Category Archives: media

Newspapers as the jilted ex…

Oh newspaper, despite your protestations I’m not so sure I’m going to miss you. That said I’m not sure you are actually going anywhere – you may be getting a massive make over though. But then, I think a new you is exactly what you need. Everybody else seems to agree.

Of course, the TV news guys said the same thing when I broke up with them. And other than the odd fling once or twice a year, I’ve never looked back.

Plus, trolling? That’s the best you could come up with? And you really believe that only a print newspaper journalist could have snagged that story? Sigh, we really live in different universes (or at least mediums) now.

Please stop. All this complaining just makes you less attractive.

Wente’s disgraceful piece on Insite and harm reduction

16 Replies

Last Saturday Margaret Wente wrote this disgraceful piece on harm reduction in Vancouver.

In short, what is written is a compilation of anecdotal statements that ignore the actual research and science that has measured Insite’s positive impact. A quote from a sergeant who may or may not have an axe to grind is apparently worth more than the numerous peer reviewed articles in publications like the New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet. This is of course Wente’s MO – she doesn’t need science or research, like Colbert her gut is her guide – something we learned long ago from her coverage of global warming.

This sadly, is not the worst of it. Wente goes on to misrepresent both the goals of Insite and the position of its advocates.

No one – least of all Insite’s advocates – believes Insite is the entirety of the solution. The goal is, and always has been to have a complete response (hence the four pillars). Insite seeks to reduce harm but it can’t ‘solve’ the drug problem alone, no one claimed it would and judging it by such a bar is misleading.

Is rehabilitation and treatment essential? Absolutely – something Insite supporters also believe. This is why OnSite (a temporary treatment facility pointedly not included in Wente’s article) was placed atop Insite so that users would have somewhere to stay while a permanent facility was found for them. Insite was never designed to replace treatment, but to reduce harm for those who refused or could not get it as well as provide a vehicle to help users seek help and get on treatment.

There are plenty of commentators I disagree with but enjoy reading because they challenge my assumptions and provoke interesting or thoughtful insights. Sadly, most of the time I read Wente I’m reminded why she’s not one of them.

Two additional points. The first is how the injection site has become an East vs. West phenomenon. Here in Vancouver the debate is over. Insite has public support, on the street, in the newspapers and in the halls of power. Even the comments in the Globe reflect a bias in favour from those commenting from Vancouver especially but BC in general.

Second, I initially wrote this in the comment section on the globe website (where one is exposed to some truly horrifying thinking) and thought nothing more of it until Andrew F. emailed me a supportive note. And I thought comments on newspaper articles were simply a cathartic exercise!

Primary (racial) colours conflict on CNN

1 Reply

First off, I did not see this one coming. The editorial page of the NYT endorsed Clinton and so this piece is a serious slap on the wrist.

CNN’s pro-Clinton coverage continued in full steam last night. What is most interesting however is how the coverage broke down racially.

Below are statements from a piece called “The Clinton campaign: What’s Next?” and “The Obama Campaign: What’s next?” I haven’t included all the comments but two of the commentators included below are white, and two are African-American. Can you guess who made which statements?

“At some point, facts are stubborn things. Sen. Obama has extraordinary talent. He took 35,000 people to a rally in a primary. He spent $11 million on advertising. That’s 9,950 ads… ad he lost… he ran against a candidate who has been hammered and pounded and yet she won. I think these things do matter, and they may matter to superdelegates.”

“I think its’ been a key test for Barack Obama to not only withstand these attacks, but to weather the storm. And clearly tonight, if you look at the margin, he’s weathered the storm. He’s weathered the attacks on his former pastor. He’s weathered the storm on the statements he made in San Francisco.”

“He was closing in on Clinton in Pennsylvania. he was getting down to three, four, five points in some of the polls… I think what [Clinton’s larger win] suggests is that as he was closing, not only did he stall, but he actually ot hirt in the white community by these controversies.”

