Monthly Archives: September 2007

Creative Generalist: I still don’t quite get it

This week’s blog is Creative Generalist, which is about … uhh … stuff. … Ideas and stuff. Yeah. It’s kinda philosophical, but the general idea is that you need “generalists” to balance the “specialists” and see the big picture. I think. Steve Hardy, the author who also works for Andy Nulman‘s Airborne Entertainment (I think it’s a requirement that you be hyper-philosophical about marketing to work there) thinks I did a good job, so I guess I did.

Corus killed the radio star

I’d never heard of it before, but apparently Corus Entertainment runs a songwriting competition every year called Canadian Radio Star. It awards $10,000 in cash and a bunch of smaller prizes to one Canadian act.

And based on the Photoshopped clip art on the site’s homepage, you apparently also win Finger Eleven. (Is that just a one-night thing or can you, like, sell them into slavery?)

I’ve never been one for contests of creativity. They always seem more about a big company getting a cheap source of new ideas than they are about encouraging independent talent.

Here’s the skinny from the contest’s rules:

  • Submit a song that you record yourself and that hasn’t been published anywhere (in other words, write a song for the competition for free)
  • That song can be used by any Corus station as much as they want without paying you a cent. (Though you might get some money through SOCAN)

I know some artists are so desperate to get signed they’ll do just about anything, but it just doesn’t seem fair to me to work for free hoping that some stations will play a song you won’t get paid for. Especially when the grand prize is only $10,000. Surely a song good enough to win a national songwriting competition is worth more than a measly $10,000.

Am I just being cynical? Maybe. Maybe it’s just that horrible clip art graphic that’s getting to me.

Bouchard-Taylor Commission legitimizes xenophobia

The news stories coming out of the Commission on Reasonable Accomodation (or whatever it’s official name is) have really been eye-opening. It’s no secret that we have paranoid xenophobes here. But this commission, going around the province (starting with small rural towns and ending in Montreal) seems to be legitimizing it.

Suddenly, it’s no longer taboo to express an irrational, paranoid fear of immigrants flooding in to take over your country. To suggest that a few dozen quiet immigrants with cloth over their faces settling in a town hundreds of kilometres away is going to somehow radically alter the way of life in a place that is 96% Catholic might have once been considered ignorant racism. But now that the commission is coming along, it’s giving these lunatics a forum in which to express their paranoia.

Tonight in a park, as I watched a free movie screening, one of the spectators shouted at the end, complaining that the film was not in French and that Quebec is a French-only province. The man was clearly off his rocker, and the crowd stayed silent in response. The young moderator of the evening, in an attempt at diplomacy, repeated an invitation to a post-screening party in the province’s official language, but the man was still yelling as she spoke in his tongue. He wasn’t interested in accomodation, he just wanted to yell.

Now if that same man were to walk into a commission hearing room and give those opinions into a microphone, suddenly it would become news. It would get into the newspapers, and would require acknowledgment and analysis.

I realize I’m generalizing here, but normal people have better things to do with their lives than attend these hearings. It’s the unemployed crazies who want someone to blame for their crappy lives that come to these town halls and blame immigrants they’ve never seen or met.

Perhaps there’s no alternative to this. We’re dealing with questions of morality, and that requires public consultation. But it still irks me that we’re giving an open mic to racist, xenophobic extremists and pretending like their opinions are justified.

Cellphone user wants his fees back

I’ve always found it odd that Canadian wireless consumers are forced to pay a “system access fee” of about $7 every month on top of their rate plan. It sounds like something that should just be included in the plan itself. I mean, would you accept it if Wal-Mart imposed a mandatory cashier’s fee, or if the public transit authorities started charging you a monthly fee for accessing their network?

Virgin Mobile is one of the few companies not to charge this fee. Their service is more expensive, but at least it’s honest, and it doesn’t force you into 3-year contracts.

Well it seems the dishonesty of telling someone a plan is worth $20 a month when it’s actually $30 plus tax has hit a nerve. Hou-Hou points us to a story about a Regina lawyer whose lawsuit has just gained class-action status.

It’s potentially the largest class-action in Canadian history, and it goes after the three cellphone giants at once, who will no doubt throw about a quadrillion lawyers on the case.

So … good luck with that.

Howard Galganov is still an idiot

Hey, remember Howard Galganov? He’s that anglo-rights crusader who was popular back in the 90s, ran for office a bunch of times (and lost) and eventually gave up on our province and moved to Ontario.

Well, Howard doesn’t let silly provincial boundaries stop him from opining, which he does now through his website. His latest diatribe talks about the declining anglophone population in Quebec, and he blames it on what’s clearly the most logical source: the anglophone media. (Except The Suburban and CIQC.)

