tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32606677740292305382024-02-08T10:08:27.880-08:00Journalism ethics in the 21st centurySunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-54838914222837696772008-03-05T15:55:00.000-08:002008-03-05T16:36:42.297-08:00Crying censorshipThe Genies <a href="http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/309246">were enflamed</a> this week with protest over the Conservative government's proposed Bill C-10.<br /><br />Award recipients feared the bill, which would allow the Heritage Ministry to deny tax credits to productions deemed "offensive" or "contrary to the public interest", would spell the demise of provocative filmmaking in Canada.<br /><br />The bill has also been panned by <a href="http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=81056&issue=03052008">Broadcaster Magazine</a> and a tens of thousands-strong <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9036150977">Facebook group</a>.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/309304">Conservative response</a>? The bill is essentially a loophole-closer once supported by a Liberal.<br /><br />But it's also endorsed by the evangelical moral crusader <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_McVety">Charles McVety</a>.<br /><br />Personally, that's enough to get me nervous.<br /><br />But then there are those terms: "offensive" and "contrary to the public interest". I've got a creepy feeling I've heard them somewhere else.<br /><br />Oh, now I remember. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7241723.stm">Here.</a><br /><br /> <span style="display: block;" id="formatbar_Buttons"><span class="on" style="display: block;" id="formatbar_CreateLink" title="Link" onmouseover="ButtonHoverOn(this);" onmouseout="ButtonHoverOff(this);" onmouseup="" onmousedown="CheckFormatting(event);FormatbarButton('richeditorframe', this, 8);ButtonMouseDown(this);"></span></span>Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-41027866825675082332008-02-29T14:11:00.000-08:002008-02-29T14:30:05.721-08:00Court concedes confidential sourcesI<span style="font-family:arial;">n a frustrating move for the journalistic community, the Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=1e9f5b62-6211-4280-8636-a17deb7ed283&k=28908">2004 landmark ruling</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> protecting the use of confidential sources. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The court reinstated a search warrant ordering <span style="font-style: italic;">The National Post</span> to produce a document from reporter Andrew McIntosh said to be central to the "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Shawinigate</span>" investigation of former PM Jean Chretien.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><a href="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/02/29/background-on-the-2004-landmark-ruling.aspx">In 2004,</a> Ontario Superior Court justice Mary Lou <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Benotto</span> became a hero to many Canadian journalists when she quashed the warrant, calling journalists' ability to protect their sources "essential" to media in a democracy.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">"She called the proposed search unreasonable and a violation of the media's constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression and interfered with journalists' rights to protect sources," reports the </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/308225">Toronto Star</a><span style="font-family:arial;">.<br /><br />"Without them, many important stories of public interest wouldn't have been published, she said, citing everything from Watergate to reports on hazardous waste dumping."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2008/29/c7761.html">Canadian Association of Journalists </a><span style="font-family:arial;">immediately issued a statement calling the ruling "</span> a ma<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">jor</span> setback for press freedom and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">public's</span> right to know."</span>Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-31206363439063777502008-02-16T14:39:00.000-08:002008-02-16T14:47:22.618-08:00never mindUpdate:<br /><br />Syed Soharwardy has withdrawn his human rights complaint against Ezra Levant for publishing the infamous Muhammad cartoons in the <a href="http://westernstandard.ca/website/index.php"><span style="font-style: italic;">Western Standard</span>.</a><br /><br />He explains why in this <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wcomment0215/BNStory/National/home">roundabout editorial</a>, which, interestingly, acknowledges concerns over whether human rights commissions should tackle hate speech at all.<br /><br /><span style="display: block;" id="formatbar_Buttons"><span class="on" style="display: block;" id="formatbar_CreateLink" title="Link" onmouseover="ButtonHoverOn(this);" onmouseout="ButtonHoverOff(this);" onmouseup="" onmousedown="CheckFormatting(event);FormatbarButton('richeditorframe', this, 8);ButtonMouseDown(this);"></span></span>Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-9417063526266566542008-02-13T20:57:00.000-08:002008-02-13T21:37:44.157-08:00Here we go again<span style="font-style: italic;">Warning! Several of these links contain images of the prophet Muhammad!</span><br /><br />Just when you thought 12 little cartoons couldn't stir up any more chaos.<br /><br />Today, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/13/muhammadcartoons">Danish newspapers reprinted</a> the <a href="http://muhammadcartoons.com/">cartoon of Muhammad</a> that, along with 11 others printed in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper three years ago, sparked a wave of violence across the Muslim world.