Category Archives: Opinion

| Media, Opinion

TVA hates Lagacé

I’ve always admired Patrick Lagacé. The way he works hard, the way he does his homework before putting together insightful commentary (instead of knee-jerk reactions), his hair, and the fact he puts me on his blogroll.

But more importantly, I admire the impact he has. Like being able to piss off the entire management team at TVA.

Yesterday, La Presse published a really long letter signed by four executives at TVA which accuses Lagacé of not checking his facts in a recent column about the network burying embarrassing news about itself and friends of owner Quebecor.

As Lagacé mentions at the end of the column, TVA is suing Gesca and Lagacé personally for his previous remarks on this issue.

For the benefit of those who don’t want to read the long letter, or whose French is rusty, here’s TVA’s main points:

  1. TVA’s news coverage is dictated by TVA, not Quebecor. Quebecor has no control. No control my ass. You don’t get to own the media unless you can tell it what to do occasionally. Obviously TVA decides what the day-to-day news is going to be, but don’t tell me there isn’t some middle manager who knows he’s more likely to get a promotion and less likely to be fired if he suppresses bad news and promotes good news. Just look at its collusion cooperation with Quebecor-owned Journal de Montréal or Quebecor-owned Videotron.
  2. TVA did, in fact, allow clips critical of TVA to be aired, contrary to Lagacé’s insinuations. OK, sure. I’ll concede that point, though Lagacé got his information from Le Soleil, which got a quote from TVA saying they can decide what to air and what not to air. But stories can be buried without being totally eliminated. Newspapers do it all the time: putting good news on A1 or A2, while leaving bad news to a brief at the back of the business section.
  3. TVA didn’t talk about 15 job cuts at TVA Québec because it was a non-story, and it was really four job cuts, and only one in news. As Lagacé mentions, it was still 15 job cuts at a regional station, whether or not some people stayed on part-time in another role.
  4. Lagacé made no attempt to contact TVA before his article was published to check these facts. Lagacé says he tried to contact Quebecor but got no response.

Left unmentioned by both parties is that Lagacé used to be part of the Quebecor family when he worked for the Journal and blogged for Canoe. To say there’s bad blood between the two might be considered an understatement.

But, of course, Quebecor doesn’t control TVA. So this silly conspiracy theory has no basis, right?

| Opinion

Concordia’s Lowy gets honorary degree

It’s a sad reality that university recognition of members of the community – and especially the grand-daddy of them all, the honourary degree – have just as much to do with how generous someone is to the university than how generous someone is to society. Though there are no rules – give a certain amount and you’ll get a certain honour – and the amount of money involved would make buying such things outright prohibitively expensive to all but the most ego-maniacal of  it’s almost expected that a university’s most prestigious donors will be thanked publicly in some way. A seat on its board, a building or program named after them, an honourary degree, or a combination of these.

I explored this issue in an article I wrote for a journalism class in 2005 and had published in The Link, Concordia’s student newspaper. I’ve included it below.

I bring this all up because Concordia has just released the names of its honorary degree recipients for this year, and a familiar name is on it: Frederick H. Lowy. Lowy served as Rector/President of Concordia University from 1995 to 2005, a time when doing so was hardly an easy job.

The community’s respect for Lowy only grew after his departure, when his replacement turned out to be a disaster. People started wishing or the good old days, when the warring factions – students vs. administrators, part-time faculty vs. full-time faculty, Senate vs. Board, were kept at a warm simmer by Lowy’s diplomacy.

In other words, they could have done worse.

And fortunately, there are no obvious conflicts with the other three honorees, one in the business management area (former CP CEO Robert Richie), one in the education field (former École Polytechnique head Robert Louis Papineau), and one in the arts (professor Laura Mulvey). That might be enough to help us forget the fact that three of these four are here for their skills managing a large organization and not, say, fighting malaria in Sudan.

Continue reading →

| Media, Opinion

How many exclamation marks are too many?

