Profiling a champion

Follow this link (http://vimeo.com/17717287) to see a video Jeremie Wookey and I made for our broadcast journalism class. It's a profile on a young and accomplished highland dancer named Colleen McGregor. Enjoy!

Remarkable journalism: John Hersey's Hiroshima

Hiroshima: the first city in the world to be destroyed by a nuclear bomb and a book by John Hersey. Unlike the city, the book was never destroyed. But both have only rebuilt themselves since the event – the city, literally and the book in numbers of copies.

Hiroshima is the largest Japanese city in the Chugoku region, the largest island of Japan. On August 6, 1945 the United States of America dropped an atomic bomb on the city. It killed 80,000 people almost instantly.

John Hersey was assigned to report on what happened. Rather than telling the story of crushed buildings, he told the stories of six lucky survivors’s crushed lives.

The intention was to print the 36,000 word article in four instalments in The New Yorker, but once the story was written no one wanted to break the piece up. It was kept a secret from New Yorker employees and on August 31, 1946, John Hersey’s Hiroshima filled the magazine.

The article was a hit. Harold Ross, editor of The New Yorker, said he’d never felt so satisfied with a publication after Hiroshima was printed. Copies sold out on newsstands and were being scalped for $15 to $20 – the magazine cost 15 cents. Apparently Albert Einstein even tried to order 1,000 copies – that never happened. And ABC radio dedicated four half-hour long programs to reading the story on-air.

The sensation was so huge, the article was eventually printed as a book and has been continuously reprinted since.

And for good reason – I think. The story is especially effective for two reasons: (1) Hersey’s dry, reportorial style of journalism lets the subjects’s stories write themselves. We don’t need his opinion. And (2) Hiroshima tells the stories of human beings, not buildings, not war politics. This allows readers to connect with the narratives. It’s an emotional ‘real person’ story. Everyone can relate to a struggle, therefore, everyone can read Hersey’s article and grasp, at least a portion of, the magnitude of the situation those six survivors went through – this instead of trying to relate to some political figure’s decision to drop the bomb.

I wonder, however, if pictures were missing from the book. On the one hand, they’d provide readers answers to their burning questions of what many scenarios and people looked like. What did these people look like? Hersey never really describes anyone. But on the other hand, the fact that Hersey focuses on presenting facts allows readers to imagine. The lack of pictures force readers to over-exaggerate the devastation, an effect that I think was intended and necessary, because adding pictures would mean filling in a part of the mystery for readers. Keeping this away from them makes them feel vulnerable when it comes to the possibilities of how things could’ve looked. This vulnerable feeling is essential if readers want to even begin to understand how these people might’ve felt.

At least that’s how I felt as I read the book.

Another thing that resonated with me is how Hersey never put himself into the story. He just presented other people’s information and facts surrounding the bombing. Hersey never had to try and make the story emotional because he let it be emotional. By this I mean, rather than trying to show readers where they should feel emotion, he just presented the information and let them decide the emotional parts – and there were many.

I think this is a technique that a journalist can try and mock as much as possible.

But at the same time, I question this idea because there are many other journalistic pieces where a journalist puts themselves in the story. For example the documentary film: Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire. Dallaire, even though he’s not a journalist by profession plays the role of one throughout the 1994 Rwandan genocide to try and bring international attention to the issue in attempt to help stop it. While Dallaire told the stories of others, he also told his own. His story evoked a lot of emotion as well.

This leaves me to conclude that there isn’t necessarily a better way to tell a story. But I will say there is a more difficult way: that’s the Hersey way. He wasn’t in Hiroshima when the bomb dropped. He took no part in the story other than to be the one to tell it. The amount of research he likely had to go through pulling stories like that from people going through such an emotional and traumatic time is not only amazing – it’s reflective of his journalistic talent.

Also note: I chose to add a picture of two Hiroshima victims. What do you think about including them?

(Photos taken from: amazon.com; hiroshima.com; discoverhiroshima.com)

Long term journalism

Oi. It can be confusing.

Since March 2010, I've been working on a book about the town of Powerview-Pine Falls, Manitoba and the impact the paper mill's closure has had on the community. I began my research and interviews over the summer and came up with a carefully crafted outline in Sept./Oct. based on the information I received from that research and those interviews.

The results were mainly negative in the sense that many were concerned with how the town was going to continue.

However, as I return to the area for more interviews or follow-up interviews, I'm already beginning to notice a change in the way people talk about the area -- they're more positive about their situation and trying to reconstruct a base for a solid town with what they have. Or so it seems.