“If you look at the numbers, the question is, how can she expand her base? She can’t. So in order to go after [Obama], you’ve got to cut him up. You got to cut him down, drive up his negatives. They don’t care if her negatives go even higher. They have to win.”

Indeed, was what fascinating was how much the racial divide was reflected in the coverage last night. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the CNN studio after the camera’s are shut off, I’m wondering how much of all this is show, and how much of it is getting very personal on the CNN stage.

Even the Simpsons mocks print media

9 Replies

Taylor and I wrote a piece about a 8 months ago called “Missing the Link” about how newspapers don’t understand the internet. We’ve shipped it around and had it read by people at the Columbia Journalism Review, New York Times, the Globe, Wired among other places and the feedback has been really positive… but no one will publish it. Seems like the print media isn’t interested in talking about how it is failing to understand and address the biggest threat to its existence.

So while our piece was fairly interesting 8 months ago it is starting to age. Sad.y this hit home last night while watching the Simpsons with Mike and Dawn last night (sidebar: for the first time in ages – not because I don’t like the Simpsons but because I invariably watch “TV” on my computer these days).

The scene opens up with Dan Rather introducing the media panel at the Democratic Party Debate in Springfield (being held in Springfield, and before New Hampshire, for reasons not worth getting into here).

Dan Rather (in an upbeat voice): With me here to comment on today’s democratic debate is Andrea Crowley of CNN, Demonte Evans of Slate Magazine and… (dropping to a semi-derogatory voice) Ron Lahar of the Washington Post.

Nelson pops up

Nelson: Hah Hah, your medium is dying.

Principal Skinner: Nelson…!

Nelson: But it is!

Principal: There’s being right and then there’s being nice.

Ouch. you know things are bad when even the Simpsons are making fun of you. It means your (impending) death has permeated the popular culture.

the vancouver sun audience – a narrow and shrinking population?

5 Replies

Earlier this week the Vancouver Sun built an entire edition around the changing diversity of surnames in the city. In 1991, Smith was the most common surname in the City. Today it is Lee. In fact, the city’s top ten surnames are: Lee, Wong, Chan, Smith, Kim, Chen, Gill, Li, Brown, and finally… Johnson.

After publishing at least a half dozen articles on the subject in a single issue it is safe to say the Sun is aware of Vancouver’s evolving diversity.

But look below. As part of its coverage of the recent (and frightening) increase in murders by organized crime the Sun had one bit entitled “Reader Responses.”

Anyone else notice that all of the Sun’s “readers” are white, over-45 and, with one exception, male? Nary a Lee, a Chan, nor a Gill in the lot.

There are two possible problems here.

The first is that this actually is a representative sample of Sun readers, and the owner/editor of the newspaper should be deeply concerned. This is after all, a shrinking demographic that is not representative of the broader population.

Alternatively, the Sun’s readership is in reality more diverse and its editors or journalists chose to eschew that diversity and make this group an example of the city’s opinions.

I suspect it is a little of both.

Either way, for an industry that is failing to attract younger and more diverse readers, it doesn’t take an MBA to know things like this send a powerful message about who you believe your audience is, and who you want it to be.

CNN's converage of Insite

3 Replies

The Insite supervised injection site is starting to attract more and more attention. Last week CNN broadcast this 3 minute bit about the site.

What’s fascinating is how a simple parsing of the language in the video reveals the depth of the differing perspectives.

Listen carefully and you’ll notice how those opposed to the injection site deal in abstract terms whereas those who support it talk in tangible outcomes.

For example, in the clip, Dr. Thomas Kerr and Insite workers/supporters cite tangible benefits: a 45% reduction in public drug use in the area, users being 33% more likely to enter detox, the reduction of discarded used needles in parks and schools. This are measurable, tangible benefits and outcomes.