Another media-related question that I’ve been thinking about recently has to do with publishing reader opinion gathered from online forums, which some industry snobs have termed “reverse publishing” for reasons that escape me.

As newspapers and other media have opened up their websites to comments, some have in turn used those comments to supplement their reporting. For example, this piece which recently appeared in The Gazette about the Hockey Night in Canada theme issue, which has elicited a tonne of opinion just about everywhere it’s mentioned.

Despite my concerns about how much people have to sign their lives away to participate in media websites, publishing people’s opinions in the paper makes sense, if only because it replaces the tedious task of having a reporter go out in the street and convince people walking by to give their name and two cents on an issue they might have never heard of. (It’s gotten so bad in some cases that reporters have resorted to granting requests for anonymity in exchange for man-on-the-street views.)

Then again, I despite streeters with every essence of my being, and think random people’s opinions shouldn’t be published unless they’re interesting in some way.

My ethical dilemma, though, has to do with the process rather than the planning: How much should copy editors edit these comments before publishing them?

On the one hand, comments like “I hope RDS gets it. :))))” seem to be excessive with their use of punctuation for no good reason (what’s the difference between four smiley faces and three?). Typos, one would think, should also be corrected so the newspaper doesn’t look stupid. And if the comments are going to be edited anyway for space, they might as well be edited for style.

On the other hand, there’s always the possibility of introducing error or subtly changing the meaning of a comment by fixing its language. And people can just as easily check the source themselves and notice that their words have been altered. Instead of a direct quote, it becomes an interpretation, a translation of what the person is saying into “proper” English.

So what do you think? Should editors just cut and paste from forums when they quote from them, or should some editing be allowed? And if so, how much? Typos? Grammatical errors? Punctuation? Clarity? Style?

| Media, Opinion

Cars sell

This week, my job has taken me closer to cars and driving, which is ironic since I don’t have a driver’s license.

Sunday night was the last night of production of the Gazette’s Grand Prix special section, much to the delight of exhausted sports editor Stu Cowan, who worked tirelessly for eight straight days putting together sections that were anywhere from six to 26 pages long. (At last report he was at home in the fetal position mumbling something that sounded like “need another sidebar Randy”)

Yesterday, I spent my shift working on the regular Driving pages, which appear three days a week in front of the classifieds.

Some might wonder why newspapers focus so much on cars, but one look at the Grand Prix section gives the obvious answer: Ads. Lots of them.

It’s one of those subtle pressures that advertising places on editorial. No direct dictation of content, but the understanding that if a newspaper focuses on a certain subject, advertisers will follow.

Unfortunately, as newspaper budgets shrink, the power of this advertising force becomes stronger. As the news holes are shrinking for foreign news, feature stories and books sections, the cash cow sections for cars, homes, employment, electronics and movies are maintained.

That means pages of stories lauding the new Ford Focus and very little talking about global warming (unless an oil company has a new marketing campaign about it), poverty, fine arts, science, religion, or anything else that can’t be used to sell people overpriced stuff.

It’s a problem not just here, but across the entire newspaper industry, and will spread to the blogosphere once that industry matures.

The question is: Where should the line be drawn? How much should the money-making sections be used to subsidize the money-losing ones?

| Business, Opinion

Conditioned

I’m glad to hear that the global warming/energy crisis has been solved, and local businesses can go back to cranking up the air conditioning full blast and throwing open their doors so they can cool the sidewalk in front of their stores.

I’m not sure what’s more outrageous: the fact that this happens, or the fact that consumers fall for it and/or don’t care enough to protest.

Not to mention the fact that air conditioners displace heat, so for all the air that’s cooled in front of a store, hot air in the back is heated even further. The result is a net increase in heat that just makes hot days in the city even hotter.

| Montreal, Opinion

Slow down, Lewis

Les autoroutes ne sont pas des pistes de course

This sign appears on highway notice boards this week in anticipation of the Canadian Grand Prix Sunday on Ile Notre-Dame. It’s there because the F1 season awakes the armchair race-car driver in too many people who push their way-too-loud engines to the limit speeding recklessly down roads and putting people’s lives at risk.

