooperated fully with her and asked people we know, including the police in Pennsylvania, to cooperate with her. We were very happy with the result. She has hit all the major points and it was extremely powerful.”
Working on the piece meant the Bagbys had to make some gut-wrenching decisions about showing photos of Andrew’s body, lying face down in that parking lot. They agreed to allow the use of photos taken at some distance from the body.
“We would not have wanted close-ups or pure sensationalism,” Bagby said, his voice breaking with emotion. “But we did want responsible people to see that this is what the words on those pieces of paper meant! And somebody who even probably did that needs to be treated with a great deal of care.”
O’Neill-Yates series introduced new information, including evidence from Pennsylvania about the case against Turner, and revelations of how Turner’s behavior deteriorated in the weeks before Zachary’s murder (including harassment of a new boyfriend). It was apparent from the evidence that Shirley Turner was a woman who couldn’t deal with rejection.
In part four of her documentary series, O’Neill-Yates dropped in a subtle detail that might have been crucial to Zachary’s fate: at his first birthday party, the child ‘rejected’ Shirley Turner, reaching for his grandparents instead. This is not unusual behavior in young children, but it may have cost young Zachary his life. O’Neill-Yates didn’t say this; she just included the information as part of her piece, leaving us to draw our own conclusions.
You can view the entire series by O’Neill-Yates, along with related stories, by visiting http://stjohns.cbc.ca/features/shirleyturner.
STAKEHOLDERS WEIGHED IN
What was fascinating about the Shirley and Zachary Turner story was the way so many different stakeholders weighed in with their positions, especially after the Bagbys went public on September 3.
On September 4, the Minister of Social Services defended his department, saying it did everything it could to protect Zachary and that all protocols were followed. But the following day, apparently still feeling some pressure, the Minister ordered a full report on the services his department provided to this file. The report was delivered to the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, which is conducting an independent investigation.
Also on September 4, the Newfoundland Supreme Court lifted a publication ban on evidence in the Turner case. The court lifted the ban in response to an application from the CBC, but who can say what role the Bagbys news conference played in that decision?
On September 5, we heard from a criminal defence lawyer, who said that the system worked as intended. “The Bagby’s concerns, grief and anger with the system are very understandable,” said Bob Simmonds, in an interview with Jeff Gilhooly of CBC Radio. “Having said that, that does not mean the system malfunctioned here.”
On September 13, lawyers with the Canadian Bar Association issued a statement that judges should not be singled out for the decisions they make, asking the public to respect the integrity of the justice system. The Bagbys intend to comply with this request, at least until the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate has completed its investigation.
On the whole, Bagby feels that “most” of media coverage has been fair and balanced. But he doesn’t mind when articles or letters to the editor get it wrong because it gives him an opportunity to write a rebuttal, and put his case before the public once again. Bagby recognizes that, in order to effect real change, he needs to hold the attention of the news media.
“That’s a big part of it,” he said. “We will talk to just about anybody in the press who seems reasonable. We are also writing letters to various officials who might be able to influence change. And I can’t say any more about that until I get answers from them.”
The next critical milestone in this story ¬– and the next opportunity for major media coverage – will be the report from Mr. Lloyd Wicks, the province’s Child and Youth Advocate. The Bagbys have had one meeting with Mr. Wicks, in which they discussed the process of his investigation. A more thorough interview will follow in the new year.
“He has a big job to do,” Bagby said. “He has to investigate all the details about what happened in Zachary’s short life… Our greatest function here, other than trying to keep this in the public eye, is to assist Mr. Wicks in his investigation as much as possible.”
The Bagbys have faith in Mr. Wicks’ ability to get to the bottom of the story. “I think his heart is in it,” Bagby said. “I am convinced he needs to find out what happened, get it documented and presumably come up with recommendations of what is needed to prevent or cut the probability of this happening again.”
For the Bagbys, this is truly a story that will never be over. I wish them continued strength and resolve in their mission to bring about change to our legal system, and more accountability to those entrusted with ensuring the safety of children in unusual situations like this.
And I hope they somehow find solace and peace in their lives.
God knows they deserve it.
PR battle looms over fighting words (August 2003)
The battle lines have been drawn between communicators and journalists over the use of military terms in the media.
Just kidding! The headline and opening paragraph are examples of terminology that gets the ire of public relations professors Judith Scrimger and Trudie Richards at Mount Saint Vincent University.
Scrimger delivered a fascinating presentation at the national conference of the Canadian Public Relations Society, earlier this summer in Charlottetown, PEI.
Scrimger and Richards pay careful attention to how the public relations field is portrayed in media, and are concerned that terms like “flack” and “spin doctor” are damaging to the profession. Even worse, they’re concerned that public relations is being portrayed in violent terms, as if it were a weapon and war was being waged.
In a single Internet search, to see how often the terms ‘PR battle’ and ‘PR war’ sprang up, Scrimger and Richards received many thousands of hits. It was clear they were onto something so they used the Canadian New Source database to scrutinize articles appearing in 95 Canadian regional newspapers, four major newswires and The National Post.
They came up with 77 articles that contained the phrases ‘public relations battle’ or ‘war’. Although the references appeared throughout the paper, in editorials, letters to the editor, columns and opinion pieces, more than 80 percent of them were found in news articles.
Not surprisingly, the references occurred most often in relation to politics, business and economics, followed by labour disputes, the environment, and social activism.
HOT STUFF
The terms PR war or battle occurred in the lead paragraph in 55 percent of the articles. “So it’s very much used as a cliché for the journalist to let the reader know that this is important, hot stuff,” Scrimger said during her presentation.
In fact, the use of the term is always at the fancy of the journalist or editor, Scrimger said. “They were never directly attributed to a source. In other words, the spokesperson for Organization A never once said ‘We’re in a PR battle’ or ‘This is a public relations war’. The journalists were the ones who conceived this...”
A good deal of the time, Scrimger said, there was “an honest attempt (by communicators) to actually inform the audience about some important issue. But no matter what you did, it was a PR war or offensive.”
The references usually appeared in one of three scenarios, Scrimger said. “They showed up when one or more parties were seeking public support. They showed up when an effort was made by an organization to state its view on a controversial issue… and on disagreements between parties holding differing views.”
As an example, Scrimger cited a piece in the Montreal Gazette about the biotech industry, in which the writer said there was a “public relations war being waged” to convince consumers that genetically modified foods were said. The quote, Scrimger said, read as follows: “ ‘There’s a war on,’ he concluded. ‘You see it every night on your television screens. Only this war isn’t hot. There are no bullets or bombs. It’s a virtual war for the hearts and minds of the consuming public.’”
“So not only are we conducting military campaigns, but we’re also conducting virtual public relations wars too!”
In the London Free Press, the journalist escalated the language and metaphors by writing: “Hildebrand lobbed the latest salvo in what has become a public relations war as the court hearing approaches.”
“Salvo,” Scrimger noted, “is defined as ‘a simultaneous firing of guns or bombs released.’ So now we’re shooting out the bombs!”
FIRED FIRST SHOT
In the Toronto Sun, the Toronto police association was described as having “fired the first shot” in the public relations war over the leadership of then-Police Chief Julian Fantino. “I thought this was a very interesting metaphor (because) the first shot was actually a ballot that was going to every member of the union to vote on a union position.”
“So,” Scrimger said, “it seems that if anyone was having a disagreement, or were attempting to negotiate some kind of agreement, they were in a PR battle or war.”
Journalists use conflict clichés even when the public relations is centred on an information exchange, Scrimger said. “The use of the phrase often over-simplifies, or glosses over the complexity, and journalists do not acknowledge ever that there might be some area of consensus. Once they have conceptualized what is happening as a public relations war, there is no potential for consensus. It seems entirely that one or the other will bludgeon the other with public relations activities and… win the war.”
In one case, Scrimger said, the Kamloops Daily News said that the city council was involved in a public relations “battle” to convince their citizens to better manage water conservation. A public meeting, to offer information and gather feedback from the citizens, was described as a war.
Scrimger is fully aware that news reporting is driven by conflict; that a story is rarely a story without some form of tension between two or more parties. Nonetheless, she said this type of journalistic “shorthand” should be a concern to anyone in the communications industry. “If we subscribe to what our professional association says public relations does or should do, then it’s going to be very hard for us to practice this kind of public relations if those we are relating to pick up their newspaper and discover they’re in a war with us.