<br /><br />The move was a response to the arrest of three people for allegedly plotting to kill the cartoonist, who's been under high surveillance since the fateful publication.<br /><br />"Regardless of whether Jyllands-Posten at the time used freedom of speech unwisely and with damaging consequences, the paper deserves unconditional solidarity when it is threatened with terror," read an editorial in another paper which also reprinted the offending art.<br /><br />I don't get it. If the decision was "unwise" in the first place -- presumably because it led to violence -- how is it now a wise decision as a reaction to violence?<br /><br />Is publishing purely for the sake of offending a journalistic right? Is it ever a duty? If freedom of expression ends anywhere, it seems to me that inciting mass violence ought to be that place.<br /><br />The tangled issue has reached Canada, where conservative publisher Ezra Levant is facing a human rights complaint for printing the cartoons two years ago. In a Toronto Star editorial, Kelly Toughill <a href="http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/297549">makes a good case</a> for keeping human rights commissions out of journalism, but steers clear of the ethics of Levant's move.<br /><span style="display: block;" id="formatbar_Buttons"><span class="on" style="display: block;" id="formatbar_CreateLink" title="Link" onmouseover="ButtonHoverOn(this);" onmouseout="ButtonHoverOff(this);" onmouseup="" onmousedown="CheckFormatting(event);FormatbarButton('richeditorframe', this, 8);ButtonMouseDown(this);"></span></span><br />Meanwhile, in a less nuanced analysis, FOX news <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328966,00.html">has published</a> several more antiquated depictions of Muhammad -- <span style="font-style: italic;">in a news story</span> about Muslims' outrage over the inclusion of the very same images on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad">a Wikipedia page</a>. "People are very upset over a thing which we will now proceed to do." Very neutral, FOX.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-80259237469629831352008-02-07T18:15:00.001-08:002008-02-07T18:20:03.922-08:00The NewseumA monumental tribute to the history of journalism, one of the most expensive museums of all time. <br /><br />"You get more feeling for the newspaper business from <em>Daily Planet</em> panels in an old Superman comic than you get at the Newseum," wrote Henry Allen of The <em>Washington Post</em><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2183936/fr/rss/">http://www.slate.com/id/2183936/fr/rss/</a>Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-43979533339713352192008-02-06T15:36:00.001-08:002008-02-06T15:57:43.339-08:00Breaking NewsNow that we have your attention, did you know that on Super Tuesday, ABC alone sent out over 30 "breaking news " alerts about election results, according to an innovative, interactive website, <a href="http://www.breakingnewsornot.com/index.php">Breaking News or Not?</a> <br /><br />Increasingly, it seems, news networks report "breaking news," interrupting scheduled programming to alert viewers to "urgent" stories -- on everything from Heath Ledger's death to tornado death tolls.<br /><br />But this blog, started by editors fed up with the seemingly never-ending stream of breaking news after the Paris Hilton arrest, provides audiences with a chance to decide whether news is worthy of the "breaking" title.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.breakingnewsornot.com/index.php">www.breakingnewsornot.com </a>offers citizens a chance to discuss and debate the merits of news stories and the opportunity to discuss who got the story first, and who got it right. It even keeps a running tally of the time since the last "breaking news" story.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-76000303949437532352008-01-30T11:08:00.000-08:002008-01-30T12:21:44.255-08:00Is media biasing the public against the press?<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">A recent poll of</span><a href="http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/20786_americans_slam_news_media_on_believability.cfm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> media credibility</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> conducted by Sacred Heart University found that the American people are losing faith in their journalists at an alarmingly rapid pace.<br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 16px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In the current national poll, just 19.6% of those could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003. It should be noted that this segment of the public ranked Fox News, known for its Republican spinsters, the most accurate news provider. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Does the public have it wrong or should we trust their lack of trust? Are they perceiving bias in the news because the media is biasing the public against journalists?</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The erosion of public confidence in journalism is old news, some may say, but perhaps we need to examine factors that influence public perception of ineptitude in journalism, says Roy Peter Clark, Senior Scholar at the </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Poynter</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> Institute. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"The public bias against the press is a more serious problem for American democracy that the bias (real or perceived) the press itself," he writes in a recent article </span><a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=136625"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"The Public Bias Against the Press."