Respectez les limites!

In case that doesn’t work, the second part of the message reminds drivers of how much they’ll have to pay if they’re caught speeding.

I was reminded of this tonight when, as I walked through the late-night F1 celebrations on Peel St. and McGill College Ave. and St. Catherine St., I came across a vehicle collision at the corner of de Maisonneuve Blvd. and Jeanne-Mance St.

Above is the result: A young family (with a small child) stand outside shocked (but unharmed) after their car was hit in the back and spun around. A bystander points west toward where the car that hit them had sped off.

The other vehicle didn’t get far. After speeding away from the scene with a right front tire ripped to shreds, it pulled over two blocks away at the corner of City Councillors (total distance: about 1,000 ft or 300 metres). They were quickly joined by police, who asked some questions of the driver (in the far left of this photo, trying to explain to an outraged bystander how this wasn’t a hit-and-run). Shockingly, the driver turned out to be a man about 20 with his girlfriend (the one with the see-through shirt) in the passenger seat.

The driver, who denied having drunk any alcohol, said he drove the two blocks because he was looking for a place to park, not because he was trying to get away.

The damage could have been a lot worse. A bumper and turn signal is much easier to replace than a child.

As to whether this qualifies as a hit-and-run, or whether speeding and/or alcohol might have had something to do with this midnight crash, I’ll leave that judgment to you (and, possibly, the courts).

| Opinion, TV

End of an anthem

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Sad. (UPDATE: Or not?)

(Need an emergency fix?)

The fact that politicians are getting involved in this (if only by commenting out loud) really gets me. Yeah, we’re emotionally attached to it, but it’s not as if the Parliamentary Library is burning down here.

UPDATE (June 6): It’s over. Negotiations have fallen through and CBC is launching a $100,000 contest to find a replacement. Good luck with that.

Some suggestions for replacement songs. Or, if you haven’t given up yet, the inevitable Facebook group. Or two. Or three. Or four. Or five. Or six. Or seven. Or eight. Or nine. Or ten. Or … holy crap! There are 204 other groups for this! Plus the HNIC fan page, and the petition to bring in that Stompin’ Tom song instead.

UPDATE (June 7): Really? CBC ices Hockey Night theme? The puck’s stopped here? These are the best headlines you could come up with?

| Media, Opinion

Where’s the line between union and journalist?

Last week, MédiaMatinQuébec, the Journal de Québec locked-out/striking workers paper that I’ve discussed here many times before, decided it would refuse ads from Quebec City’s administration, which is involved in its own labour issues. The city paid for ads in MMQ that explained its points in its negotiation with its union. But because that union supports MMQ, the paper decided it could no longer take advertisements that served to attack its allies.

Was a line crossed here? It’s one thing when MMQ refuses to take ads from Le Soleil, which has a vested interest in making the Journal conflict go on for as long as possible. But Quebec City has nothing to do with Quebecor.

Then again, the entire raison d’être of MMQ is as a union pressure tactic. Should we expect a union-produced newspaper to betray those who support it?

I guess it comes down to a simple question: Is MédiaMatinQuébec a newspaper, with a duty to be objective, or is it a union pressure tactic, whose content should further its ultimate goal?

| Media, Opinion

Smoke for Hour

I find it a bit funny that Hour, the alternative weekly newspaper that decided a while back that it needed better standards and imposed strict rules for its back-of-the-paper sex classifieds (which is why there’s a stark contrast between it and the Mirror when it comes to those starry-eyed escort service ads) celebrated Quebec’s new anti-smoking law with four full-page, full-colour ads promoting cigarettes (offset by a single full-page ad from the government about the new law).