“Relationship management theory argues that effectively managing organizational public relationships around common interests and shared goals over time results in mutual understanding and benefits. In fact, a good deal of academic research is showing that organizations who practice this kind of public relations do indeed become more effective and… are more successful in their business.”
In other words, if you can keep a conciliatory tone to your communications, and avoid escalating into a “PR battle”, you have a better chance of succeeding.
Journalists, of course, will attempt to dismiss this as “spin control” and fair enough – that is part of the delicate balance between interest groups and a supposedly unbiased media.
There is no question, however, that Scrimger has a point; that reporters do roll out the term “PR battle” far too often to pump up the conflict element in a story.
FIGHTING FRAME
Scrimger’s colleague Trudie Richards has conducted considerable research into what she calls the “fighting frame” in news reporting. In an email exchange, she said that adversarial language is “unnecessary, inaccurate, exaggerated and ultimately counter-productive” not just for communicators, but society at large.
“War words and phrases… have implications that perhaps individual journalists have not considered. For one thing, they heighten tension where often that's the last thing participants in the issue desire. For another, they can actually insert tension where none exists. And they also contribute to a sense of anxiety, instability, and exaggerated competitiveness among citizens, who are already trying to manage a fair degree of such emotions in their own daily lives.”
The media have a commitment, Richards said, to the use of neutral language and the presentation of information in a context that may help citizens make wise decisions. “The language of armed and violent conflict does little to achieve that objective; in my opinion, it often has the opposite effect.”
In an attempt to offer an alternative to the fighting frame, Richards has developed a story model that is less confrontational, use neutral language, tries to understand the source of the dispute and what’s required to resolve it, offers shades of gray instead of "black and white," and recognizes that most disputes involve more than ‘two sides’.
“There is considerable resistance to change. Established journalists maintain such descriptors are so common now as not to be inflammatory; the journalism students I spoke to said they couldn't handle the criticism, since it essentially flew in the face of what they'd learned over the last four years. (!)”
Undaunted, Richards intends to continue her discussion (no, it's not a PR battle!) with those who write the news.
“I am moderately optimistic that the media will ultimately make a greater effort to change their reliance on the fighting frame,” she said, “if for no other reason than it is clear citizens are significantly disillusioned with media practices as it is. If journalists want to improve their own image, they would be well advised to remind themselves of their role as seekers of truths and as neutral observers.”
Just kidding! The headline and opening paragraph are examples of terminology that gets the ire of public relations professors Judith Scrimger and Trudie Richards at Mount Saint Vincent University.
Scrimger delivered a fascinating presentation at the national conference of the Canadian Public Relations Society, earlier this summer in Charlottetown, PEI.
Scrimger and Richards pay careful attention to how the public relations field is portrayed in media, and are concerned that terms like “flack” and “spin doctor” are damaging to the profession. Even worse, they’re concerned that public relations is being portrayed in violent terms, as if it were a weapon and war was being waged.
In a single Internet search, to see how often the terms ‘PR battle’ and ‘PR war’ sprang up, Scrimger and Richards received many thousands of hits. It was clear they were onto something so they used the Canadian New Source database to scrutinize articles appearing in 95 Canadian regional newspapers, four major newswires and The National Post.
They came up with 77 articles that contained the phrases ‘public relations battle’ or ‘war’. Although the references appeared throughout the paper, in editorials, letters to the editor, columns and opinion pieces, more than 80 percent of them were found in news articles.
Not surprisingly, the references occurred most often in relation to politics, business and economics, followed by labour disputes, the environment, and social activism.
HOT STUFF
The terms PR war or battle occurred in the lead paragraph in 55 percent of the articles. “So it’s very much used as a cliché for the journalist to let the reader know that this is important, hot stuff,” Scrimger said during her presentation.
In fact, the use of the term is always at the fancy of the journalist or editor, Scrimger said. “They were never directly attributed to a source. In other words, the spokesperson for Organization A never once said ‘We’re in a PR battle’ or ‘This is a public relations war’. The journalists were the ones who conceived this...”
A good deal of the time, Scrimger said, there was “an honest attempt (by communicators) to actually inform the audience about some important issue. But no matter what you did, it was a PR war or offensive.”
The references usually appeared in one of three scenarios, Scrimger said. “They showed up when one or more parties were seeking public support. They showed up when an effort was made by an organization to state its view on a controversial issue… and on disagreements between parties holding differing views.”
As an example, Scrimger cited a piece in the Montreal Gazette about the biotech industry, in which the writer said there was a “public relations war being waged” to convince consumers that genetically modified foods were said. The quote, Scrimger said, read as follows: “ ‘There’s a war on,’ he concluded. ‘You see it every night on your television screens. Only this war isn’t hot. There are no bullets or bombs. It’s a virtual war for the hearts and minds of the consuming public.’”
“So not only are we conducting military campaigns, but we’re also conducting virtual public relations wars too!”
In the London Free Press, the journalist escalated the language and metaphors by writing: “Hildebrand lobbed the latest salvo in what has become a public relations war as the court hearing approaches.”
“Salvo,” Scrimger noted, “is defined as ‘a simultaneous firing of guns or bombs released.’ So now we’re shooting out the bombs!”
FIRED FIRST SHOT
In the Toronto Sun, the Toronto police association was described as having “fired the first shot” in the public relations war over the leadership of then-Police Chief Julian Fantino. “I thought this was a very interesting metaphor (because) the first shot was actually a ballot that was going to every member of the union to vote on a union position.”
“So,” Scrimger said, “it seems that if anyone was having a disagreement, or were attempting to negotiate some kind of agreement, they were in a PR battle or war.”
Journalists use conflict clichés even when the public relations is centred on an information exchange, Scrimger said. “The use of the phrase often over-simplifies, or glosses over the complexity, and journalists do not acknowledge ever that there might be some area of consensus. Once they have conceptualized what is happening as a public relations war, there is no potential for consensus. It seems entirely that one or the other will bludgeon the other with public relations activities and… win the war.”
In one case, Scrimger said, the Kamloops Daily News said that the city council was involved in a public relations “battle” to convince their citizens to better manage water conservation. A public meeting, to offer information and gather feedback from the citizens, was described as a war.
Scrimger is fully aware that news reporting is driven by conflict; that a story is rarely a story without some form of tension between two or more parties. Nonetheless, she said this type of journalistic “shorthand” should be a concern to anyone in the communications industry. “If we subscribe to what our professional association says public relations does or should do, then it’s going to be very hard for us to practice this kind of public relations if those we are relating to pick up their newspaper and discover they’re in a war with us.
“Relationship management theory argues that effectively managing organizational public relationships around common interests and shared goals over time results in mutual understanding and benefits. In fact, a good deal of academic research is showing that organizations who practice this kind of public relations do indeed become more effective and… are more successful in their business.”
In other words, if you can keep a conciliatory tone to your communications, and avoid escalating into a “PR battle”, you have a better chance of succeeding.
Journalists, of course, will attempt to dismiss this as “spin control” and fair enough – that is part of the delicate balance between interest groups and a supposedly unbiased media.
There is no question, however, that Scrimger has a point; that reporters do roll out the term “PR battle” far too often to pump up the conflict element in a story.
FIGHTING FRAME
Scrimger’s colleague Trudie Richards has conducted considerable research into what she calls the “fighting frame” in news reporting. In an email exchange, she said that adversarial language is “unnecessary, inaccurate, exaggerated and ultimately counter-productive” not just for communicators, but society at large.
“War words and phrases… have implications that perhaps individual journalists have not considered. For one thing, they heighten tension where often that's the last thing participants in the issue desire. For another, they can actually insert tension where none exists. And they also contribute to a sense of anxiety, instability, and exaggerated competitiveness among citizens, who are already trying to manage a fair degree of such emotions in their own daily lives.”
The media have a commitment, Richards said, to the use of neutral language and the presentation of information in a context that may help citizens make wise decisions. “The language of armed and violent conflict does little to achieve that objective; in my opinion, it often has the opposite effect.”
In an attempt to offer an alternative to the fighting frame, Richards has developed a story model that is less confrontational, use neutral language, tries to understand the source of the dispute and what’s required to resolve it, offers shades of gray instead of "black and white," and recognizes that most disputes involve more than ‘two sides’.
“There is considerable resistance to change. Established journalists maintain such descriptors are so common now as not to be inflammatory; the journalism students I spoke to said they couldn't handle the criticism, since it essentially flew in the face of what they'd learned over the last four years. (!)”
Undaunted, Richards intends to continue her discussion (no, it's not a PR battle!) with those who write the news.