The confusing part is trying to represent both categories of feelings and knowing I'll likely be experiencing more of this attitude change as I continue. I'm so used to writing quick articles -- the interview happens, people have their opinion, I fire off the story. Done. Now it's all about updating my chapters to how people are feeling now, while still representing how they felt then too...which was only a few months away.

Dealing with the slight attitude changes is something I never expected and a challenge I'm facing.

Stay tuned to see how it all plays out.

Sharing my student wisdom with those who can stand it

I’m the arts editor for the Projector.

With the job comes several challenges. Three repeatedly come to mind, actually.

1. Knowing I’m not an expert editor, but having to act confident about my decisions.
2. Acknowledging and accepting the fact that there are bigger, more popular news sources than mine – this means my story lists must be extra unique to draw attention.
3. Being in charge of the arts sections often means a lot of event coverage – because we print every two weeks the news gets old fast, so it’s a challenge to try and encourage writers to find a broader way to cover an event… sometimes even I’m not sure.

This week I’m working on hiring arts editor interns. They'll run the Projector while second-year CreComms are on workplacement. The task is both exciting, because I get to play a part in scouting new talent, and overwhelming, because who am I to say who's the best? I’m also reminded that I was in their shoes last year – how much could I have possibly learned since then?

A lot actually.

This position made everything my instructors had been telling me over the past year make sense. I realized writing needed to be clear before it could be creative. I also realized no writer is perfect. Something can always be fixed. Editing is like solving a puzzle – the edges are easy, it’s completing the inside that’s tough, and that's when many people give up.

A few things I’ve learnt since working for the Projector is:

• That assuming proper nouns are spelt correctly, no matter how good the writer is, is a bad idea
• That leads and context couldn’t be more essential to a story – a writer who can do both is talented
• That formatting is an annoying thing to have to fix, but an easy thing to fix
• That no matter how hard you try to make submission instructions clear, there’s always going to be someone who gets it wrong – you just have to deal with it
• That the best stories are the hardest to edit but you have to stick with them because there’s going to be something to fix
• That it's always important to double check facts
• That it's important to understand one can never stop editing, but one needs to – it’s important to keep the original story
• That headline writing is so not my thing

When editing, I try and give students feedback as much as possible because I know I always appreciate it when people do it for me. But, while I hope they consider my advice when I'm offering it, I also hope they take it with a grain of salt – it was only a year ago I was in their shoes.

Acting confident is something I continuously work on, so I don’t have a solution for that yet. However, I think I can pull it off in front of student writers; I just have to put up with my brain’s internal arguments later.

The latter two challenges I feel are self-explanatory. Every paper, big or small, deals with competition. Every paper tries to be unique. The only thing that makes me think the Projector has particular challenges is the fact that we have a small distribution and students within the program often say it’s weak.

This is what drives me to try and be extra creative with my story lists...which leads me to my next point: you can only try so hard and then it’s up to someone else.

I hate assigning event coverage stories. I try not to. Either I’ll try and guide the assigned writer into a direction that uses an event to drive a larger story or I’ll say what the larger story could be.

It's not always successful in the end, but I have to trust the writer did their best. The writers also have to trust that I do my best, but my best still isn't perfect. Although I might've learnt the above list of things doesn't mean I'm great at it. Those writing for me and I are all students.

And at the end of the day, all we can do is fake it ‘til we make it.

I raise my hand

Why do academics write out their secondary sources in their essays but journalists don't?

Twitter: The industrial revolution of journalism

You’re probably sick of hearing about it, but here I go anyway.

Many people think social media, especially Twitter, is becoming one of the new faces of journalism. While I agree it is shaping the way we approach our news, I ask: Who really wants it to be like this?

My evidence suggests no one really, so who’s pushing so hard to make it happen?
Last weekend, the two most interesting stories in two major newspapers were lengthy investigative pieces. The Globe and Mail reported on Canada’s role in peacekeeping and the Winnipeg Free Press broke a story on the effects of no running water in Manitoba reserves. I mustn’t be the only one taking interest in these types of stories because they both made the front page.

In addition, while filming an entertainment profile for school, I got into a discussion with one of the interviewees who was saying she hates how TV news stories have been cut down so much and how there are fewer and fewer feature stories and documentaries. Those are the one’s she’s interested in, she said. Sure, it’s tough, funding for these types of projects is tricky due to the magnitude of the expense. But isn’t it worth it? If journalists only ever report on what happened that day, whether it is in their papers or via Twitter, then aren’t we only ever keeping records of events. How can we change things if we don’t look into the roots of the issues?