</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"I hold journalists less responsible -- and the public more responsible -- for misperceptions of news media performance. In short, the last two decades have seen unprecedented attacks upon the legitimacy of the news media, so many messages from so many directions that they are as impossible to ignore as, say, the soft-core sexual images that pervade American culture."</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The media itself perpetuates popular myths that journalists are scum, parasites that leech onto the likes of Britney Spears and Heath Ledger, at the expense of more positive, less popular, portrayals of journalists fighting doggedly in the name of public interest. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">And just how is the media implicated in biasing the public? By confusing people.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"Journalism expresses itself through media, but most media expressions are not forms of journalism," reminds Clark.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Take for instance, the seemingly harmless romantic comedy </span><a href="http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-dresses18jan18,0,3625328.story"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">27 Dresses. </span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Like many formulaic flicks of this genre, it features a familiar Shakespearian trope -- a woman and man hit it off, the man somehow screws up and then there is the inevitable reconciliation at the end. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Tack onto this the fact that the leading man is a </span><span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">sleazy</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> reporter for the "Commitments" section of the fictional New York Journal. He needs a killer story to rise above his beat -- wedding reporter hell. He decides a scathing expose of a woman who has been a bridesmaid 27 times is his ticket out.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Although</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> it is only a lighthearted comedy, 27 Dresses solidifies notions in the popular imagination that the underhanded journalist can't be trusted with your privacy.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The "journalist" here commits countless ethical breaches, with no foresight or questioning of his tactics, and --true to Hollywood -- breaks hearts along the way to get his story. His first breach is using a pseudonym. Anonymity -- a tactic usually reserved for the most dire of circumstances (read: not a wedding expose) -- has questionable ethics written all over it. He then deceives his source about the nature of his story, takes pictures of her under false pretenses and proceeds to libel her sister on the front page of the Style section.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Not only do movies like this (see a role reversal in 2003's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251127/">How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days</a>) engrain stereotypes about women, romance and relationships, they irresponsibly convey that journalists cannot be trusted, that they forsake the public interest, responsibility to their sources and readers, and ethical principles to get a "scoop" on even the most mundane of stories.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Gone are the days when journalists were portrayed as trusted sources of news, purveyors of the public interest and crusaders for the people. And it is the media itself that has perpetuated the most derogatory of stereotypes about journalists.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Noble portrayals of journalists like </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">All the Presidents Men</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> and more recently, </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140352/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The Insider</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> have been replaced by popular media images and Hollywood portrayals where journalists scheme and connive to get their stories. "The usual shtick is that they are slimeballs or part of the wolf pack that runs up the courthouse steps with notebooks and microphones extended," writes Clark.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Ironically, while the essence of journalism is the practice of verification, the entertainment media seems to overlook verification in the accounts of journalism they portray to the public.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span></div><div><br /></div>Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-45088284798645938442008-01-24T11:49:00.000-08:002008-01-24T15:19:53.596-08:00Watching the watchdogs<div> </div><div><br /></div><div>Reporting in the era of new media means the facts, the news, and the truth are continually refreshed.</div><div><br /></div><div>Imagine a world where correcting an error is part of the daily process of compiling a story, where journalists are no longer shunned for recognizing a mistake and instead present their work to the public for collaborative fact-checking. In this world, everyone is an editor, and we are all independent monitors of the fourth estate.