“I am moderately optimistic that the media will ultimately make a greater effort to change their reliance on the fighting frame,” she said, “if for no other reason than it is clear citizens are significantly disillusioned with media practices as it is. If journalists want to improve their own image, they would be well advised to remind themselves of their role as seekers of truths and as neutral observers.”
Talking to PR people about media (June 2003)
There is an abyss that divides journalists and public relations people. They work closely, yet they often seem at odds with each other. Journalists tend to treat PR people with suspicion, dismissing them as ‘flaks’, yet a good number of journalists cross over into the PR field at some point in their careers.
In the late 80’s and early 90s, when I worked as a reporter and managing editor with “The Sunday Express”, too many PR people were obstructive, rude and generally not helpful. Their objective, it seemed, was to deflect us from the person or information we needed, rather than assist in the process.
One can sympathize with this to a point, given that we were usually calling about some controversy or other, but there really is no excuse for – and nothing to be gained by – treating journalists poorly.
In this column, I examine this uneasy relationship from the communicators’ perspective. (I will get the journalists’ point of view in a future installment). The good news is, the PR practitioners’ relationship with journalists seems to have progressed over the last decade or so.
I received input from five communicators in researching this column, and all expressed mature and insightful points of view about their dealings with news media.
JUDY SNOW
As the communications director with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees (NAPE) and a former PR person with the provincial government, Judy Snow is seasoned in her dealings with media.
“I was told when I started working for NAPE that it was impossible to get a positive news story covered,” she said. “I have found our province’s media to be very open to stories about working people. I try to provide honest information in an ethical manner, but I make no pretense about my bias – I am advocating for NAPE members.”
Snow said she has “great respect” for reporters and appreciates the deadlines they deal with. “Every once in a while I’ll growl at an individual reporter or a reporter will growl at me. We’re all big boys and girls, and we get over it.”
“For me, the biggest potential area of confusion is helping a reporter – especially a new one – distinguish between when I’m merely providing background information and when I’m speaking for the union. I like to be told when comments are going to be attributed to me.”
DEREK YETMAN
Derek Yetman is the communications director with the Institute for Marine Dynamics and a former journalist. In his 20-plus years as a communicator, Yetman said he has never encountered “rudeness” from reporters, though persistence is not unusual.
“My experience has been overwhelmingly positive. Having been a print and electronic journalist, I know exactly where reporters are coming from... My job is to get them the information they need – not to hide or disguise it.”
Yetman said he does suggest story ideas to journalists on occasion, but will never engage in “hard sell” tactics. “I generally point out why the item might be of interest to the public. The journalist or editor can take that under advisement in making a decision… The story should sell itself. If not, it isn’t much of a story.”
LANA PAYNE
Lana Payne is another former journalist who now works in communications and research with the Fish Food and Allied Workers (FFAW/CAW), which represents about 20,000 people employed mainly in fish harvesting and processing. Because the fishery is such a contentious issue, there is a constant stream of interview and information requests from media.
The FFAW is also a “social” union, Payne said, which means they feel compelled to comment on broader societal issues such as minimum wage laws, poverty, health care and education. She said that these themes are not as “interesting” to media as other, more controversial stories.
“I find that reporters like stories about people. They also, and understandably so, like it when there is conflict. It’s up to us to make something interesting. As a communicator, we should always be prepared to explain why something is important.”
Payne said she hasn’t experienced any “horror stories” with reporters. However, there have been some moments of absurdity. Payne said she took a call several years ago, during the so-called turbot war, from a British tabloid reporter who wanted to interview a fisher who had a relative who fought in World War II.
“I told the reporter this might be possible, but it might take a few calls… The reporter then went on to say that it would be nice if the relative was a father and it would be even better if the father died in the war. I quietly pointed out that many of these men were quite young when they went off to war and may not have had a chance to have had children and that it would be difficult to find someone who met these particular specifications.”
Not all mainland journalists are well informed about the fishery, Payne said, so she is quite patient in answering their questions. “I remember being a reporter and thinking it was more important to have the right information than to assume a question might sound stupid… I always say ‘please ask’.”
LYNN BARTER
If there is an ‘extreme sport’ equivalent to PR work, Lynn Barter faced it last October during the 17-day strike of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, where she works as director of communications. A former journalist, Barter distinguished herself well during the strike.
“It was a very, very intense period. I don’t really have anything to compare it to. Even when I worked for government, I was never the lead communicator during an intense period like that.”
The strike was difficult, Barter said, but it was also a “positive” experience.
“We were treated at all times with great fairness and objectivity. The coverage every day was quite balanced. For the most part, the media was open to what I call ‘added value’ stories. I always knew that, whenever I offered up one side of the story, it was their responsibility to get the other side. So that never bothered me.”
Media relations were critical during the strike, Barter said, because the NLMA had a “modest” budget compared to that of government. “If we hadn’t accessed that media coverage, no one would have heard the physicians’ point of view.”
Barter said she has never felt “challenged” or “ intimidated” by media. “I have had to take calls for different cabinet ministers during difficult times but I was always cordial. I’ve had times when I was asked a really tough question and had to say ‘No, I can’t answer that’… and given a reason. Reporters generally respect that. It’s their job to push me but they understand.”
Barter has noticed that some of her colleagues in communications are nervous or distrustful about media, particularly those with no direct media experience. “They have never worked in the media and have little exposure to how a newsrooms runs… They don’t understand that process and can be very intimidated by it.”
CST. ERNIE RECKLING
Constable Ernie Reckling of the RCMP frequently dons a communicator’s hat to address law enforcement issues. As a forensic collision reconstructionist, his job is to identify why people are injured and killed on our highways. When patterns emerge, he works to prevent further incidents by raising public awareness through media coverage.
However, the media don’t respond all the time to Reckling’s overtures, he said. When the findings of a study were released several weeks ago, he didn’t get “a single call” from reporters or editors.
“And I spent a lot of time preparing for those phone calls… There are a lot of times that I call media and they don’t respond.”
Most reporters, Reckling said, report what they feel the public wants to hear, not what it needs to hear. “We could talk about how many (preventable) deaths there are in North America every year in motor vehicle crashes, but all we’ve been hearing about is SARS.”
As an example, Reckling described a recent car accident where the vehicle was completely destroyed but the woman survived with minor bruises, because she was wearing her seat belt. “I sent out a picture and a story about that but no one covered it.”
Reckling said the media becomes obsessed with certain stories, such as 9/11, the war in Iraq and SARS, to the detriment of other important stories.
“Sometimes the media beats a story to death and other times, when it’s time to report something (important), they are just not interested. I find that if you really want to get the media to cover something, you have to aggressively seek out the person who is willing to do the story, and then everyone will jump on based on public reaction to that story.”
I have my own views on the evolution of the public relations profession and I will share these with you in a future column.
In the late 80’s and early 90s, when I worked as a reporter and managing editor with “The Sunday Express”, too many PR people were obstructive, rude and generally not helpful. Their objective, it seemed, was to deflect us from the person or information we needed, rather than assist in the process.
One can sympathize with this to a point, given that we were usually calling about some controversy or other, but there really is no excuse for – and nothing to be gained by – treating journalists poorly.
In this column, I examine this uneasy relationship from the communicators’ perspective. (I will get the journalists’ point of view in a future installment). The good news is, the PR practitioners’ relationship with journalists seems to have progressed over the last decade or so.
I received input from five communicators in researching this column, and all expressed mature and insightful points of view about their dealings with news media.
JUDY SNOW
As the communications director with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees (NAPE) and a former PR person with the provincial government, Judy Snow is seasoned in her dealings with media.
“I was told when I started working for NAPE that it was impossible to get a positive news story covered,” she said. “I have found our province’s media to be very open to stories about working people. I try to provide honest information in an ethical manner, but I make no pretense about my bias – I am advocating for NAPE members.”
Snow said she has “great respect” for reporters and appreciates the deadlines they deal with. “Every once in a while I’ll growl at an individual reporter or a reporter will growl at me. We’re all big boys and girls, and we get over it.”
“For me, the biggest potential area of confusion is helping a reporter – especially a new one – distinguish between when I’m merely providing background information and when I’m speaking for the union. I like to be told when comments are going to be attributed to me.”
DEREK YETMAN
Derek Yetman is the communications director with the Institute for Marine Dynamics and a former journalist. In his 20-plus years as a communicator, Yetman said he has never encountered “rudeness” from reporters, though persistence is not unusual.