His diatribe is long and venom-filled with overuse of the words “sell-out”, “racist” and other insults, so I’ll boil down his arguments:

  1. They wanted to be nice. Their refusal to let slip the dogs of war and stab at government with their pens was surely a missed opportunity.
  2. They didn’t support “anglo rights leaders”. Translation: They didn’t support me. As if the leaders deserve support regardless of whether their positions are sound.
  3. They’re like Jews who supported the Nazis. Nothing quite like a Holocaust simile to get a point across when everything else fails.
  4. Some say we should celebrate Bill 101’s anniversary. That’s simplifying the issue a bit. The Gazette’s opinion, for example, is that Bill 101 was a compromise that ensured linguistic peace. And even then, it also carried an opinion piece from Robert Libman saying it was devastating to the anglo community. CFCF’s Barry Wilson certainly hasn’t strayed from the anglo rights beat, and CBC doesn’t really have an opinion section.
  5. They called me “Angryphone”. That’s because you’re always angry.
  6. They equated me with francophone terrorists. Really? Has anyone called you a terrorist? You’re a radical on one side, just like Impératif Français are radicals on the other side. You may disagree with where the middle is supposed to be, but that’s something you have to live with.
  7. They didn’t sponsor rallies to raise money for lawsuits against the government. Is that really the role of the media? They raise money for literacy, but they tend to take a back seat to, you know, actually trying to change the law.
  8. They never said ethnocentric nationalism is wrong. I don’t see it that way. They routinely make the point of saying that the anglo and immigrant communities are important to Quebec. They were pretty united against the stupidity in Herouxville.

Galganov’s solution to the problem is simple and stupid: Have all the anglos and immigrants leave, shut down tourism and watch as their economy self-destructs.

Howard doesn’t seem to understand the problem. It’s not that Quebec doesn’t understand the value of its English-speaking citizens, though they do take us for granted. It’s that many anglophones are leaving the province because they can’t be bothered to learn some French.

In other words, the problem is people like Howard Galganov.

Balcony BBQ taboo

Did you know it’s illegal to barbecue on a balcony in Côte-Saint-Luc?

Apparently the law isn’t really enforced, and politicians are looking at ways to change it, according to The Chronicle’s Martin Barry (who uses three different spellings for “barbecue”).

What’s interesting about the law is its motivation. It’s not the act of barbecuing on balconies that’s dangerous, it’s taking propane tanks up elevators. So now they’re considering allowing people to take propane tanks up elevators if they’re alone.

If propane tanks on elevators are the problem, why not just restrict propane tanks on elevators?

(There’s also the point that fire truck ladders only go so high — which worries me because even propane-less apartments may need them someday — and that tanks are necessarily stored too close to the building’s doors and windows.)

Even if the laws are meant to stop real dangers, can’t we make them a bit more common-sense?

Unions can be sued for protest inconvenience

A judge has ruled that a 2003 blue-collar protest which tied up traffic downtown inconvenienced Montrealers significantly enough that they should be compensated. In a judgement on a class-action suit from Boris Coll, the judge ordered the union to give $1.16 million to charity (determining individual compensation was deemed too impractical).

Reaction has been mixed. The Gazette calls it a victory for regular people who should be able to travel freely without inconvenient traffic jams. Dennis Trudeau, meanwhile, worries about future protesters getting sued because their marches might cause traffic disruption.

Both sides have reasonable points, but I have to side with Trudeau. A traffic jam is an inconvenience, but there’s no constitutional right to free roadways. There is, however, a right to assemble, protest and express yourselves on political issues. The latter right should take precedence.

Protesters already wear masks and keep their routes secret because they fear police repression. Making these things actionable is just going to drive them further into lawlessness and make those protesters angrier.

Constructive criticism for old media online

Kate posted a comment to my post last week about newspapers’ online mistakes, pointing me to some tips on another blog.

They’re really good, so I feel the need to repeat them here with some commentary:

  1. Forget linear comments. This is one thing that’s always bugged me about most online forums. Slashdot solved this problem almost a decade ago with threaded comments and user moderation. YouTube has only recently introduced a similar system. Why is this still so complicated for most content management systems to replicate?
  2. Don’t treat podcasts like radio. The suggestion to not edit podcasts is perhaps a bit extreme, but there are some solid ideas behind this. If someone is listening to a podcast, they probably have plenty of time on their hands anyway, so there’s no need to rush. (One of my complaints about A Comicbook Orange — the video podcast by Montrealers Casey McKinnon and Rudy Jahchan — is that Casey talks too fast as if she’s trying to keep up with a nonexistent clock. Hopefully as the show evolves she’ll relax a bit more.) It’s a good form for long discussions on specialized topics, and shouldn’t be interspersed with cheesy sound effects or cut down into news-style packages. The Habs Inside/Out podcasts are a good example: they sit seasoned reporters at a table and have them discuss issues related to the team. The most important thing about a podcast though is that there needs to be a reason to use technology over text. Raw interviews are a good reason.
  3. Aggregate. Newspapers fear each other. Some are actually under the impression that if they speak another’s name it will cause a decrease in subscriptions. Newspaper bloggers seem to be getting over this somewhat, but there’s still very little good aggregation out there. (I blame the technology, as WordPress and its ilk are designed more for long posts than short links.) Fark.com is crazy-successful as a simple news aggregator. Many of my posts (and my “From my feeds” sidebar links) are inspired from other blogs and news sources.
  4. Put more detail online. Newspapers like to make crappy online videos that have a talking head repeat the main points of a feature article. Some put second-rate stories online. But what people want are resources. Links to original documents, previous articles on a subject, technical specifications, analysis from others. Much of this is easy to compile and put online for those who want to see it.
  5. More editors, fewer writers. I can’t really comment on this objectively since I’m an editor. I must admit it was surprising to read, since blogs don’t have editors and that’s considered a factor behind their success. (Meanwhile, one of the big complaints about newspapers these days is the sloppy editing.) This item seems to be more about having experts write articles instead of having journalists quote them. I’m not sure if I necessarily agree with that entirely, but it’s a good idea for certain occasions (science articles especially).
  6. Offer tailored feeds. My biggest beef with Le Devoir is that there’s only a single RSS feed for their entire website, and that produces about 60 items a day. If I just want news and letters, I should be able to get that. Nobody here offers RSS feeds tailored per author, which would be a big improvement as well.
  7. No registration barriers. I really don’t need to explain this do I?
  8. Make content work on mobile devices. A simpler explanation might be “make content simple.” Bloggers link to “print-friendly” pages as it is. Reading some of these websites on small devices must be damn-near impossible. While I haven’t tested this blog on a phone yet, I imagine it’s somewhat simpler.
  9. No Flash. I would edit this to “do not use Flash unnecessarily.” It’s needed for video or interactive maps or audio slideshows, but don’t use it for navigation or to wow us with intro pages. It’s just an obstacle to us getting what we’re looking for.
  10. Don’t put effort into online video. This is the exact opposite of my advice and one I strongly disagree with. While I don’t think you should be hiring TV crews to do your online video, there does need to be some minimum standard for clear audio, proper lighting and editing. I don’t need flashy animated credits, but I want to be able to hear what people are saying and understand what’s going on without too many time-wasting awkward pauses.
  11. Link directly to your sources. Yes. This is done on blogs all the time, why not in newspapers? Link to previous articles when you’re doing a follow-up. Link letters to the pieces they’re responding to. Link to CRTC decisions when you’re talking about them. Let people research stuff on their own to get more information.
  12. Pay bloggers for their content when you want to use it. I’m not sure how widespread it is to lift bloggers’ content wholesale without attribution. I had a comment lifted once by a newspaper, but they attributed it (incorrectly) and kept the quote somewhat brief. I certainly think bloggers should be hired if their content is good enough for newspapers, and that nobody should be expected to work for the media for free. But … does that mean I should pay for this blog post?

What will Times freedom mean for its wire service?

So the New York Times is free online. I won’t bother linking to all the blogs talking about this decision, or opining whether this is a good or bad move financially for the Times. I’m on the fence about this, since I don’t think advertising alone can keep a huge for-profit newspaper running.

One thing I will note, however, is its effect on subscribers to the NY Times wire service. Currently, small newspapers around the world (including The Gazette) run feature stories from the Times in their newspapers (The Gazette even has a page in its Sunday section dedicated to reprinting a Times feature). But the licensing agreement doesn’t allow free web publishing of these articles, to prevent a Maureen Dowd opinion piece to be available free on some small-market daily when the Times was trying to sell it on its TimesSelect service.

As a result of this change, will these papers now be able to publish these pieces on their websites? And perhaps more importantly, will these papers still be as eager to republish these pieces in their print editions now that they’re available free online?

Uprising 2?

The folks at the McGill chapter Quebec Public Interest Research Group (read: hippie anarchists) have produced an “alternative” student agenda with activist propaganda.

Called “School Schmool” (education is a tool of the proletariat!), it commemorates the invention of the pipe bomb and encourages vandalism of advertisements.

Those of us with long memories might remember “Uprising“, the 2001 Concordia student agenda, which had a similar ultra-activist slant, titles in Broken Typewriter font for that extra edge, the same “alternative” calendar anniversary notes, and encouraged people to vandalize advertisements, dismantle the capitalist system by firing their “bo$$e$” (l33t!), squat in abandoned buildings, steal expensive cars to take for joy rides and then crash into other expensive cars and setup pirate radio stations.

It also, of course, demonized Israel, the U.S., the media, the university, police, heterosexuals, capitalism and just about any large company.

Unfortunately for Concordia’s student handbook, it was released in September 2001, which was pretty horrible timing. It eventually helped lead to an unprecedented student revolt that took the student union’s executive out of office. (This one probably won’t generate a reaction on the same level, if only because it wasn’t the official student union agenda.)

Like all stupid student ideas, after five years when everyone’s graduated, they start repeating themselves. Embezzlement of student funds, patronage appointments, election fraud, all tend to come and go on a five-year cycle. As do all the election promises that later turn out to be too complicated to accomplish or too impractical to be worth the time.