Contrast that to the quote from an unnamed US official: “It that is a cruel illusion. Because they’re still addicted, trapped trying to get help and dying by virtue of the drug itself.”

Here is a vague comment designed to appeal to your emotions. More importantly, it is devoid of fact, research, or for that matter, logic. Being addicted, trapped, and dying from drug use is a reality for users whether the injection site exists or not. The injection site at leasts gets users in regular contact with social workers – which is why users who use the site are 33% more likely to enter detox – those relationships build trust, which enables users to seek help.

But the worse quote is from Dr. Colin Mangham, director of the Drug Prevention network. His “research” shows that 800 people overdosed at Insite in 4 years.

First off, this isn’t research, this is publicly available information. Second, Mangham’s statement presumes that those 800 overdoses would not have occurred if Insite did not exist. This is pure fantasy. Indeed one of the main purposes behind creating Insite was to ensure overdoses would occur within the site as opposed to on the street. Those who overdose at Insite receive medical attention quickly and cheaply (a nurse is on hand who provides the necessary treatment). It is worth noting that despite these 800 overdoses, they has not been one death at Insite.

In contrast, when drug use occurs on the street, deadly overdoses are both commonplace and expensive. Victims invariably require paramedics, who in turn may require a police presence. In addition, overdose victims may get taken to an emergency room – the most expensive point of contant in the medical system.

I expect with the Olympics coming there is going to be more coverage of this type. One things the Federal Government will have to consider is that, if they shut Insite down, an army of international reporters swarming the downtown east side are going to want to know: what more effective policy did you replace it with? (Hint: there isn’t one).

David Beers on Vancouver Eating its Young

12 Replies

David Beers published a piece entitled “Why Does Vancouver Eat its Young?” in yesterday’s Globe and Mail. I agree with David’s sentiment, Vancouver does eat its young. Moreover, and many of his points are valid (e.g. the NPA’s closure of the Child and Youth Advocate office). But I chaffed at the partisan perspective of a news editor who founded a newspaper because he didn’t like the partisan perspective of other BC newspapers. I like the Tyee and even publish there, but its hard to not grow tired of its relentlessly partisan approach (Raif Mair, a balanced newspaper does not make) and its simplistic view of BC politics: Liberal=bad, NDP=good (or at least, not bad). While the investigative journalism is needed and deeply appreciated, I’m often left wondering if the Tyee is simply trying to become a left-wing version of “The Sun.”All the more so since it is funded by a silent, and secret, partner – rumored to be the BC Federation of Labour.

Take for example his op-ed. Both the provincial NDP and the BC Liberals have invested in social housing (the Liberals may be late to the game, but they’ve stumped up some serious cash). But neither has a track record of addressing affordable housing – the issue that could help Rachel, the op-ed’s protagonist.

In addition to the partisan swipes, the piece is premised on some highly problematic analysis and is factually wrong. Nowhere is this better illustrated than Beers choice of Montreal as a viable alternative to Vancouver. For an article whose theme is how Baby Boomers are shifting problems and costs on to young people, choosing Montreal as a positive counter example is, at best, questionable.

Montreal is a fun city to live in – I know, I’ve lived there. It has a vibrant arts scene and great nightlife. It is not however a utopia or sustainable policy alternative.

Montreal – and the province of Quebec – has the largest debt/per capita and deficit/per capita in the country (it ranks second highest in dept/gdp ratio) Despite having the highest tax rate in the country, Quebec is about to leave the next generation a whopping $117billion(!!!) debt, and a $2.1billon deficit (in 2005). If there is one place in the country that is mortgaging its young to satisfy the needs of Boomers, it is Montreal. Why? Because almost all this money goes into operational spending. Little is invested into infrastructure for the future. This is a city and province where, literally, bridges fall on citizens and universities place mesh nets around buildings to prevent crumbling cement from falling on students. Quebec’s tuitions may be low, but its universities are bankrupt.