“My experience has been overwhelmingly positive. Having been a print and electronic journalist, I know exactly where reporters are coming from... My job is to get them the information they need – not to hide or disguise it.”
Yetman said he does suggest story ideas to journalists on occasion, but will never engage in “hard sell” tactics. “I generally point out why the item might be of interest to the public. The journalist or editor can take that under advisement in making a decision… The story should sell itself. If not, it isn’t much of a story.”
LANA PAYNE
Lana Payne is another former journalist who now works in communications and research with the Fish Food and Allied Workers (FFAW/CAW), which represents about 20,000 people employed mainly in fish harvesting and processing. Because the fishery is such a contentious issue, there is a constant stream of interview and information requests from media.
The FFAW is also a “social” union, Payne said, which means they feel compelled to comment on broader societal issues such as minimum wage laws, poverty, health care and education. She said that these themes are not as “interesting” to media as other, more controversial stories.
“I find that reporters like stories about people. They also, and understandably so, like it when there is conflict. It’s up to us to make something interesting. As a communicator, we should always be prepared to explain why something is important.”
Payne said she hasn’t experienced any “horror stories” with reporters. However, there have been some moments of absurdity. Payne said she took a call several years ago, during the so-called turbot war, from a British tabloid reporter who wanted to interview a fisher who had a relative who fought in World War II.
“I told the reporter this might be possible, but it might take a few calls… The reporter then went on to say that it would be nice if the relative was a father and it would be even better if the father died in the war. I quietly pointed out that many of these men were quite young when they went off to war and may not have had a chance to have had children and that it would be difficult to find someone who met these particular specifications.”
Not all mainland journalists are well informed about the fishery, Payne said, so she is quite patient in answering their questions. “I remember being a reporter and thinking it was more important to have the right information than to assume a question might sound stupid… I always say ‘please ask’.”
LYNN BARTER
If there is an ‘extreme sport’ equivalent to PR work, Lynn Barter faced it last October during the 17-day strike of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, where she works as director of communications. A former journalist, Barter distinguished herself well during the strike.
“It was a very, very intense period. I don’t really have anything to compare it to. Even when I worked for government, I was never the lead communicator during an intense period like that.”
The strike was difficult, Barter said, but it was also a “positive” experience.
“We were treated at all times with great fairness and objectivity. The coverage every day was quite balanced. For the most part, the media was open to what I call ‘added value’ stories. I always knew that, whenever I offered up one side of the story, it was their responsibility to get the other side. So that never bothered me.”
Media relations were critical during the strike, Barter said, because the NLMA had a “modest” budget compared to that of government. “If we hadn’t accessed that media coverage, no one would have heard the physicians’ point of view.”
Barter said she has never felt “challenged” or “ intimidated” by media. “I have had to take calls for different cabinet ministers during difficult times but I was always cordial. I’ve had times when I was asked a really tough question and had to say ‘No, I can’t answer that’… and given a reason. Reporters generally respect that. It’s their job to push me but they understand.”
Barter has noticed that some of her colleagues in communications are nervous or distrustful about media, particularly those with no direct media experience. “They have never worked in the media and have little exposure to how a newsrooms runs… They don’t understand that process and can be very intimidated by it.”
CST. ERNIE RECKLING
Constable Ernie Reckling of the RCMP frequently dons a communicator’s hat to address law enforcement issues. As a forensic collision reconstructionist, his job is to identify why people are injured and killed on our highways. When patterns emerge, he works to prevent further incidents by raising public awareness through media coverage.
However, the media don’t respond all the time to Reckling’s overtures, he said. When the findings of a study were released several weeks ago, he didn’t get “a single call” from reporters or editors.
“And I spent a lot of time preparing for those phone calls… There are a lot of times that I call media and they don’t respond.”
Most reporters, Reckling said, report what they feel the public wants to hear, not what it needs to hear. “We could talk about how many (preventable) deaths there are in North America every year in motor vehicle crashes, but all we’ve been hearing about is SARS.”
As an example, Reckling described a recent car accident where the vehicle was completely destroyed but the woman survived with minor bruises, because she was wearing her seat belt. “I sent out a picture and a story about that but no one covered it.”
Reckling said the media becomes obsessed with certain stories, such as 9/11, the war in Iraq and SARS, to the detriment of other important stories.
“Sometimes the media beats a story to death and other times, when it’s time to report something (important), they are just not interested. I find that if you really want to get the media to cover something, you have to aggressively seek out the person who is willing to do the story, and then everyone will jump on based on public reaction to that story.”
I have my own views on the evolution of the public relations profession and I will share these with you in a future column.
How journalists deal with death (April 2003)
Death is a spectre that haunts all spot news reporters.
Unscheduled news events are almost always bad news, and reporters are constantly converging on the source of another person's misery.
If you are called upon to cover breaking news, it's just a matter of time before you encounter your first body. It could be a fire, car accident, crime scene, or some other tragedy.
Depending on the circumstances at the scene – the number of casualties, amount of blood and physical trauma, whether or not children are involved, how others are reacting – it can leave an emotional mark on a journalist that remains for a lifetime. Some can shrug it off without too much difficulty, while others take it in and never really let go.
CAR ACCIDENT
Deana Stokes Sullivan, a reporter with The Telegram, has seen her share of death. On several occasions, people she interviewed later passed on, after she had formed a personal bond with them.
Sullivan's first personal encounter with death happened by accident – not assignment – more than 10 years ago. She was driving along the Manuels Access Road through the section known as the "rock cut", when she came upon an accident scene.
"A middle-aged man just minutes ahead of me lost control of his car and flipped over," she recalled. "It looked like he was thrown through the back window. There was glass all around… he was lying on the rocks. The man didn't appear to be in pain and was able to utter a few words, but his body was rather lifeless. I thought about his family, who were likely expecting him home...
"I had a camera with me… but my judgement told me not to use it. I didn't want that to be a lasting memory for the man's family."
Later that night, Sullivan called police and found out that the man had died enroute to the hospital.
“I think over the years reporters are haunted by tragedies they’ve witnessed... The key to coping I believe is to acknowledge that we’re still human, even though we are journalists."
ARROW AIR CRASH
Greg Seaward was a reporter with the Gander Beacon in 1985, the year of the Arrow Air crash. Seaward was on the scene within an hour of the crash, which took 256 lives, the worst air disaster on Canadian soil.
"When we arrived the largest part of the fire had been knocked down," Seaward said. "It was a very cold morning, but it felt warm at the crash site because the ground was still warm. There was a mist hanging around, in addition to the smoke and smell of jet fuel. It was very quiet… the air was thick and warm. It was very tangible. And the first impression I think everyone had was, where is the airplane? The aircraft was disintegrated."
Seaward has vivid memories of the death and devastation he observed that day.
"It was a remarkable scene. There were situations where you might have a very badly burned body, and three feet away another body in perfect condition. There was burning material on top of green trees, and other cases where there were green trees on top of burned bodies. It was just horrendous… a very surreal scene.”
The terrible force of the blast was demonstrated two months later, when a body was found under the roots of a tree. "The tree had been uprooted by the force of the blast, the body flew in under the roots, and then the tree snapped back into place, all in a matter of seconds. It was in the process of cleaning up the site, removing the trees, that they discovered this last body."
Initially, Seaward dealt with the emotional impact of what he had seen by "blocking it out."
"It was a defensive mechanism. You're looking at young people for the most part, going home for Christmas. It was just something that the normal human experience doesn't prepare you for."
Seaward said he still hasn't put the experience completely behind him. "I have spent a lot of time over they years thinking about it, trying to find a place for it in my life," he replied. "Obviously I've stayed very close to that particular event over the years, and followed what the (bereaved) family members were doing. You know, a grandchild was born, a son or daughter graduated from university, and I think it helped to watch those people getting on with their lives."
Seaward paused again, then said, "I'm still struggling with the personal closure question… It's something I can't put my finger on. I guess you pick up your life and carry on."
Just a month ago, Seaward was at a meeting when he heard sirens, and saw fire trucks pass by. "I got that feeling in the pit of my stomach again. Just the sight of what appeared to be the entire fleet on the move… it stopped me in my tracks for a moment."
SAMANTHA WALSH
The entire province was held spellbound when 13-year-old Samantha Walsh went missing in Fleur de Lys. Few people were more absorbed in the story than Kevin Harvey, the video-journalist with CBC TV, who said it was the "most difficult" event he's ever covered.