One of the reasons why I wanted to become a journalist was to do so. Oftentimes, I feel like that’s discouraged nowadays.

Why are journalists always trying to move quicker and quicker to get the stories done faster and faster? How much faster can we work until quality is absent and quantity becomes everything…or are we already there?

Why report on crimes?

I sat in the preliminary hearing of a murder trial today. Cool huh?

That’s what I thought at first as I sat there with my big fancy reporting pen and notepad. I felt important. I thought I might like to pursue crime reporting. And I was especially proud because I felt like a real journalist reporting on the stuff that matters.

And then I doubted myself: Does crime reporting matter?

It’s not like reporting on horrific acts like the murder trial I was in today is going to stop crimes from happening. And the details must just re-traumatize victims – I don’t want to do that.

But then again reporting on issues of crime could help keep the justice system in line. Think about Omar Khadr’s case: without the media’s constant attention to the issue, would we still know about him? Would the Canadian government still be trying (or pretending to be trying) to do something for the poor boy if it weren’t for the public outcries reported by media?

Usually, when I’m asked to explain why crime reporting might be necessary I just regurgitate one of my first year sociology class lessons. According to one of the best instructors I ever had, Helmut-Harry Loewen, society needs crime in order to function. Crime brings society together because those who hear of criminals on the loose look out for each other and start public awareness groups like MADD which in turn brings people together to help fight the acts. It gives us another reason to speak to each other and look out for one another. The repercussions from criminal acts also highlight the good and the bad people – by doing this we create ideals; we show what it takes to be accepted.

At least that’s the basis of Loewen’s point.

However, this explanation really only explains how crime reporting participates in the function of society. Is that really enough? In response I’ll choose to revert back to my initial question: why should we report on crime?

Mike McIntyre? Are you out there?

There's a time and a place for political protest

I think it’s repulsive.

Sunday’s University of Winnipeg graduation ceremony awarded Manitoba’s senior minister Vic Toews with an honorary degree, but many students in the audience and the ceremony's valedictorian, Erin Larson, didn’t agree with the offering. Fine. But take your political protests and keep them outside the ceremonies like the other polite protesters – don’t publicly humiliate someone for something they had no control over receiving.

The Winnipeg Free Press reported that during Larson’s speech, Toews sat only a few feet away from Larson keeping his eyes glued to his program and leaving through a side door “immediately” after the ceremony.

How sad.

Just because Toews doesn’t believe in the same things Larson does, doesn’t mean he should be humiliated in front of thousands of people, including his mother. He’s still human.

Larson argued Toews doesn’t support the U of W’s beliefs, but I thought universities existed to explore different belief systems and to learn how to tolerate other people who don’t necessarily believe in the same things as you. Not to mention Mary Agnes Welch’s article explains the decision to grant Toews an honorary degree was decided by faculty members and students, so clearly Toews is supporting several people from the U of W’s beliefs.

I’m not saying Larson didn’t have the right to disagree with Toews’ award; I’m saying she should have kept her protests outside the ceremony. Not only were Larson’s actions disrespectful they were immature.

(Photo from the Winnipeg Free Press)

Defining Thanksgiving through headlines

Interested to see how many ways Thanksgiving could count as a news story, I set out to compile a list of headlines written this weekend about the turkey gobbling festivity. What I didn’t expect to find is how each headline seems to define the holiday in some way or another too.

To accompany your leftovers, I present to you my list:

“A Canadian Thanksgiving” – eCanadaNow

“Stores open and closed on Thanksgiving Monday in Canada” – Business Review Canada

“Thanksgiving Surprise – A dog who raises money as an official volunteer with BC SPCA” – The Vancouver Sun

“Guide to opening, closing for Thanksgiving weekend” – Winnipeg Free Press

“Helping harvest a bountiful Thanksgiving” – Winnipeg Free Press

“Thanksgiving – as Canadian as pirates” – Winnipeg Free Press

“A Thanksgiving travesty” – Winnipeg Sun

“10 ways to add meaning to Thanksgiving” – Winnipeg Sun

“A sumptuous pork roast for Thanksgiving” – The Globe and Mail

“Siloam Mission expecting hundreds to enjoy their traditional Thanksgiving feast” – CTV News Winnipeg

“Volunteers help spread Thanksgiving cheer” – CTV News Toronto

“Students brings Thanksgiving to less fortunate” – CTV News Edmonton

“A Thanksgiving feast for vegetarians” – Canada AM

“Record breaking Thanksgiving” – CTV News

“Missions offer Thanksgiving for homeless” – CBC News Winnipeg

“Green Thanksgiving gains ground” – CBC News

The Globe Gets a Makeover

“If you don’t push yourself, if you don’t dare to make today better than yesterday; if you don’t believe in progress, you’re doomed to defeat.”