Montreal is also not a homeowners’ paradise. It has one of the lowest rates of home ownership in Canada: only 50% percent of Montrealers own their home vs. 61% of Vancouverites. While public policy – such as the adoption of row houses – helps depress rents, one reason rental apartments remain easy to find is that an astonishing 200,000 people (11% of the population) left the city between 1971 and 1981. That loss still impacts the city today. It has yet to recapture it’s 1971 population peak of 1,960,000. Indeed, three and a half decades later it is still shy by 100,000. Not only has the city yet to recover demographically, it only recently climbed out of the referendum induced recession which saw jobs – for the young and old – dry up. This is a dramatic price to pay for affordability and it offers little in policy guidance to Vancouver’s city planners. (In contrast, Vancouver has grown by an astounding 35% since 1971)

Beers’ sentiment is right. Vancouver is not affordable. But is scoring cheap political points off the issue really the role for a newspaper editor? Especially one that is seeking to reframe the debate in British Columbia? There is a lot that can be done to tackle this issue… something I’ll dive into tomorrow while discussion the solution oriented speech Larry Beasley’s gave at the Imagine Vancouver conference this past weekend.

How we humbled the NYT

22 Replies

Taylor and I published this piece in the Tyee yesterday. In short, the newspapers are dying, and they have completely failed to understand the internet. Most importantly, they think they are above the rest of the online community… and so long as they act they way they won’t be above the community, they’ll be outside it.

It’s derived from a larger magazine styled piece on old and new media that we are looking for a home to publish. If anyone has any suggestions of a possible home I would be grateful for your ideas.

—

How We Educated the New York Times

A zillion clicks taught newspapers they aren’t in control.
Published: October 10, 2007

The New York Times made waves in the media world recently by dismantling its subscription paywall. As a result, anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can now read the entire paper online for free.

The failed paywall experiment of the New York Times is emblematic of the newspaper industry’s two-decade-old struggle to survive online. So long as the Internet is perceived as nothing more than a new tool for distributing the news to a passive audience — readers, citizen and the community more generally, will continue to tune out. For newspapers to survive, a more nuanced understanding of the online world is needed.

The key is grasping that the relationship between communities and their news has fundamentally changed.

You and I are in charge now

Prior to the Internet, people determined what was important by reading what newspaper editors thought was important. Today, people have a host of ways to determine what is important and to connect quickly with stories on those issues. Newspapers can shift their content, and advertising, online, but as long as they believe they are the arbiters of a community’s agenda, they will continue to struggle.

Online, people engage with news in two new ways, both of which deviate significantly from the traditional newspaper model.

First, algorithm-based aggregators, such as Google News and Del.icio.us, and human-run websites, such as National Newswatch and the Huffington Post, provide powerful alternatives to the traditional newspaper editor.

Aggregators, both human and algorithm-based, don’t care about content’s origins, only its relevance to readers. They ferret out the best content from across the web and deposit it on your computer screen. This begs the question: if you could read the best articles drawn from a pool of 100 authors (the approximate number of journalists at a daily newspaper) vs. a pool of 1.5 million posts (the amount of new content created online each day), which would you choose?But it is the second reason that should most concern newspapers. Younger readers don’t just use aggregators. They increasingly read articles found through links from blogs. Rather than roaming within a newspaper’s walled gardens, younger readers build their own media communities where a trusted network of bloggers guide them to interesting content. Online, bloggers are the new editors.

Take, for example, the relationship many Canadians have with the prominent blogger Andrew Potter. While most people have never met him in person, his readers know his perspectives and biases, and this personal connection creates a loyal following.

Antithetically, people are also drawn back because they are interested in the places Potter links to, virtually all of which direct readers away from the site he blogs for, Macleans.ca.

Share the good stuff

To most newspapers, the idea of directing traffic away from their news site remains an anathema. Newspaper websites contain virtually no external links. Ironically, this follows the design parameters of a Las Vegas casino — the goal is to get you in, and not let you leave. Does anyone really believe that all the news and perspectives relevant and important to a community can reside on a single website?