Harvey was immediately welcomed into the Walsh household, where Samantha’s parents, George and Millie Walsh, opened their hearts to him. “They wanted to get the message out to anyone who might have seen Samantha, and they thought I was the person who could do that… I had wide open access to this family, who were going through this traumatic experience, and it was just incredible.”
During that first interview, Millie Walsh broke down and cried, “Someone’s took her, I just know it.” Her pain was heart-rending for all who witnessed it, including Harvey.
“I was sitting in this child’s bedroom holding the camera, and I was just shaking, just trembling,” said Harvey, who had a 13-year-old daughter of his own at home. “I didn’t know what to say or do to comfort her… Millie knew that Samantha wasn’t a runaway, and that something was wrong right from that first night.”
Over the next week or so, Harvey saw so many photographs and heard so many stories about young Samantha, he felt as if he knew her. So the shock was terrible when he got the call that Samantha's body had been found, almost two weeks after she went missing. “It was just a stone cold shiver that went through me… I went into the town and there was a lot of activity, the police were there, and I knew it was for real… So I had no sleep at all that night. None whatsoever.”
That night was the first time in almost two weeks that someone made a sneering comment about the media. "It was like, 'Look at 'em, look, that media crowd'… I think it was the anger that had built up. I think they needed somebody to yell at, and I didn't mind… I think you walk a fine line when doing stories like this."
Harvey wasn't there for the funeral. He left earlier that day for Corner Brook to begin editing that day's piece. "I was editing my own stuff, and then Doug (Greer) brought in the funeral footage… and her casket leaving the church. So I said, 'Doug can you leave?' When he did, I just broke down crying, while doing the last edit on that story. And I sat alone in that room for another 15 minutes or so after the item was finished."
The item Harvey filed that day was powerful indeed. It began typically enough, with a minute or so of voice-overs. But then it cut to the recording of Samantha's angelic voice, singing "Saltwater Joys", laid over family photos and images from the funeral. Samantha was singing her own eulogy, her last goodbye, and it was touching indeed.
"There are times when a reporter has to shut up, and I think this was one of those times," Harvey said. "What could I have said that would add anything to this?"
OCEAN RANGER
VOCM News Director Gerry Phelan had a unique encounter with mortality. The year was 1982 and the Ocean Ranger had just been lost.
“I was at the Holiday Inn when they released the names of the 84 men who died,” said Phelan, who was a young radio reporter with VOCM. “My job was to read those names live, onto the air, which I did. I was trying to keep a tone of voice that showed respect for the victims, when suddenly I realized that I knew some of the people whose names I was reading. They were friends of friends, or people I had gone to school with. I finished reading the names, but was almost overwhelmed with emotion. It really struck home what this meant. These were real people, and it is so easy to forget that in this business… When I played back the tape later, I could hear how my tone was changing. I get goosebumps talking about it even now.”
A man of strong spiritual conviction, Phelan wrestles with every story that involves tragedy. “Before I read any story, I ask myself ‘who does it hurt?’ This is my 25th year in this racket, and every single time I read a story about a fatality I ask myself that question. Some say you get immune to it but you don’t. At least, I don’t.”
While working as a journalist, my only encounter with death also involved the Ocean Ranger. I was working with The Newfoundland Herald at the time, and knew several of the victims personally. One of them, Greg Tiller, had written a startling poem that actually foretold the disaster. I wanted to publish that poem as a tribute to the young man, but the only way to get it was ask his family, who I had never met.
This was just a couple of days after the incident, and the loss would still be an open wound for them. I remember sitting in the car at the end of their driveway for quite some time, steeling my nerve to knock on the door. When I did, a man, clearly distraught, opened the door.
" I’m a reporter with the Herald," I stammered. "I'm very sorry about your loss. I knew your son. And I know he wrote a powerful poem about the Ocean Ranger. Would you mind if I published it?"
He just looked at me, not answering right away. Behind him, I could see one woman holding up another woman, as they walked slowly down the hall. Their grief was palpable. It flowed out the door with the weight of thick molasses. This family had just had its heart ripped out… and I was intruding on their pain, asking for a silly poem. Finally, the man said, "Sorry… not now," and closed the door.
I got out of there as fast as possible, ashamed of what I had done.
Unlike many of my colleagues, I wasn’t scarred by this little brush with death. But I did learn that, sometimes, journalism hurts.
Unscheduled news events are almost always bad news, and reporters are constantly converging on the source of another person's misery.
If you are called upon to cover breaking news, it's just a matter of time before you encounter your first body. It could be a fire, car accident, crime scene, or some other tragedy.
Depending on the circumstances at the scene – the number of casualties, amount of blood and physical trauma, whether or not children are involved, how others are reacting – it can leave an emotional mark on a journalist that remains for a lifetime. Some can shrug it off without too much difficulty, while others take it in and never really let go.
CAR ACCIDENT
Deana Stokes Sullivan, a reporter with The Telegram, has seen her share of death. On several occasions, people she interviewed later passed on, after she had formed a personal bond with them.
Sullivan's first personal encounter with death happened by accident – not assignment – more than 10 years ago. She was driving along the Manuels Access Road through the section known as the "rock cut", when she came upon an accident scene.
"A middle-aged man just minutes ahead of me lost control of his car and flipped over," she recalled. "It looked like he was thrown through the back window. There was glass all around… he was lying on the rocks. The man didn't appear to be in pain and was able to utter a few words, but his body was rather lifeless. I thought about his family, who were likely expecting him home...
"I had a camera with me… but my judgement told me not to use it. I didn't want that to be a lasting memory for the man's family."
Later that night, Sullivan called police and found out that the man had died enroute to the hospital.
“I think over the years reporters are haunted by tragedies they’ve witnessed... The key to coping I believe is to acknowledge that we’re still human, even though we are journalists."
ARROW AIR CRASH
Greg Seaward was a reporter with the Gander Beacon in 1985, the year of the Arrow Air crash. Seaward was on the scene within an hour of the crash, which took 256 lives, the worst air disaster on Canadian soil.
"When we arrived the largest part of the fire had been knocked down," Seaward said. "It was a very cold morning, but it felt warm at the crash site because the ground was still warm. There was a mist hanging around, in addition to the smoke and smell of jet fuel. It was very quiet… the air was thick and warm. It was very tangible. And the first impression I think everyone had was, where is the airplane? The aircraft was disintegrated."
Seaward has vivid memories of the death and devastation he observed that day.
"It was a remarkable scene. There were situations where you might have a very badly burned body, and three feet away another body in perfect condition. There was burning material on top of green trees, and other cases where there were green trees on top of burned bodies. It was just horrendous… a very surreal scene.”
The terrible force of the blast was demonstrated two months later, when a body was found under the roots of a tree. "The tree had been uprooted by the force of the blast, the body flew in under the roots, and then the tree snapped back into place, all in a matter of seconds. It was in the process of cleaning up the site, removing the trees, that they discovered this last body."
Initially, Seaward dealt with the emotional impact of what he had seen by "blocking it out."
"It was a defensive mechanism. You're looking at young people for the most part, going home for Christmas. It was just something that the normal human experience doesn't prepare you for."
Seaward said he still hasn't put the experience completely behind him. "I have spent a lot of time over they years thinking about it, trying to find a place for it in my life," he replied. "Obviously I've stayed very close to that particular event over the years, and followed what the (bereaved) family members were doing. You know, a grandchild was born, a son or daughter graduated from university, and I think it helped to watch those people getting on with their lives."
Seaward paused again, then said, "I'm still struggling with the personal closure question… It's something I can't put my finger on. I guess you pick up your life and carry on."
Just a month ago, Seaward was at a meeting when he heard sirens, and saw fire trucks pass by. "I got that feeling in the pit of my stomach again. Just the sight of what appeared to be the entire fleet on the move… it stopped me in my tracks for a moment."
SAMANTHA WALSH
The entire province was held spellbound when 13-year-old Samantha Walsh went missing in Fleur de Lys. Few people were more absorbed in the story than Kevin Harvey, the video-journalist with CBC TV, who said it was the "most difficult" event he's ever covered.
Harvey was immediately welcomed into the Walsh household, where Samantha’s parents, George and Millie Walsh, opened their hearts to him. “They wanted to get the message out to anyone who might have seen Samantha, and they thought I was the person who could do that… I had wide open access to this family, who were going through this traumatic experience, and it was just incredible.”
During that first interview, Millie Walsh broke down and cried, “Someone’s took her, I just know it.” Her pain was heart-rending for all who witnessed it, including Harvey.
