Much Ado About Transparency

I'll say this right off the bat: it's tough to deny complete transparency without looking like you're supporting the kind of people that kill reporters from helicopters, but I'm going to anyway. I believe in Wikileaks, that what it's doing is good, but I can't just say "okay, let's put every single thing the government is doing in plain view." It's just not feasible. Quite simply, the concept of complete transparency borders on irrationality because people don't want to know everything the government is doing. They want to know all the bad things the government is doing. Complete transparency simply can't work because there are bad things that work towards a greater good. But, at the same time, there are more than enough bad things that amount to a greater evil. War crimes must be dealt with harshly and severely, but I really don't think that they should be broadcast for all to see. Back in the Vietnam War era, when John and Jane Q. Public were introduced first-hand to the horrors of war for the first time through the media, North American morale took such an incredible hit that, as a society, we're still feeling the effects of it. This cannot be allowed to happen again. War is already an atrocity, and when that atrocity is willingly pushed beyond all rational limits (i.e. American soldiers killing reporters from an Apache attack chopper), these things must be dealt with so fiercely and remorselessly that everyone knows that they are not safe from repercussion no matter how many guns are on their metaphorical chopper. However, although such crimes are hideous and lamentable, they cannot be treated as just another news story, because stories like this do more harm than good, not to the government, but to the people who read them, their morale, their spirits. For most North Americans, soldiers are a symbol of strength and justice, and if stories like this are reported openly, we will demonize all soldiers based on the actions of the heartless few. Complete transparency is not the answer.

As for the hypothetical scenario of me being a journalist with a USB drive full of leaked information, it all depends on the information I'm carrying. If I'm carrying a USB filled with war crimes, I certainly won't be taking it to the press, for the reasons stated above. If I'm carrying a USB filled with information about companies causing mass contamination of forests and rivers through their dealings, that information is going to every major news outlet from here to Japan, because these are the things that the public must know, and must stop. Let the army deal with the crimes made in war, but let the people condemn the corrupt who dwell among us. Now, information like the Guantanamo Bay Manual is more tricky and less black and white than the two examples above. Housed in this facility are suspected terrorists, that if they are guilty, deserve no sympathy, but if they are innocent are being brutalized beyond belief. The most convenient thing to say is "it would be best if Guantanamo Bay didn't exist," but it does. Facilities like this are at best inhumane, and at worst inhuman. If pressured by the government to censor the information, there could be absolutely no capitulating on my part to their wishes. Leaks like this have to be known, because they represent the absolute worst of what people with too much power are capable of. Information like this must be very carefully handled, and only released to the most trustworthy of news sources, with absolute assurances that no spin will be put on the facts, but that the facts will be reported for the people to decide upon for themselves.

If I had information that the public had to know, I would take it to Openleaks, not Wikileaks, and this is for one reason. Wikileaks has a political agenda, and though I hold very strong opinions about certain things, the public must decide for themselves what is sweet and what is sour, and not have Wikileaks deciding for them. In conclusion, information should be made to the public without slant, without spin, but instead given as pure, raw information unfiltered by expression, and must be allowed to make up their own minds. The dwindling of reason is the death of the mind, and so the people must be given the chance to reason for themselves.

Lastly, I feel it necessary that even though I've said that war crimes should not be published, their existence must be made known. We must have no illusions, but have no prejudices either. With this full 39 minute video of the Baghdad chopper killings, we have to remember to judge each and every individual by their own deeds, and not to judge a whole by a single portion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&feature=player_embedded

Looking into the future: the crystal ball goes digital

If there's one thing on this guy's list that I agree with, it's his seventh prediction. Apple is dominating the tablet market, and they're going to keep dominating it as long as their competitors have little ambition or ability to overtake them. Apple is already leaps and bounds ahead of other software/hardware companies in terms of tablet technology, and this is because they didn't launch a product that would be considered copyable. They held off with the release, slowly but surely building a machine that was so remarkable that no other company could just rip it off or repackage it as their own in a few months. And, clever little devils that they are, they did it partly by creating other, more minor marvels like the iPhone. While all the other companies were sitting around trying to copy their lesser creations, they created a full-blown nonpareil.