That’s the motive behind the Globe and Mail’s redesign – to attempt to reinvent the future rather than long for the old days, explained John Stackhouse editor-in-chief for the Globe and Mail.

Last Friday, the Globe launched “the most significant redesign in The Globe’s history.” It has colour on every page, some pages are printed on glossy paper, the size of the paper is narrower (which is a huge bonus for those who ride the bus to work or school everyday), the website is easier to navigate and it’ll be featuring more in-depth stories that explore the power and insight of ideas.

But the million dollar question is: Is the redesign effective and will it help save the future of the Globe’s print edition?

I think the layout portion of the redesign is effective in the sense that its use of colour helps draw readers in and because their switch in paper makes for much clearer pictures. Many readers have become lazy. They want to see pictures to peak their interest before committing to the story – so the crisper the better. And need I mention the smaller size again?

However, I question how much easier their new web design really is? I don’t think I’d have noticed the change had I not read the article in Friday’s paper. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

As to whether or not the redesign will help save the Globe’s future as a newspaper (because despite the fact that Stackhouse outlines all the ways The Globe is growing in readership, he seems to suggest saving their future is what they’re getting at when he says they’re not interested in prolonging the past but rather inventing the future) I think they’ve nailed my biggest concern for reasons why newspapers could flop – they’re trying to be what they used to be: about breaking news. The fact that the Globe recognizes print needs to be more in-depth makes them that much more competitive than other daily’s – in my opinion at least.

Overall, it’s nice to see the Globe realizes two things: (1) That print journalism should be investing in in-depth stories, because that’s where its future is heading – we have other outlets now for breaking news. (2) Hallelujah! The damn paper ain’t so clunky! Finally, a paper that realizes how many Canadians ride a bus or subway to work (excluding old fashioned, gas guzzling Winnipeg of course) and hate having to close up their paper just because someone sits next to them.

I give only checkmarks to John Stackhouse and the Globe team for realizing it’s time for a bit of tweaking.

To see what else the Globe and Mail did with their redesign, check out John Stackhouse's article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/digital-lab/a-new-globe-in-print-and-online/article1735935/?cmpid=rss1

"Bring up the winds! Bring up the winds!"

If only everyone was as enthusiastic as Andrew W.K about the weather...

Five reasons why TV journalism is harder than print

After being a practice TV reporter for the first time at Operation Shooting Star, I realized a few things about the differences between TV and print journalism. I'd like to share the thoughts that I took away from this experience.

1. When interviewing for TV, you have to be on the ball. Unlike print, where you're likely writing down your reponses to questions and have that "sorry I'm just writing this all down" grace period before you ask the next question, TV interviews are usually done with a mic in hand (therefore less room to roam with a pad and paper) and a camera in your face. There are no grace periods or room to process information from the last response. You have to know your next question by the time the interviewees lips stop moving.
2. TV requires you to visit a lot more places before your story can be edited. Not only do you have to have the content, you have to have the footage too.
3. Many people freeze when interviewed on camera. It's no longer you and them chatting one on one, it's them chatting to (in their minds) thousands of people. This can make for a weaker interview, because interviewees can blank on the info they know due to nervousness. This causes you to spend more time getting answers.
4. You have to be confident with your story as you're creating it, because you can't go back to the news studio to edit the footage until you have your conclusion. The conclusion in a print story has a bit more time to be sorted out.
5. Even though print and TV journalism can have the same deadline, TV requires the journalist to get more stuff done (interviews AND footage) and there is no room to forget something, unlike print. If you forget something, your shooter...and you likely need more footage. Print, on the other hand, requires a quick google search or phone call and a few extra words.

But you know what they say: "Practice makes perfect." And I remember once thinking an interview for a print story was the most difficult thing on the planet, because god forbid you forget something. In the end it's all about narrowing down your own formula and becoming confident that you know what you're doing.