“I was sitting in this child’s bedroom holding the camera, and I was just shaking, just trembling,” said Harvey, who had a 13-year-old daughter of his own at home. “I didn’t know what to say or do to comfort her… Millie knew that Samantha wasn’t a runaway, and that something was wrong right from that first night.”
Over the next week or so, Harvey saw so many photographs and heard so many stories about young Samantha, he felt as if he knew her. So the shock was terrible when he got the call that Samantha's body had been found, almost two weeks after she went missing. “It was just a stone cold shiver that went through me… I went into the town and there was a lot of activity, the police were there, and I knew it was for real… So I had no sleep at all that night. None whatsoever.”
That night was the first time in almost two weeks that someone made a sneering comment about the media. "It was like, 'Look at 'em, look, that media crowd'… I think it was the anger that had built up. I think they needed somebody to yell at, and I didn't mind… I think you walk a fine line when doing stories like this."
Harvey wasn't there for the funeral. He left earlier that day for Corner Brook to begin editing that day's piece. "I was editing my own stuff, and then Doug (Greer) brought in the funeral footage… and her casket leaving the church. So I said, 'Doug can you leave?' When he did, I just broke down crying, while doing the last edit on that story. And I sat alone in that room for another 15 minutes or so after the item was finished."
The item Harvey filed that day was powerful indeed. It began typically enough, with a minute or so of voice-overs. But then it cut to the recording of Samantha's angelic voice, singing "Saltwater Joys", laid over family photos and images from the funeral. Samantha was singing her own eulogy, her last goodbye, and it was touching indeed.
"There are times when a reporter has to shut up, and I think this was one of those times," Harvey said. "What could I have said that would add anything to this?"
OCEAN RANGER
VOCM News Director Gerry Phelan had a unique encounter with mortality. The year was 1982 and the Ocean Ranger had just been lost.
“I was at the Holiday Inn when they released the names of the 84 men who died,” said Phelan, who was a young radio reporter with VOCM. “My job was to read those names live, onto the air, which I did. I was trying to keep a tone of voice that showed respect for the victims, when suddenly I realized that I knew some of the people whose names I was reading. They were friends of friends, or people I had gone to school with. I finished reading the names, but was almost overwhelmed with emotion. It really struck home what this meant. These were real people, and it is so easy to forget that in this business… When I played back the tape later, I could hear how my tone was changing. I get goosebumps talking about it even now.”
A man of strong spiritual conviction, Phelan wrestles with every story that involves tragedy. “Before I read any story, I ask myself ‘who does it hurt?’ This is my 25th year in this racket, and every single time I read a story about a fatality I ask myself that question. Some say you get immune to it but you don’t. At least, I don’t.”
While working as a journalist, my only encounter with death also involved the Ocean Ranger. I was working with The Newfoundland Herald at the time, and knew several of the victims personally. One of them, Greg Tiller, had written a startling poem that actually foretold the disaster. I wanted to publish that poem as a tribute to the young man, but the only way to get it was ask his family, who I had never met.
This was just a couple of days after the incident, and the loss would still be an open wound for them. I remember sitting in the car at the end of their driveway for quite some time, steeling my nerve to knock on the door. When I did, a man, clearly distraught, opened the door.
" I’m a reporter with the Herald," I stammered. "I'm very sorry about your loss. I knew your son. And I know he wrote a powerful poem about the Ocean Ranger. Would you mind if I published it?"
He just looked at me, not answering right away. Behind him, I could see one woman holding up another woman, as they walked slowly down the hall. Their grief was palpable. It flowed out the door with the weight of thick molasses. This family had just had its heart ripped out… and I was intruding on their pain, asking for a silly poem. Finally, the man said, "Sorry… not now," and closed the door.
I got out of there as fast as possible, ashamed of what I had done.
Unlike many of my colleagues, I wasn’t scarred by this little brush with death. But I did learn that, sometimes, journalism hurts.
Small paper attracts big names (February 2003)
He is arguably the best columnist and satirical writer this province has ever seen.
And now Ray Guy is back in circulation, after a hiatus of more than five years from the local media scene.
It's astonishing that Guy has been 'dormant' for so long. What is perhaps more surprising is the publication that has brought the living legend out of obscurity.
No, it's not Maclean's, The Telegram, The Express or The Herald.
It's the Northeast Avalon Times, a community newspaper with a circulation of less than 6,000. However, if you spend a bit of time perusing The Times, it begins to add up. This is quite possibly the best community newspaper in the province. (I have not been closely monitoring all community newspapers in the R-B chain lately, and I haven't been keeping up with The Northern Pen, so I can't really say who is the best.)
The Times is a monthly paper serving Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, Torbay, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Flatrock, Pouch Cove and Bauline. It is published by Kathryn Welbourn, an award-winning journalist who has worked for The Telegram and CBC Radio in this province, and has written for Equinox, Chatelaine, Harrowsmith and other magazines.
The Times publishes once a month and is distributed at no charge (advertising pays the bills). It is not a big paper - usually 12 pages per issue - but it leaves a big impression.
For starters, the paper looks great. It has a crisp, clean layout and nice use of type. The photography is first-rate and no wonder - much of it is supplied by seasoned, award-winning photojournalist Greg Locke.
The political cartoons by Doug Bird (who also does the 'Geezer' strip in The Telegram) are decent. Bird also contributes 'Pickle Harbour', a comic strip that pokes fun at both the city people who move into rural areas and the rural people who live there, without offending either group.
Then there's the writing. Reporters Welbourn and Jeff Green crank out copy that is on par with anything you will read in The Telegram, or any of our weeklies. They don't shy away from difficult topics or interviews, and strive to present both sides of a story. (Reporter Gavin Will also contributes on occasion.)
The columnists are astounding. Ivan Morgan writes a witty ditty called 'Politics 101'. Renowned scientist and professor Bill Montevecchi writes a birdwatching column called 'Birds I View' (clever title, what?). Gammel Ost contributes a column about national and international affairs. Robin McGrath pens a column about books, writers and publishers. Myles and Dick Whitaker furnish a well-written column about gardening. And then, of course, there's Ray Guy. (I attempted to contact Guy for comment, but couldn't reach him before press time.)
Finally, there's the editorial direction. The copy is well-edited and typo's are at a minimum. There is a rhyme and reason to what stories go where, a good balance between 'hard' and 'soft' news, and even a healthy sprinkling of investigative journalism. Welbourn's editorials are intelligent, provocative and always focused on issues that matter to the community.
It is, without question, a damn good paper. So what is the secret to its success? The key factor, of course, is the steady hand of Kathryn Welbourn. She was a busy freelancer, cranking out print and radio work, until three years ago, when she had her second child. Suddenly, there weren't quite enough hours in the day.
"I was freelancing for everybody... and I missed a deadline!" she whispers, as if confessing to a sin. "So I decided I have to make a living... and I can't miss a deadline so I better have my own deadline. So I phoned around to see if I could get enough ads and I started a paper."
She started modestly enough, limiting the coverage area in the first year to her hometown of Portugal Cove, then expanding the coverage area. "The paper has paid for itself from the beginning," she said "Rightly or wrongly, I've moved extremely slowly with any changes to this paper... Everything I'm doing is very slow, very steady. I'm not making the paper any bigger than what I can handle. This is what I can do now."
Welbourn graciously accepts compliments about the quality of The Times, but is not given to bragging about it. She prefers to let the paper speak for itself. But don't get her started on the ideals that drive her as a reporter, editor and publisher...
"With journalism, like with everything, it's your intentions, your attitude and your abilities... I still think you can put out an intelligent newspaper for intelligent people to read. And I don't think that because someone lives in a small community means they should not have good writing sent to their door, or be expected to read something boring... I think they merit and deserve real journalism. I don't see any point in putting out a paper that doesn't at least attempt to provide that."
The Times is not a one-woman show. Welbourn farms out the invoicing, some of the layout, and of course has plenty of help from freelance contributors.
"The columnists are like a dream," she said. "I've just managed to get these really terrific columnists... they don't take much editing, they're good writers, they're intelligent, they've got lots to say, they're original... And I don't censor anybody. My rule with my columnists is 'No boring and no libel' and that's it. I don't always agree with the columns in my paper, but I think that's a freedom that's not always enjoyed by writers."