Another good prediction that this particular writer has made is that television is dying out because of the internet. It's already happening, and for one reason: computers are starting to eclipse the usefulness of television. Our family doesn't even own a TV, and one of the biggest reasons why is that anything you want to watch, you can watch on the internet. With the advent of streaming TV and the gargantuan following that file sharing already has, TVs are swiftly becoming obsolete. I've watched every single episode of Frasier, and I've never seen a single one on TV.

If there's one thing that's very obvious throughout this article, it's that Robin Bloor(the writer) has one incredible man-crush on everything Apple. He seems to worship at the altar of Steve Jobs, and frankly, it's skewing his judgement. Even if he doesn't realize it, his predictions are very biased. First of all, his prediction that Microsoft must run with Kinect or slowly die off is ludicrous. Even before Kinect launched, Microsoft has been boasting insanely high figures, with sales of their products through the roof. Go to almost any home, and look around. Sooner or later, you'll see the PC sitting there. While Macs are enjoying huge popularity, they're not going to annihilate Microsoft anytime soon. Kinect is fantastic, but even before it's release, Xbox 360 sales worldwide were already over 50 million. With Kinect, even in it's basic form, those sales are going to see massive growth as even many casual gamers will be purchasing 360s because of Kinect's possibilities. Microsoft stands strong, and will for a very, very long time.

Let's go back to tablets for a second. I'm going to start this point off strong by saying that the notion of tablet computers overtaking laptops is ludicrous. He's comparing the two as competitors, which they aren't. No one wants to type a document or play a video game or edit a sound file on a tablet, because it would be painfully awkward. I'm not entirely knocking tablet PCs. My father owns an eReader (which basically handles like a tablet PC even though it isn't one, let's not split hairs here) and as easy as it is to carry around and lay on a couch and use, etc. it's the devil to type on. Can you imagine typing a 3000 word essay on a tablet? Trying to play a first person shooter? I know I'm reusing the same arguments that I used a few sentences ago, but trust me, these are the things that young people are worried about today. In case this fact isn't painfully obvious, young people are the future of this planet, and what's important to them is going to be important to the future. The laptop is made for function, but the tablet lacks utility in too many areas to make it a laptop killer. Robin Bloor says himself that he made "the most outrageous estimate of iPad sales" last year. Well, he's still doing that in 2011.

Fear the former civil servants, for their hatred burns as fire

RBC Firebomber Sentenced

1. What is the story? (What is the point of the news report)

Last month, a former civil servant by the name of Roger Clement pleaded guilty to firebombing a Royal Canadian Bank, receiving a sentence of three and a half years in prison.

2. What is the establishing shot in the video?

The establishing shot of the video is actual footage of the bank itself being engulfed in flames, footage taken by Roger Clement himself. Next, the view changes to the aftermath of the fire, showing the charred remains of the building's interior and forensic teams combing the area for evidence.

3. What is the introduction?

The introduction actually precedes the opening shot, and begins with the host of the program giving the barebone details of the story, then moves to reporter in Ottawa Jeff Semple, who begins informing the audience of the fine details, such as number of people involved, specific details of the judge's ruling, etc.

4. Name two sources.

The first and foremost source of quotes and information was the judge who handed down the ruling on Roger Clement. Another source seems to have been Clement himself.

5. Based on what these two sources say, what questions do you think they were asked? Create two questions for each source that you feel they were probably asked.

From the video, I gather that no (or very few) questions were posed to the sources themselves, but instead from the proceedings in the courtroom. It is a safe assumption that reporter Jeff Simple either sat in the courtroom during the proceedings, or saw a taped version of the proceedings.

If they had been asked questions, they probably would have been asked these:

Judge

Q1: "For what reasons did you settle on a sentence of only 3 and 1/2 years, which is less than what the Crown wanted?"

Q2: "Did Clement's recent personal tragedies affect your decision?"

Clement

Q1: "What message were you trying to send with this fire?"

Q2: "What drove you to such an extreme action after so many years of exemplary behavior?"

6. Identify two types of B-roll in the video.

Two examples of B-roll in the video are the actual footage of the burning bank and the forensic crew sifting through the burnt-out shell of the building.

7. What are two other types of B-roll footage that you think they could have used?

One type of B-roll they could have used is footage taken from the courtroom during Clement's trial. Another type they could have used is a shot of Clement and his lawyer leaving the courthouse after the trial.