Which is more immoral? Selling women’s bodies in the newspaper or promoting smoking to the 16-29 demographic?

| Media, Opinion

CTV, TQS move to sucker-generated content

CTV has launched a new website to collect sucker-generated content, err, I mean “citizen journalism” called my.ctvnews.ca. Because their professional journalists are doing their jobs with the insight of a 15-year-old recounting gossip, it’s expected that this new citizen-generated content will provide free material for CTV to make advertising money off of.

People are encouraged to submit their own content to the website, and some have (there’s even a video from that helicopter crash last month).

But beware, doing so means you agree to their terms of service, which include:

  • By submitting your Content, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which you hereby acknowledge, you hereby grant to CTV Television Inc. and its affiliates and agents and each of their assigns and successors (collectively, “CTV”), a world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable and non-exclusive right and license to televise, broadcast, transmit, exploit, use, edit, reproduce, syndicate, license, print, sublicense, communicate, publicly display and perform, distribute and create compilations and derivative works from, such Content, or any portion thereof, in any manner, media or technology, including, but not limited to all forms of television, display screens, wireless and online technology, now known or later developed, without payment or any other compensation to you or any third party. (That’s all one sentence, by the way, and it means that CTV could develop the next hit comedy series based on an idea or video you submitted, and they wouldn’t have to pay you a dime or even ask your permission. They could also sell your content to others and not have to give you a cut)
  • You warrant that all “moral rights” in such materials have been waived. (This means they’re not obliged to credit you or keep the substance of your work intact)
  • If your photo or video is accepted, CTV will endeavour (but is not obliged) to publish your name alongside it.
  • In turn you’d have to accept an entirely different terms of service, which include:
    • You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless each of CTVglobemedia, its affiliates and licensors and each of their respective officers, directors, employees and agents, including all third parties mentioned on a CTVglobemedia Site, from and against any and all claims, actions or demands, including without limitation reasonable legal and accounting fees (That means if anyone sues CTV about something related to something you’ve submitted, you agree to pay their lawyers)
    • UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL ANY DISCLOSURE OF ANY IDEA AND/OR SUGGESTION OR RELATED MATERIAL TO CTVglobemedia BE SUBJECT TO ANY OBLIGATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY OR EXPECTATION OF COMPENSATION. (So if you have evidence that the prime minister is stealing cash and eating babies, they can broadcast your identity to the world.)
    • Oh, and they can change those terms without notice.
    • And if they violate what little rights you have left in this agreement, you agree not to sue. Instead, you sit with an arbitrator … in Toronto. At your own expense, of course.

And though the site advises people to “stay safe” and “don’t endanger yourself,” of the five videos listed on the page, three were of fires and two were of tornadoes. The implication clearly is that the closer you get to a disaster in progress, the more likely your video is going to be accepted and you’ll be famous.

But hey, all this is a small price to pay in exchange for … uhh … nothing.

At TQS, the image is much clearer. They’re literally replacing professional journalists with suckers willing to work for free. This hasn’t escaped the eye of some local Web 2.0 enthusiasts like Michel Dumais and Mario Asselin, who point out that this isn’t a magic bullet and citizens cannot replace professionals.

The big problem is that big media is putting up a giant, blank canvas with their Web 2.0 projects. There’s no guidance (beyond tip sheets for how to shoot acceptable video), no communication or feedback, and terms of use policies that are downright insulting, if not outright illegal. Everyone is doing this (including the people I work for), because they don’t have to spend any money on it, and they look at Web 2.0 and think they can do that too.

I looked at the issue in March, where Evan Prodromou made the point that successful Web 2.0 sites are about communities, and provide services that help them. They don’t see users as things to exploit.

But exploitation will continue so long as some people are motivated solely by that “look, I’m on the news!” and skip over terms of service that demand everything short of a first-born child with nothing in return.

I don’t want that motivation to disappear entirely (if it did, professional journalists wouldn’t be able to do their jobs anymore), but there should be some happy medium where news organizations don’t rely exclusively on amateurs willing to produce crap for free.