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is the world imagined by Craig <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Silverman</span>, the media-savvy mind responsible for the innovative site <a href="http://www.regrettheerror.com/">Regret the Error</a>, an online monitor of minute-by-minute corrections in news outlets across the globe. The site links to tools like <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu">the Good the Bad and the Ugly,</a> Reuters forum for reader feedback, and the San Francisco Chronicle's podcast <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/category?blogid=5&cat=1066">Correct Me if I'm Wrong</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>In his new book "Regret the Error," <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Silverman</span> argues that, "in this media era, people expect stories and information to be constantly updated; the correction is, in essence, a form of update, albeit one that addresses past error rather than breaking news. Corrections must not be ghettoized or hidden or perceived as <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">punishment</span>; rather, they should be part of the job of reporting and editing."</div><div><br /></div><div>The world of journalism 2.0 opens new opportunities for news outlets to increase transparency, accuracy and public interaction. </div><div><br /></div><div>But before we can expect better accuracy and constant corrections, the mainstream media needs a mentality makeover-- a shift toward recognizing and incorporating the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">inevitability</span> of human error in journalism, in which reporters are not <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">afraid</span> to publicly acknowledge their <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">fallibility</span>. </div><div><br /></div><div>Some news organizations, like<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2182424/"> Slate.com</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html">the New York Times </a>and <a href="http://www.thestar.com/comment/corrections">the Toronto Star</a> have already entered a world where online corrections are considered the norm in a mediascape of continuous reporting. </div><div><br /></div><div>These outlets allow readers to alert editors to any errors in stories and editors amend the story after a thorough fact check. This interaction facilitates one of the fundamental functions of the press --creating a forum for public discourse.</div><div><br /></div><div>"The press can no longer hide its mistakes and errors, and journalists can no longer go about their daily work sequestered from their readers and the public at large," writes <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Silverman</span>. "In a time of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">unprecedented</span> news options for consumers, they will inevitably flock toward the sources they feel are the most trustworthy, the most accurate."</div><div><br /></div><div>A world where corrections and transparency are the norm could refresh public faith in journalism because the public is watching the watchdogs -- and everyone benefits from the dialogue. </div>Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-14413981297851567982008-01-17T15:47:00.000-08:002008-01-17T16:10:12.567-08:00CRTC rulingsThe <a href="http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/welcome.htm">Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission</a> this week released a set of <a href="http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2008/r080115.htm">new policies</a> addressing last year's media and diversity hearings.<br /><br />The decisions, which apply only to private broadcasters, decree that:<br /><ul><li>a person or entity will only be permitted to control two of the following types of media that serve the same market: a local radio station, a local television station or a local newspaper (that's two <span style="font-style: italic;">types</span>, not two papers, a major distinction newspaper giants like <a href="http://www.canwest.com/brands/newspapers.asp">Canwest</a>)<br /></li><li>one party can't control more than 45 per cent of the total television audience share as a result of a transaction</li><li>the CRTC will not approve transactions between companies that distribute television services (such as cable or satellite companies) that would result in one person effectively controlling the delivery of programming in a market</li></ul>These rulings might seem monumental, but as as <a href="http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2008/01/16/CRTCRuling/">Marc Edge observed</a> on <a href="www.thetyee.ca">TheTyee.ca</a>, they merely preserve the status quo for Canada's current media conglomerates.<br /><br />Canadian journalists and audiences are still sussing out what these rulings really mean, and next week, journalism professor Kim Kierans will explain it all on <a href="www.journalismethics.ca">JournalismEthics.ca.</a> Stay tuned!Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-86370224429434553132008-01-10T12:35:00.000-08:002008-01-11T11:41:00.292-08:00Shedding a tear for lost ethicsWith the American presidential primary races heating up usually frosty January political coverage, some of the front runners, exhausted from months already spent campaigning, are showing signs of emotional melting.<br /><br />Although they may prove to be some of the fiercest rivals in the race to the White House, <a href="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/70964/"> Mitt Romney, </a> Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have shared at least one very personal thing -- public tears.<br /><br />So why is it that Hillary's tears -- or lack thereof -- have attracted the most attention in the media?<br /><br />She is the only female front runner in the history of U.S presidential politics.<br /><br />Clinton bears a disproportionate burden in her campaign. She must find a balance that no man is expected to, between showing she is "human," and not appearing too "emotional."<br /><br />After a misty-eyed answer at a campaign stop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire Monday, in which her voice cracked as she described her passion for politics, headlines shouting the news that <a href= "http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/734497,CST-NWS-mitch10.article"> "Hillary Wept," </a> swept the nightly news, just a day before she usurped the New Hampshire primary from the night's expected victor, Barack Obama.