8. Identify two different voice overs and briefly list what facts are in each voice over.

Contrary to the usual style, the closest thing to a voice-over is in fact two "screens", one with the reporter's face as he reports on the right and the other playing the B-roll on the left. This is the only voice-over in the video, and the two-screen effect sustains throughout it. During this segment, Jeff Semple informs the viewers of Roger Clement's guilty plea, the severity of the fire damage, Clement's motive, and the details of his conviction.

9. What is the closing to the video?

The video closes with a head-and shoulders shot of Jeff Semple summing up the report, then the host of the program thanks Mr. Semple for the report and says his name and location.

10. Who is the reporter and what is his tag at the end?

The reporter, as stated before, is Jeff Semple, reporting onsite in Ottawa and his tag at the end is simply the closing remarks of the story.

Cold Facts and Warm Hearts: Hard News vs Soft

The CBC article "Canadian resident sentenced to death in Iran" is the very definition of hard news. The hard hitting title combined with the concise and uncompromising stating of the facts paint pictures of torture and injustice abroad. The entire article conveys a sense of helplessness, both in the situation of the accused, Saeed Malekpour, and in the situation closer to home. The fact that Canada can't swoop in and save this man from his death is a fact that is brutally and plainly laid out for the reader. There are no soft touches, no kind words in this article, only the facts of forced confession and unjust torture. The quotes, which include statements like "Most of the time, the tortures were performed by a group," are uncompromising. This article is hard news with a vengeance.

Another story that personifies hard news is the article "Haiti cholera death toll tops 2,000" from the CBC website. Obviously, stories of tragic death are hard news. This is so much the more when there has not only been one tragic death, but over 2,000. This story gives us a very grim view of the situation in Haiti, and does so without reserve. The facts are put forth without any comforting assurances that Haitian happy days are just around the corner, quite the opposite in fact. The number of people afflicted by the disease(over 91,700) and the death count (over 2,000) are stated plainly, and the situation is reported just as it is: dire.

Now, we'll avoid the system shock of going straight from hard news to soft by looking at one that's in the gray area between the two, namely CBC's "Spider-Man working out bugs for Broadway debut". This one is hard to place mostly because of its shameless blending of comic book lore(soft) and the problems besetting a 65 million dollar Broadway production (hard). It strikes a fair balance between hard and soft by incorporating the best of both; for soft news, the article goes into great detail concerning the history of the play, from the beginning of the writing process nine years ago to the present, one month before opening night. However, it doesn't shy away from the hard news aspects either, bluntly describing the many hitches and troubles currently afflicting the technical aspects of the play, such as perfecting the devices which will allow Spider-Man to scale the walls. However, if I had to classify it as one or the other, I would classify it as soft news, because the soft news aspects of the story get much greater attention.

Just as it's usually easy to spot hard news, it's just as simple to spot soft news, and boy is this article ever soft. The article looks at something many people who work in a cubicle use to relax, casual video games. News about casual video games is soft news indeed, for obvious reasons. First of all, they're games. Second, they're the kind of games specifically designed to be simple, rewarding, and relaxing for the player. Much like the article on Spider-Man theater above, this article is soft news because it goes into the history of the game and explores where the game came from, instead of what focusing solely on what it's doing right here and now.

"Dark Genius" doesn't exactly sound like something one would classify as soft news. However, the title describes the subject of the article(Tim Burton) quite well. This soft article isn't even really news so much as it is a tribute to the career of Burton. The news side of the story/tribute comes from the opening of a gallery that showcases much of Tim Burton's work. The story has a distinctly personal touch, with many quotes from Burton himself explaining his feelings about the gallery. It discusses many of Tim Burton's influences from his youth, and concerns itself mostly with the artistic, the theoretical and imaginary than with cold facts and faceless figures. In closing the article, there is a quote from Tim Burton concerning thank-you notes that he got from parents who brought their teenage children there. The personal side of the story is embraced fully, making this soft news without a doubt.

