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.