<br /><br />Network pundits dwelled on these tears as if they had single-handedly solved the Middle East peace crisis. Bloggers specualated on whether they were real. Perhaps most alarming is that <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/734497,CST-NWS-mitch10.article">many pundits </a> overtly ascribe Hillary's victory in New Hampshire Tuesday with her public display of emotion. <br /> <br />As Emily Krone points out in a <a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=109385&src=109"> Daily Herald article, </a> "it's unclear what Clinton's show of emotion says about her or her candidacy. But the media and public frenzy surrounding the display says something very definitive about American society, and persisting stereotypes about women and leadership."<br /><br />Renowned feminist Gloria Stenheim recently wrote an Op-ed in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1200027600&en=6fa99aa4f642ef4f&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin"> the New York Times </a> condemning the media for the double burden they place on the only female candidate in the race. <br /><br />"What worries me is that [Obama] is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex," she says.<br /><br />But there are more reasons to lament the media's coverage of the race between "the black man" and "the white woman." By casting candidates in racial and gender stereotypes, the media continues to frame the campaigns in terms of essentialist notions that have nothing to do with how either candidate might govern the most powerful country in the world.<br /><br />Instead, American news outlets are perpetuating a divisive type of identity politics, forcing voters to draw allegiances based on one dimensional characteristics, and in turn, perpetuating a "dumbing down" of the electorate.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-69371152212432055862007-10-26T17:39:00.000-07:002007-10-26T17:48:12.098-07:00The American PR machineThe American government has stooped to a new ethical low. FEMA held a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7064909.stm">fake press conference</a> Tuesday morning, where officials posed as reporters.<br /><br />In an Orwellian move, the organization gave actual reporters only 15 minutes notice -- ensuring they could not make the conference to ask hard hitting questions about fires in California.<br /><br />The Washington Post published details from the conference before learning it was a hoax.<br /><br />Is this an attempt by the infamously defunct body (after the Katrina scandal) to regain credibility in the eyes of the American people?<br /><br />If so, they obviously underestimated both the intelligence of the American people and the capabilities of their press corps.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-31102630589340019422007-10-24T15:19:00.000-07:002007-10-24T15:42:33.328-07:00Press Freedom IndexReporters Sans <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Frontieres</span> has released its latest <a href="http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24019">Press Freedom Index</a>, rating 169 countries in terms of the degree of freedom enjoyed by journalists over the past year.<br /><br />Topping the list is Iceland, while North Korea has lost the dubious honour of last place to Eritrea, an African country which <a href="http://allafrica.com/stories/200710161070.html">closed the private press in 2001</a>.<br /><br />Sharing status at the bottom of the pack are China (163rd), Burma (164<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">th</span>), Cuba (165<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">th</span>), Iran (166<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">th</span>) and Turkmenistan (167<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">th</span>).<br /><br />Recent events like the death of Russian journalist Anna <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Politkovskaya</span>, the military crackdown of pro-democracy demonstrations in Burma and the continued imprisonment of Chinese journalists all contributed to the rankings.<br /><br />At 18<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">th</span>, Canada's got nothing on the Scandinavian countries that dominate the top spots, but it is the highest ranked G8 country. The USA sits at 48<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">th</span>, just below Nicaragua.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-3825409512923419122007-10-11T14:59:00.000-07:002007-10-11T23:11:19.113-07:00The Walrus came to town<a href="http://www.walrusmagazine.com/">The Walrus</a>, rated Canada's, magazine of the year, came to Vancouver on a rainy Tuesday night, bringing raunchy poetry readings, an unlimited martini bar and some of the city's biggest philanthropists, and more importantly, their cheque books.<br /><br />The Walrus is known in Canada for promoting important public discourse on matters from the country's electoral system to climate change in its arctic.<br /><br />But there was little talk of quality Canadian journalism when the Walrus came to town. The event wasn't about intellectual accolades or discourse on the state of magazines in Canada. It was about fund raising.<br /><br />And when it comes to charity events, the Walrus stuck with the tried and true recipe for success, for even the most high brow soirées centre on those classic staples of a good party -- a fully stocked bar and sexy entertainment.<br /><br />At the middle of it all is the Walrus' Editor-in-Chief and co-founder, Ken Alexander, wearing a thematic green shirt mingling with journalistic types and capital investors alike, promoting the Walrus' upcoming arctic issue. Part editor and part PR spokesperson, Alexander's job tonight is to pamper his sponsors.