The community of Portugal Cove has seen an influx of new residents from the suburbs and downtown of St. John's. For a small town, it is blessed with a rich intellectual ferment of artists, writers, academics, scientists and more. Welbourn can yell a politically-charged comment from the verandah of her home, and be hit with three opposing viewpoints before closing the back door.
There is a ready source of freelance talent residing in the town, and many have been given voice in The Times. How often do you find the likes of Ray Guy, Bill Montevecchi, Greg Locke and others inside one 12-page community paper? How many community papers can afford such talent?
Ah, and herein lies the other secret to The Times' success: Welbourn readily admits that she can't pay all contributors their "normal rates".
Quite simply, the contributors aren't in it entirely for the money. Their work is a labour of love. They believe in Welbourn's journalistic ideals, and they want a quality newspaper for their community.
The latest edition of The Times rolled off the press earlier this week. Due to rising postage costs, it is not being delivered via Canada Post. The paper is available at corner stores and other businesses throughout the coverage area.
The Times is also available at a handful of locations in St. John's, including Auntie Crae's, the news kiosk in Atlantic Place, and the provincial House of Assembly.
Good luck in finding a copy. I understand they disappear quickly.
And now Ray Guy is back in circulation, after a hiatus of more than five years from the local media scene.
It's astonishing that Guy has been 'dormant' for so long. What is perhaps more surprising is the publication that has brought the living legend out of obscurity.
No, it's not Maclean's, The Telegram, The Express or The Herald.
It's the Northeast Avalon Times, a community newspaper with a circulation of less than 6,000. However, if you spend a bit of time perusing The Times, it begins to add up. This is quite possibly the best community newspaper in the province. (I have not been closely monitoring all community newspapers in the R-B chain lately, and I haven't been keeping up with The Northern Pen, so I can't really say who is the best.)
The Times is a monthly paper serving Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, Torbay, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Flatrock, Pouch Cove and Bauline. It is published by Kathryn Welbourn, an award-winning journalist who has worked for The Telegram and CBC Radio in this province, and has written for Equinox, Chatelaine, Harrowsmith and other magazines.
The Times publishes once a month and is distributed at no charge (advertising pays the bills). It is not a big paper - usually 12 pages per issue - but it leaves a big impression.
For starters, the paper looks great. It has a crisp, clean layout and nice use of type. The photography is first-rate and no wonder - much of it is supplied by seasoned, award-winning photojournalist Greg Locke.
The political cartoons by Doug Bird (who also does the 'Geezer' strip in The Telegram) are decent. Bird also contributes 'Pickle Harbour', a comic strip that pokes fun at both the city people who move into rural areas and the rural people who live there, without offending either group.
Then there's the writing. Reporters Welbourn and Jeff Green crank out copy that is on par with anything you will read in The Telegram, or any of our weeklies. They don't shy away from difficult topics or interviews, and strive to present both sides of a story. (Reporter Gavin Will also contributes on occasion.)
The columnists are astounding. Ivan Morgan writes a witty ditty called 'Politics 101'. Renowned scientist and professor Bill Montevecchi writes a birdwatching column called 'Birds I View' (clever title, what?). Gammel Ost contributes a column about national and international affairs. Robin McGrath pens a column about books, writers and publishers. Myles and Dick Whitaker furnish a well-written column about gardening. And then, of course, there's Ray Guy. (I attempted to contact Guy for comment, but couldn't reach him before press time.)
Finally, there's the editorial direction. The copy is well-edited and typo's are at a minimum. There is a rhyme and reason to what stories go where, a good balance between 'hard' and 'soft' news, and even a healthy sprinkling of investigative journalism. Welbourn's editorials are intelligent, provocative and always focused on issues that matter to the community.
It is, without question, a damn good paper. So what is the secret to its success? The key factor, of course, is the steady hand of Kathryn Welbourn. She was a busy freelancer, cranking out print and radio work, until three years ago, when she had her second child. Suddenly, there weren't quite enough hours in the day.
"I was freelancing for everybody... and I missed a deadline!" she whispers, as if confessing to a sin. "So I decided I have to make a living... and I can't miss a deadline so I better have my own deadline. So I phoned around to see if I could get enough ads and I started a paper."
She started modestly enough, limiting the coverage area in the first year to her hometown of Portugal Cove, then expanding the coverage area. "The paper has paid for itself from the beginning," she said "Rightly or wrongly, I've moved extremely slowly with any changes to this paper... Everything I'm doing is very slow, very steady. I'm not making the paper any bigger than what I can handle. This is what I can do now."
Welbourn graciously accepts compliments about the quality of The Times, but is not given to bragging about it. She prefers to let the paper speak for itself. But don't get her started on the ideals that drive her as a reporter, editor and publisher...
"With journalism, like with everything, it's your intentions, your attitude and your abilities... I still think you can put out an intelligent newspaper for intelligent people to read. And I don't think that because someone lives in a small community means they should not have good writing sent to their door, or be expected to read something boring... I think they merit and deserve real journalism. I don't see any point in putting out a paper that doesn't at least attempt to provide that."
The Times is not a one-woman show. Welbourn farms out the invoicing, some of the layout, and of course has plenty of help from freelance contributors.
"The columnists are like a dream," she said. "I've just managed to get these really terrific columnists... they don't take much editing, they're good writers, they're intelligent, they've got lots to say, they're original... And I don't censor anybody. My rule with my columnists is 'No boring and no libel' and that's it. I don't always agree with the columns in my paper, but I think that's a freedom that's not always enjoyed by writers."
The community of Portugal Cove has seen an influx of new residents from the suburbs and downtown of St. John's. For a small town, it is blessed with a rich intellectual ferment of artists, writers, academics, scientists and more. Welbourn can yell a politically-charged comment from the verandah of her home, and be hit with three opposing viewpoints before closing the back door.
There is a ready source of freelance talent residing in the town, and many have been given voice in The Times. How often do you find the likes of Ray Guy, Bill Montevecchi, Greg Locke and others inside one 12-page community paper? How many community papers can afford such talent?
Ah, and herein lies the other secret to The Times' success: Welbourn readily admits that she can't pay all contributors their "normal rates".
Quite simply, the contributors aren't in it entirely for the money. Their work is a labour of love. They believe in Welbourn's journalistic ideals, and they want a quality newspaper for their community.
The latest edition of The Times rolled off the press earlier this week. Due to rising postage costs, it is not being delivered via Canada Post. The paper is available at corner stores and other businesses throughout the coverage area.
The Times is also available at a handful of locations in St. John's, including Auntie Crae's, the news kiosk in Atlantic Place, and the provincial House of Assembly.
Good luck in finding a copy. I understand they disappear quickly.
Mayor Wells locks horns over PR (Dec 2002)
Several weeks ago, St. John's Mayor Andy Wells stirred up a mini-controversy when he said the city didn't need a public relations person on staff, that citizens were well informed on council news.
His comments caused some consternation among my colleagues in the public relations field. And since public relations go hand-in-hand with media, I felt this would make good grist for a column. I decided to weigh in and offer a spirited, if slightly tongue-in-cheek, defence of the public relations field. An interview with the irascible Mayor Wells was requested and granted.
Q: So how did this public relations issue first arise?
A: Councillor Hickman suggested that the city’s message is not getting out there somehow and that we need a public relations person to convey the message, whatever the ‘message’ is. First of all, I think it would be a complete waste of money. There are 10 councillors and a mayor, and we’re all supposed to pontificate, articulate or whatever on municipal issues. I certainly wouldn’t want a public relations person in my office, and I don’t need it. It’s part of my responsibilities. Whether I do it effectively or not is another issue. But I don’t think in principle it’s necessary. It’s absolutely out of the question as far as I’m concerned.
Q: But in that case, you are getting 10 different points of view out there…
A: Well, this is not a cabinet… All members of council are entitled to hold their opinions. So municipal politics by its very nature is going to be more fractious. I mean, half of this council hates me. Well they don’t HATE me… well, yeah, some of them probably do… And that’s the nature of politics. That’s not going to change, especially for someone like me who calls it like I see it. The people of St. John’s are entitled to an honest opinion and whether they accept that opinion or agree with it is something I can’t do anything about. I am not in the business of manipulation.
Q: It would seem though, that once a majority of council votes and the city has a position on something, would it make sense to have a person who helps communicate that position? Not on the councillors behalf, but on the city’s behalf.
A: That’s the job of those of us who support that position, or of myself, as mayor. It takes six to make a decison of council, and that’s six PR people… the most important of them being the office of mayor. And I don’t agree with Mr. Hickman at all that we aren’t getting our message out…
Q: What is your opinion overall of public relations people?