Barbara Frum, more than the average Broad-caster

It is clear from the get-go that Barbara Frum is not conducting an average interview when she gets on the line with Manson follower Sandra Good. But this odd interview takes a turn for the utterly abnormal when Good starts talking about a fanatical devotion to nature, and a murderous malice for those who would destroy it. Through this strange and baffling tirade, Barbara Frum refuses to give up the chance to talk with a mind, which through cultist ideals is probably exactly the same as Lynette Fromme's. This interview, whether Frum realized it or not when she scheduled it, would be an amazing insight into a mind like Lynette Fromme’s. I think that about two minutes into the interview, Frum realizes this and starts to run with it. Her questions shift away from “When did you last see Lynette” and “How was she emotionally” to more personal questions for Good herself, hoping to understand more of the mind of a person capable of killing for the benefit of trees and plants.

Because of this desire to see into a crazed mind, Frum refuses to let go of the interview. She stays in control, but in a subtle way. She doesn’t ask the same question twice, but instead maintains her line of questioning through asking a different question that would lead to the same answer, and unfortunately for someone trying to gather the facts, every question did lead to the same answer: “you’re ignorant... and killing trees.” Despite Ms. Good’s irritation at her “ignorance” this subtle and crafty style of questioning allows her to keep Sandra Good on the line for 7 minutes. Only when she begins to interrupt Ms. Good’s psychotic recital of the Manson-inspired manifesto does Good finally hang up the phone. Had Frum been very aggressive and confrontational, the interview may have lasted 70 seconds instead of 7 minutes.

The most effective thing that Frum said throughout the interview was “Ms. Good, how come you’re talking about trees that you care about, but you don’t care about killing men?” because this question causes Good to state her goals and the intent of her actions outright, as well as the reasoning behind them. Good makes it very clear that her intent is to see trees live, even if men must die. It is this exact state of mind that Barbara Frum was trying to uncover when she asked “what was the condition you last saw [Fromme] in?” One thing that I learned from this as a student journalist is that it is very important to get to the answer that will define the interview, but you cannot force it. You are an important part of the interview, but the interview is non-existent without the person you are interviewing. If that person gets out of control and you lose them altogether without getting that all-important answer, your interview has been virtually meaningless. You need to get that answer without destroying the contact between you and the person you are interviewing.

If I had to choose one person to interview, it would be Rudolph Hess, the Nazi general who was arrested in Scotland after his attempted independent peace treaty with England ended in disaster. He was a man who was very close to Adolf Hitler, and he would be very interesting to interview about his reasons for trying to end the war. It wouldn’t be a tough interview, because the man seemed to have firm convictions about the war, thus he would likely talk freely about them to propagate his ideas of peace.

Journalism: A swirling storm of confusion and lies, essentially

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a huge news-watcher/reader. Usually, when news comes my way, it has to be pretty major to even take my notice. When it does, whether or not I take it all with a pinch of salt depends on the individual story. If it's a story about a major political figure doing something awful, I usually dismiss it completely. If it's a story about a soldier's death or a natural disaster, you can bet its been fact checked.

As stated before, the article about Stephen Harper(political figure) and the communion wafer being pocketed(doing something awful) made me a little skeptical for two reasons. The first reason is that Stephen Harper is currently an individual who some people love to hate, and the second reason is the headline of such a story seems overly sensational to the point of ridiculousness, sounding more like idle gossip you would overhear than a newspaper story.
The article about "Jimmy" on the other hand was nothing less than shocking. It's a story that appeals greatly to human nature and sympathy, and calling it fake would basically make you a monster. Janet Cooke used this weakness of society to put out a story that was ironclad to all but the most stonehearted of skeptics, and for once, the skeptics were right. The fact that a Pulitzer Prize was awarded to a pack of lies is nothing less than disgusting.

I believe that Shafer's assertion is accurate in part. Almost every lie is made for personal gain, whether it be absolution from responsibility or gain of power. In this age, where knowledge is power, information that you have created is extremely easy to use for your own ends. It's easier to invent a story than discover one. Because of this, in university level journalism courses, one thing that must be highly emphasized is ethics. It must be ingrained into the minds of future journalists every day that they must never fabricate the news.

When issues of these ethics arise, an ombudsman is absolutely necessary to ensure that the paper maintains its credibility. If a paper's credibility is destroyed, the paper is destroyed. An ombudsman can make or break the paper's future. The ombudsman can make that connection with the public that can make all the difference in the world. If an ombudsman makes sure that the paper responds to public complaints about the errors/falsehoods in the newspaper, it can save the newspaper from being absolutely dismissed by the public.

Is it Newsworthy?