<br /><br />Based on the business model of the renowned <a href="http://www.harpers.org/">Harper's</a> magazine, the Walrus has become Canada's only long form journalism magazine dedicated to ideas and culture.<br /><br />But tonight the culture of the intelligentsia reigns over their big ideas. The entertainment line-up is jammed with some of Vancouver's biggest media big shots from Shelagh Rogers acting out a special play by playwright Jim Garrard to Lorna Crozier and Patrick Lane reciting erotic poetry.<br /><br />The party moves to the Vancouver Art Gallery, where pseudo-celebs sip martinis and view Georgia O'Keeffe originals while waiting for the results of the silent auction featuring prizes that include a weekend in Whistler and dinner at the renowned Lumiere restaurant.<br /><br />This event makes one thing clear about those who support the Walrus. While they might prefer sexually explicit content and martinis to discourse on the state of journalism, or the difference the Walrus is making in the Canadian cultural zeitgeist, they certainly celebrate the magazine's achievements with their cheque books.<br /><br />Surprisingly, Canada's best magazine cannot support itself on revenue alone. It won charitable status from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in 2005. Now it can appeal for funds from foundations and other interested parties.<br /><br />The Walrus dedicates only a small portion of space to ads, its publisher Shelley Ambrose quickly explains while introducing the evening's entertainment. "We are committed to long-form literary journalism, so you're not going to get features telling you where to shop."<br /><br />Now the magazine can raise the capital it needs to compete against American magazines that have saturated the Canadian market, staples such as the New Yorker, Time and Harper's, and offer a Canadian alternative to Macleans.<br /><br />How can an intellectual magazine best raise money from high spending donors? A series of cross- country shmooze fests was decided on.<br /><br />The Walrus has traveled from Ottawa to Calgary to Vancouver, and the content of each evening's entertainment certainly catered to <a href="http://walrusmagazine.com/news/entry/2007.10.10-events-the-walrus-is-coming-to-town-buy-tickets-now//">each metropolis</a>.<br /><br />While it was not officially announced -- perhaps because of the sheer crassness of discussing money at a fund raiser for a magazine about "ideas, sophistication and wit" -- I am told that despite an intimate turnout, the magazine has raised a substantial amount in Vancouver, thanks to some of the city's richest denizens who have generously sponsored the magazine's event.<br /><br />And of course, there was plenty of swag.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-66544389603743467812007-09-26T19:47:00.000-07:002007-09-27T09:17:49.341-07:00How far can an editorial go?According to the <a href="http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=bf783ef4-f3cd-4472-9607-18f2d92eef16"><span style="font-style: italic;">Province,</span></a> the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CRTC</span> has received 268 complaints so far about Bruce Allen's <a href="http://www.cknw.com/shows/realitycheck.cfm?REM=42563&fld=2007&fle=CKNWAM_4C0FD6_2007_9_25_13-15-28.wma&wids=300">recent show</a> on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CKNW</span> that railed against "special interest groups" (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">ie</span>: immigrants) who ask for special treatment. The outspoken manager of some of Canada's hottest musical acts told the imagined subjects of his rant, "we don't need you here" and "shut up and fit in."<br /><br />Arguing his editorial was racist and just plain uninformed, activists and politicians have called for him to be fired or resign from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">CKNW</span> and his position in the planning of the 2010 Olympic games.<br /><br />Allen's since "clarified" himself on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Christy</span> Clark's radio show and in the form of a <a href="http://www.cknw.com/shows/realitycheck.cfm?REM=42669&fld=2007&fle=Rebuttal.wma&wids=300">rebuttal</a> released today. His programmer <a href="http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=c1f870e8-59fe-4414-9d95-6603a57f9e55">has defended him</a>, and now it looks like <a href="http://www.cknw.com/news/news_local.cfm?cat=7428436912&rem=75409&red=80143623aPBIny&wids=242&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">VANOC</span> will too</a>.<br /><br />Since I reported on the controversy, I've received several emails in support of Allen, to the tune of "thank god <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">someone's</span> saying what I'm thinking." But last I checked, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Facebook</span> group calling for Allen's firing boasted 4,484 members, while groups supporting him barely approached 1000 members in total.<br /><br />I'm not comfortable in either camp. But I hope those taking a side are thinking through the consequences of their positions, and have at least listened to the pieces in question.<br /><br />Arguing Allen's not fit to represent us at the Olympics is one thing. Trying to muzzle a man who neither libeled nor advocated violence is a whole other ballgame.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-47580731601091461062007-09-18T00:08:00.000-07:002007-09-18T00:35:09.932-07:00Censorship at the EmmysSince the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident, media broadcasters have been granted the ability -- backed by a degree of public approval -- to censor live shows.<br /><br />Unlike the controversial "nipple" incident, however, Sunday's Emmy censorships were invoked for political and religious reasons.