Karl Wells is retiring from the CBC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big changes in store for this little blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, no and no.

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

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

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

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

Newfoundland's senior reporter passes away

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

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

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

Sadly, that embargo has ended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More interesting stuff on the way

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

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

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

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

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

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

I asked Walsh what sort of job description he has.

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

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

An all-out attack on freedom of speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furlong: Well, that’s a specious argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When editors stump at political rallies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for, um, clarifying that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, The Independent is not impartial.

It is not even ‘independent’.

It is propaganda.