A: Oh, I can understand companies having PR positions. But I tend to look at some of these provincial and federal politicians and their entourages, and I think a lot of it is a big waste of taxpayers’ money. Look, if a private company wants to have a PR department that’s entirely their own business. But in the public sector, when it comes to taxpayers’ dollars, I think far too much money is wasted on executive assistants, public relations officers, communications officers, and the like. It seems to me that if you hold elected office, it’s your responsibility to communicate whatever is necessary.
Q: Do you think it’s a PR person’s job to stall information and frustrate reporters?
A: It depends on who they’re working for. In politics, quite often the PR person is simply the propaganda person to try and obfuscate and ensure that the proper spin is put on everything, to enhance the good news and mitigate the bad news… not to tell it like it is.
Q: One of the golden rules is that you will win more people over through niceness than through belligerence. You have been belligerent, and you have insulted people…
A: No, I don’t think that’s a fair statement. Who have I insulted?
Q: I have heard you call people stupid, ignorant, those kinds of things… calling into question their intellect or integrity.
A: Politics is a pretty vicious game. And you are dealing with a lot of people who are not in it for any public interest.
Q: So when you hurl insults, it is mainly at fellow politicians?
A: Well, when people make statements that are incorrect, erroneous or false, why shouldn’t they be taken to task? Nobody has a monopoly on the truth. But I get sick and tired of dealing with people who engage in constant manipulation, where every issue is used to maximize political self-interest.
Q: So sometimes you will go over the top to smash through that kind of thing?
A: Well, whatever. I upset people. But people also know that they can get a straight answer. You can trust me boy. You might not like the answer, but you will get the truth. I campaigned on that.
Q: It occurs to me that if you ever did have a full-time PR person, one of the first things they would do is tell you to tone down the behaviour, to not be so aggressive. What would you say to that?
A: I would say that I don’t need a PR person. Politics is a blood sport. Grimes and Williams are going at it every day in the House of Assembly. They’re not particularly nice to each other. Opposition MHAs are going after Cabinet ministers. And this council… this council is the most dysfunctional group that I’ve ever dealt with. We’re going to have disagreements. And that’s not gonna change. That’s part of human nature. It’s always a struggle to make sure the right thing gets done, the right information gets out and people are not manipulated or pandered to. I don’t pander to people either. The easiest thing in the world is to tell people exactly what they want to hear.
Q: So you don’t see any value in having communications help with the ongoing council issues? You’re satisfied with how the message is conveyed right now?
A: We have public meetings that are televised. There is debate and discussion there. We have a web site. We now have the 754-CITY number for the Citizens’ Service Centre. If you have any kind of question concerning anything to do with City Hall, you dial 754-CITY and you’ll talk to a live human being who will assist you…
Q: Do you think a PR person might help you use these communications tools more effectively?
A: For what?
Q: The web site… The newspaper advertising… The ads in the paper are solid masses of text, not very inviting.
A: But those are for tenders, vacancies, and general information. They are not propaganda.
Q: But that is my point. A PR person can help with ‘real information’. It isn’t all propaganda!
A: How could he or she help?
Q: Ways to make information better understood, easier to consume…
A: But there’s nothing to it. It’s just ads… a tender for construction of a bridge, a vacancy in the engineering department, a public hearing on a zoning application. It’s just straightforward information. So you’re not going to get the job!
Q: I don’t want the job!
His comments caused some consternation among my colleagues in the public relations field. And since public relations go hand-in-hand with media, I felt this would make good grist for a column. I decided to weigh in and offer a spirited, if slightly tongue-in-cheek, defence of the public relations field. An interview with the irascible Mayor Wells was requested and granted.
Q: So how did this public relations issue first arise?
A: Councillor Hickman suggested that the city’s message is not getting out there somehow and that we need a public relations person to convey the message, whatever the ‘message’ is. First of all, I think it would be a complete waste of money. There are 10 councillors and a mayor, and we’re all supposed to pontificate, articulate or whatever on municipal issues. I certainly wouldn’t want a public relations person in my office, and I don’t need it. It’s part of my responsibilities. Whether I do it effectively or not is another issue. But I don’t think in principle it’s necessary. It’s absolutely out of the question as far as I’m concerned.
Q: But in that case, you are getting 10 different points of view out there…
A: Well, this is not a cabinet… All members of council are entitled to hold their opinions. So municipal politics by its very nature is going to be more fractious. I mean, half of this council hates me. Well they don’t HATE me… well, yeah, some of them probably do… And that’s the nature of politics. That’s not going to change, especially for someone like me who calls it like I see it. The people of St. John’s are entitled to an honest opinion and whether they accept that opinion or agree with it is something I can’t do anything about. I am not in the business of manipulation.
Q: It would seem though, that once a majority of council votes and the city has a position on something, would it make sense to have a person who helps communicate that position? Not on the councillors behalf, but on the city’s behalf.
A: That’s the job of those of us who support that position, or of myself, as mayor. It takes six to make a decison of council, and that’s six PR people… the most important of them being the office of mayor. And I don’t agree with Mr. Hickman at all that we aren’t getting our message out…
Q: What is your opinion overall of public relations people?
A: Oh, I can understand companies having PR positions. But I tend to look at some of these provincial and federal politicians and their entourages, and I think a lot of it is a big waste of taxpayers’ money. Look, if a private company wants to have a PR department that’s entirely their own business. But in the public sector, when it comes to taxpayers’ dollars, I think far too much money is wasted on executive assistants, public relations officers, communications officers, and the like. It seems to me that if you hold elected office, it’s your responsibility to communicate whatever is necessary.
Q: Do you think it’s a PR person’s job to stall information and frustrate reporters?
A: It depends on who they’re working for. In politics, quite often the PR person is simply the propaganda person to try and obfuscate and ensure that the proper spin is put on everything, to enhance the good news and mitigate the bad news… not to tell it like it is.
Q: One of the golden rules is that you will win more people over through niceness than through belligerence. You have been belligerent, and you have insulted people…
A: No, I don’t think that’s a fair statement. Who have I insulted?
Q: I have heard you call people stupid, ignorant, those kinds of things… calling into question their intellect or integrity.
A: Politics is a pretty vicious game. And you are dealing with a lot of people who are not in it for any public interest.
Q: So when you hurl insults, it is mainly at fellow politicians?
A: Well, when people make statements that are incorrect, erroneous or false, why shouldn’t they be taken to task? Nobody has a monopoly on the truth. But I get sick and tired of dealing with people who engage in constant manipulation, where every issue is used to maximize political self-interest.
Q: So sometimes you will go over the top to smash through that kind of thing?
A: Well, whatever. I upset people. But people also know that they can get a straight answer. You can trust me boy. You might not like the answer, but you will get the truth. I campaigned on that.
Q: It occurs to me that if you ever did have a full-time PR person, one of the first things they would do is tell you to tone down the behaviour, to not be so aggressive. What would you say to that?
A: I would say that I don’t need a PR person. Politics is a blood sport. Grimes and Williams are going at it every day in the House of Assembly. They’re not particularly nice to each other. Opposition MHAs are going after Cabinet ministers. And this council… this council is the most dysfunctional group that I’ve ever dealt with. We’re going to have disagreements. And that’s not gonna change. That’s part of human nature. It’s always a struggle to make sure the right thing gets done, the right information gets out and people are not manipulated or pandered to. I don’t pander to people either. The easiest thing in the world is to tell people exactly what they want to hear.
Q: So you don’t see any value in having communications help with the ongoing council issues? You’re satisfied with how the message is conveyed right now?
A: We have public meetings that are televised. There is debate and discussion there. We have a web site. We now have the 754-CITY number for the Citizens’ Service Centre. If you have any kind of question concerning anything to do with City Hall, you dial 754-CITY and you’ll talk to a live human being who will assist you…
Q: Do you think a PR person might help you use these communications tools more effectively?
A: For what?
Q: The web site… The newspaper advertising… The ads in the paper are solid masses of text, not very inviting.
A: But those are for tenders, vacancies, and general information. They are not propaganda.
Q: But that is my point. A PR person can help with ‘real information’. It isn’t all propaganda!
A: How could he or she help?
Q: Ways to make information better understood, easier to consume…
A: But there’s nothing to it. It’s just ads… a tender for construction of a bridge, a vacancy in the engineering department, a public hearing on a zoning application. It’s just straightforward information. So you’re not going to get the job!
Q: I don’t want the job!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