<br /><br /><a href="http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/posted/archive/2007/09/17/sally-field-not-fit-for-prime-time.aspx">Sally Field</a> was censored during her acceptance speech for decrying the war in Iraq.<br /><br />She said: "If mothers ruled the world, there would be no Goddamn war in Iraq," but the television audience heard only: "If mothers ruled the world, there would be no God..." before she was cut off- which significantly misconstrued the crux of her speech and left the audience in awe of what she could have possibly said.<br /><br />And comedian <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=dgCjO51d8jw">Kathy Griffin</a> was censored on the Fox network during a speech in which she declared "Suck it Jesus. This award is my God now."<br /><br />If we enter an era in which broadcasters decide what to air in the name of good taste we are treading a dangerous new ground toward limiting free speech, further blurring the already artificial line between reality and what the media depicts as reality.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-60131774436431661332007-09-07T16:37:00.000-07:002007-09-07T16:59:57.996-07:00Reporting under censorshipIn a <a href="http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2007/09/05/Kagame/">recent piece</a> on the online independent newspaper <a href="http://www.thetyee.ca">The Tyee</a>, Claude Adams argues for the hypocrisy of former <a href="http://www.thestar.com/">Toronto Star</a> publisher John Honderich's denunciation of press freedom in Rwanda, only after having left the country. <br /><br />Adams reports that, while in Rwanda, Honderich was well aware of the censorship -- both self- and government-imposed -- routinely restricting journalists. <br /><br />The bigger questions brought up in his piece concern all journalists.<br /><br />"To what degree should the fear of offending a host government prompt volunteers to soft-pedal professional and ethical standards in the course of their work? When is it okay to bite your tongue for the "good of the project," and when do you stand on principle, even at the risk of being shut down?" Adams asks. <br /><br />His questions spring from his experience in the Canadian <a href="http://www.rwandainitiative.ca/index2.html">Rwanda Initiative</a>, which he worries isn't teaching aspiring reporters to stand up to Rwandan President Paul Kagame.<br /><br />He goes on to relate how some of the Rwandan journalism students he met aimed to switch to PR or NGO work because of the frustrations of reporting in their country. <br /><br />That sentiment isn't unheard of in my own school, but reading Adams' analysis of the plight of Rwandan media sure puts Canada's imperfections in perspective.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-31475128794665338002007-08-22T16:11:00.000-07:002007-08-22T16:18:30.194-07:00Journalism ethics: The old oxymoronIn a <a href="http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/2007/08/20/119087/The-philosophy.htm">recent op-ed in the <span style="font-style:italic;">China Post</span></a>, Joe Hung revisits an old argument in journalistic circles after two cable TV networks were disciplined for airing fabricated video footage, forcing senior staff to attend journalism ethics lectures.<br /><br />“Most practicing journalists, including editors, consider school inculcation to be of no use and a sheer waste of time,” Hung writes. “Some academics, however, insist that professional ethics have to be taught, though they lament there are few qualified instructors and little literature in this specific field of study to draw on.”<br /><br />The first half of Hung’s characterization has a measure of truth – an editor told me recently that journalism ethics is nothing more than “get it first, and get it right.”<br /><br />But his lament is dated, not to mention inaccurate, as he asserts that the only graduate journalism ethics class is taught at his alma mater, Southern Illinois University.<br /><br />Not so, as I’m about to realize as I take the <a href="http://www.journalism.ubc.ca/courses2.html">class</a> next semester at UBC.<br /><br />But, more importantly, Hung’s analysis is rooted in an old mindset that sees journalism as just the making of a daily paper.<br /><br />In today’s multimedia, instantaneous, user-generated, global world of journalism, there’s a lot more to think about than getting it first and getting it right. We’re revisioning journalism, and thankfully we’ve got forums to do it.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260667774029230538.post-693934186874966712007-08-16T21:40:00.000-07:002007-08-16T22:07:18.664-07:00Online transparencyIn an experimental move last week, <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/09/technology/google.php">Google News added a feature</a> that allows story interviewees to post their comments alongside stories from news organizations around the world, ushering in a new era of transparency in reporting.<br /><br />Although this move may sound like the solution to inaccurate quoting and journalists with their own agendas, it also undermines one of the core reasons journalists exist -- to filter through the spin of interviewees with their own agendas.<br /><br />The comment section will be heavily regulated, requiring interviewees to email Google with contact information and proof that they were part of the story. But it could still become a mess of public relations spin and irate subjects lashing out at journalists.<br /><br />It also appears as though Google might have its own agenda in implementing this device -- ousting its main competitor <a href="http://digg.com/">Digg</a>, with its user-powered aggregation system and comment section as the web's most democratic site.Sunny Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12890558797963425867noreply@blogger.com0