Baghdad Church Siege Kills 52

Timing 4/4


This story is an example of lightning fast information gathering. The attack began at dusk on Sunday, and after a four hour hostage situation, quick, perhaps even hasty action was taken against the terrorists holding the occupants of the church. The story was posted at 8:18 the next morning.

Significance 4/4

A story like this is always enormously significant, even when the death toll is low. This time however, it was not. While the actual total of the dead is not yet certain, at least 52 have died due to the attack, and 67 have been wounded. Also certain is that a priest and 10 policemen were among the dead. For these reasons, the significance is very high.

Proximity 3/4

While the story did occur far from what Canadians would consider "home", many Canadians who are Roman Catholic will most likely feel a strong connection to this story, as the act of terrorism was not against individuals, but against their beliefs.

Prominence 4/4

The Pope publicly denounced the attack, drawing the eyes of Catholics everywhere to this tragedy. The Pope is and was a major figure in current society and throughout history, elevating this story in prominence considerably.

Human Interest 4/4

This story practically defines human interest. Stories of violent terrorism always appear to the sense of humanity, and this one is especially violent and horrible with such a high death toll.

Total newsworthiness mark: 19/20

Munsch Book Contest Won by Labrador Town

Timing 2/4

The story is relatively new, although the contest to decide where the book would take place has been going on for months. Also, the book will probably not be published for a while, perhaps months, and the author is not scheduled to visit the town until next May.

Significance 2/4

Robert Munsch is a beloved Canadian author, and to many who enjoyed his books as children and later as parents will be affected by the story. However, to the poeple who did not, the story will little to no meaning.

Proximity 3/4

The contest is Canadian based, won by a small Canadian town, and concerns a Canadian author. The story is extremely close to home, giving it good proximity.

Prominence 2/4

Munsch is an author who is known worldwide for his children's books, but as far as celebrities go, he is not very significant. While he is loved dearly by his audience(the contest drew a total of 150,000 votes), his level of fame is not high enough to warrant a high mark for prominence.



Human Interest 1/4



The story is really only interesting to Munsch fans, and even to them, the result would probably only bring a smile for a few moments.



Total newsworthiness mark: 10/20.



Indonesian volcano erupts for 3rd time in week


Timing 4/4

This story is quite timely because for the 3rd time in one week alone, the volcano has erupted. The eruption happened early Monday morning, and seeing how it is 11:52 Monday morning right now, this is a good testament to its timeliness.

Significance 4/4

38 people have been killed by the volcanic eruptions already, and if it keeps erupting, the number of deaths will most likely continue. Also significant is the tsunami at the other end of the country which has killed 450 people.

Proximity 1/4

The story has virtually nothing to do with Canada, and as such has a low proximity. Even the concept is fairly foreign, as modern-day Canadians have seen very little(comparatively) in the way of natural disasters.

Prominence 3/4

Natural disasters are always prominent, and this one is no different. The misfortune of the country experiencing two different natural disasters at once is strange and thus brings the story prominence.

Human Interest 4/4

The number of deaths and the pure misfortune that the country is experiencing is more than its fair share of tragedy gives this story great human interest. People are always interested in the tragedy of others, and love to feel empathy towards people who are downtrodden.

Total newsworthiness mark: 16/20

Alcohol Ranked Most Harmful Drug

Timing 2/4

This story is a story of research, and because research is typically done in a period of weeks, months, or even years, this severely detracts from the overall timing of the story. However, at any time, someone around the world is drinking alcohol, thus giving it a fair score in terms of timing.

Significance 4/4

As stated before, there will always be someone somewhere who is drinking some kind of alcoholic beverage. This makes this discovery extremely significant, and because it basically effects everyone, its significance is absolute.

Proximity 4/4

Alcohol is a part of most lifestyles, and as such, a part of society. Prohibition certainly does not exist in Canada, and most likely never will. Since this is such a part of society, and society defines the country, alcohol is important to Canadians.

Prominence 2/4

The research study gives us important information, but really nothing earth shaking. The study calls to the surface a fact that most people already knew; alcohol is everywhere, and it can most certainly be destructive.

Human Interest 4/4

We all know people who are destroying themselves with drink. We all know people who have alcoholism and are obviously affected by it. Alcohol kills many people every year through drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, and it can destroy families as well. The human interest in this story is universal.

Total newsworthiness mark: 16/20