In this manner, newspapers are fighting the very thing that makes the Internet community compelling: its interconnectedness. Like Potter’s blog, the Internet’s best sites are attractive, not simply because their content is good, but rather because they link to content around the web. And if that content is compelling, readers keep coming back for more guidance.

People enjoy a sense of community, and democracy is strengthened when citizens are informed. The problem is, the New York Times, and virtually every traditional newspaper, fails to understand that a model has emerged that is far better at both delivering information and fostering community than the traditional news industries.

Bad neighbourhood?

Traditional media supporters will assert that these online communities are fragmented, in disagreement, full of scallywags, immature ranters, educated snobs and partisan hacks. And they’d be right. It’s messy and it’s imperfect. But then, so is the democratic community in which we live. The difference is, in an online community, everyone is telling us and directing us to issues and news items they believe are important.

The New York Times learned this lesson the hard way. After spending two years trying to wall its exclusive content off from the web, it discovered that rather than becoming more exclusive, it was becoming less relevant. Unable to link to its content, aggregators, bloggers and the online community more generally, simply stopped talking about them. Newspapers should heed this lesson. If newspapers want to transition into the online age — they’ll have to join this community, rather than seek to control it.

Newspapers, the auto industry and climate change

10 Replies

So here’s an interesting fact:

In 2004, according to the Canadian Newspaper Association, advertising revenue in Canadian newspapers was $2.6 billion. Of the top 30 advertisers in Canadian papers, 15 were car dealerships or auto manufacturers. Car ads represented fully 54 percent of those top-30 revenues, totalling $549 million.

So, when Rex Murphy or Margaret Wente go off about how we need to have a “reasonable” debate about climate change, or worse, reassure us that they know the entire scientific community is wrong… do you think the editors of the G&M are worried about what their readers might think?

Absolutely not.

Frankly, they’re probably relieved. If there is still a debate on climate change, then all those ads still may not be that bad. And besides… that’s a lot of advertising revenue to replace.

So now, every time you wonder why the media feels a need to present “both sides of the debate” on this issue… stop wondering.

Big hat tip on this to Mitchell Anderson. I strongly encourage you to check out his column over at DeSmogBlog on how NASA (read US Government) quietly killed the DSCOVR climate change monitoring satellite despite it being fully constructed and ready to lauch. Fascinating read and… shocker… an example of real investigative journalism from a blog.

What a week…

2 Replies

I’ve had a fun week on the internet…

First, a little post about anti-abortion protesters’ use of the Canadian Government’s trademark was picked up by other bloggers (who did the heavy lifting) and it became a national story. This in turn prompted a treasury board investigation. Not bad for a couple of progressives armed with little more than some gumption, laptops and internet connections. Big thanks also to some readers who tracked down relevant info, and kept the debate alive. Clearly someone at the associated press is reading…

Then, I managed to get my Facebook oped published as a web-exclusive. I’ve still yet to penetrate the Globe and Mail’s printed page, but given the subject matter, a web-exclusive feels more appropriate. Not that I have much choice (I take what I can get) but there is an interesting toss up: printed op-eds seem to garner more recognition, but the nice thing about web-exclusives is that their not protected content. Unlike the ‘normal’ op-eds, which require a paid subscription to be seen, web-exclusives can be linked to and read by anyone – so people can share the link. So you have to choose: printed page that traditional readers see, or… an online version that people can share virally.

To be honest, I’m just glad the G&M and the Star read and consider what I send them…

Things I promised some readers that I didn’t get to: Publishing my speaking notes on the APEX presentation. Sorry about that, I promise it’s coming (but then… are my promises still worth anything?). In my defense a last minute trip to Whitehorse derailed my writing plans…

eaves.ca

if writing is a muscle, this is my gym