At what point will users rise up and demand rights in exchange for their free content?

| In the news, Opinion

Business isn’t smoking

On Friday night, part of Quebec’s anti-smoking law came into effect, which among other things completely bans smoking in workplaces, outlawing designated smoking rooms.

To which most people responded: “They allowed smoking rooms at work until now?”

Yep. And on Friday night at midnight, those rooms were closed for good, including one at The Gazette, which had its ashtrays removed and “no smoking” signs taped to the tables. It will be converted into a lunchroom.

Now, when copy editors take page proofs to read while having a smoke, they’ll be doing it outside. Which will be fine while the weather is good, but it’ll be torture when winter comes.

Another provision of the law, which will have more of an impact on the rest of the world, requires retailers to hide their cigarettes in a closed cabinet or otherwise out of the view of customers. This is to prevent young’uns from being exposed to them or something, I guess.

That provision reeks of wishy-washy nanny-stateism (either make it legal or don’t), but I don’t smoke so I really don’t care.

As the law came into effect, Couche Tard took the opportunity to remind customers that they still sell cigarettes and to “just ask” for them. (This law is going to cause a lot of uncomfortable and/or confusing conversations, I think). Right next to that ad was another from VizuelMedia, which is using this new law to its advantage and has created a business model that involves creating new cigarette “power walls” and selling ads on them.

And the Mohawks, well they’re just ignoring the law entirely.

| In the news, Opinion, Technology

Facebook destroys privacy, eats babies

So apparently some intern law students have filed a complaint against Facebook for having the audacity to allow people to share their personal information with others.

Facebook certainly has privacy issues, as I’ve previously explored, and there’s no doubt that they’re trying to exploit this information for all it’s worth.

But the fact remains that, as Facebook points out, all this information is shared voluntarily. If you don’t want people to know your religion, don’t publicize it online.

The Facebook problem is a problem of user education, not Big Evil Corporations. People need to learn that as the Internet becomes more efficient at connecting and compiling information, they can’t rely on privacy through obscurity anymore. We must assume that anything we type into our computer and send over the Internet will eventually be plastered on a billboard for our parents, employers and ex-girlfriends to see and mock. And we must be vigilant about keeping our private information private. No matter how fun it might seem to break that rule just once.

| Media, Opinion

Judging the Gazette scoop

On Wednesday, Alain Dubuc took the Gazette Bouchard-Taylor scoop as an excuse to philosophize about the nature of pre-emptive document leaks and ask whether they’re good for society:

Cette question est la suivante: en quoi le public est-il mieux servi quand un média rend publique une information quelques heures ou quelques jours avant qu’elle ne soit diffusée de toute façon?

He argues in La Presse that the Bouchard-Taylor leak was a bad one, because it emphasized things that were not core to the report (like having francophones learn more English). He thinks whoever leaked it did so to embarrass or usurp the commission.

I’m thinking Alain Dubuc hasn’t seen The West Wing. (You can get it weekdays on CLT, though that channel isn’t useful for anything else sadly.) There, he’d learn that leaks are commonplace in government just before a big announcement in order to “soften up the ground” and prepare people.

Some of my colleagues have suggested that leaking to the anglo paper was a calculated effort to do just that, knowing it would pounce on the controversial aspects (especially about language) and that the report itself would seem tame by comparison. (I haven’t talked to Jeff Heinrich because he’s too cool for me and I doubt he’d leak through this blog something he wouldn’t say in the paper)

So was the scoop wrong? Inaccurate? Misleading? Some people think so.

I’m not in a position to judge, both because I work for The Gazette and because I haven’t had time to read the report in its entirety.

But La Presse’s André Pratte has read the report, and he thinks my paper did a good job.

UPDATE (May 24): EiC Andrew Phillips cites Pratte’s blog post in saying the paper didn’t have a nefarious agenda.