Questioning the ethics of door-to-door journalism

When I was a kid, I remember feeling comforted and special to get to live in a community where it was okay to pop-in to a neighbour’s house. My favourite place to visit was Mr. Bouvier’s. He was this old, old man (the oldest one I knew at least) who had the smoothest driveway on the block. I loved riding my bike onto his driveway (which was only about two car lengths long, so you’d have to do it over and over again) just to hear the transitioning sound of the crunchy street to the smooth whistle of the asphalt – it had the same mesmerizing effect every time. Mr. Bouvier would always come outside and greet me with his square glasses, raspy voice and his over-powering B.O smell. Meanwhile, my mom was home knowing I was in safe hands.

But it just doesn’t seem the same anymore.

Today I spent two and a half hours walking around St. Boniface attempting to interview people for an election profile my journalism class is working on for CBC – I felt very uncomfortable. So uncomfortable with the idea of going door-to-door that I got to thinking: Is it ethical for a journalist to just pop-in to someone’s home – into their private space on a matter of business? Is it me? Or was it the vibe I was getting after knocking on so many doors that didn’t answer that got me thinking it wasn’t okay? Think about it: I was there two and a half hours and, after half an hour of pep-talking myself into actually knocking, I was knocking on every two or three doors (I didn’t want to seem desperate by knocking on all of them) and only three or four people actually answered. How frustrating.

I became so self-conscious – do I have an uninviting knock? Do I sound dangerous? Or do I knock too quietly? Are everyone’s doorbells broken? Should I ring and knock? Or is that too pushy? And how long do I stay after knocking and ringing before I give up?

And then there were the homes with signs asking me to use the backdoor. Well what if I don’t know them? Do they still want me to open their back gate and enter their private outdoor living room? The backdoor seemed too personal. Also, what about the houses with front porches that had a door to the porch and then a front door inside the porch? Which one is technically the front door? If I choose the outside one they probably won’t hear me knocking, but if I go inside they might yell at me for invading their space.

Aah, so here I am wandering through this, otherwise cozy and friendly, neighbourhood feeling like a telemarketer, only worse because I was forcing myself into their private life, debating whether or not I had chosen the right method of getting my interviews and reminiscing about the good old days when people would leave their screen doors open and you’d walk right into their home. That’s the other thing: people have porch doors, then a screen door before the real front door – talk about closed off!

And now I’m home. I’m frustrated my job isn’t done. Curious to know how many people were really home when I knocked. And confused as to whether or not I was out of line knocking on people’s doors.

It just feels like people don’t trust other people like they used to. Like my mom would trust that I could ride my bike around the neighbourhood and visit other people alone. Like Mr. Bouvier would trust I would stick to the driveway and not ride into his marigold flowers. Like I would trust that when I did knock on someone’s door the other side would be safe.

Maybe that’s what people are worried about: what could be on the other side.

What the heck is journalism?

I thought journalism was well positioned words arranged into a sentence -- sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't, always it follows a set of rules invented by some grammarian who nobody knows (why does he/she get to tell us the rules?). And whether or not your words can be received depends on whether or not the sentence makes sense, after all what is a word after a word after a word anyway? Who really knows what words mean.

I thought journalism was supposed to deliver messsages, urgent news that could affect the rest of your life. When does anybody even care? Who even cares? And when?

What the heck is journalism other than a J followed by an O followed by a U an R-N-A-L-I-S-M? What the heck is a J? Aren't i supposed to find out? I'm the journalist.

I thought journalism was supposed to answer questions.

I thought journalism was a job, a career, a mode of employment -- how many words does our language need to describe one thing? Why do we describe, explain, reiterate what we're talking about? Don't we already know what we're talking about?

I thought journalism was a word, a series of letters connected together, a symbol.

I thought journalism was an action, a series of doings to make something happen, the researching, the asking, the writing, the delivering of a message.

I thought journalism was a sound, a series of tongue clicks-clacks-smacks against the teeth and ruby pink gums.

I thought journalism was a way to explore, an excuse to find out lifes secrets, a reason to probe and gossip, the revealing of the ugly hidden truth, a way to bring light to issues that've been shunned, pushed aside, ignored, trampled on, the love and passion of a writer who is only trying to put those little symbols from the alphabet together so you the reader/listener/viewer can get the message.

I thought journalism was an offering of trust amongst readers/listeners/viewers that you, the person in control, know what you're talking about and have prepared yourself well. The only question left is: who is listening?

I thought journalists were supposed to provide facts, so then what is this?

(Photo from getreligion.org)