A great year-end idea

The season of news media year-end lists has arrived again, just in time to fill space in all those late December editions when there is no real news around. Newsmaker of the year, athlete of the year, intriguing person of the year, and so on, and on, and on. Still, everybody loves lists, so here's our modest contribution: A nomination for non-news story of the year, a category whose time has truly come. A top-five list of candidates was posted earlier this month here, and all the picks make sense. In Canada, though, nothing can top the nearly endless reports on the likelihood of another federal election. By my count, there were at least three major rounds of speculation in the Canadian media this year about the Harper government falling, or pulling the plug, and sending us all to the polls again. Little, or nothing was reported on how voters felt about this possibility, but the politicians clearly sensed the public's unhappiness with this prospect because in each crisis, they ended up stepping back from the brink, for fear of being punished. This left all those national press gallery election-mongers looking pretty foolish. That's pretty much the definition of a non-story. So, to all you hawks in Ottawa, please accept the first Chicken Little Award, with egg yolk custer, for your all your fine work. Next time, try asking somebody outside Ottawa if an election actually makes sense before you jump to the conclusion that there is going to be one.

A media 'victory'

The national media this morning is carrying news of a media 'victory' in the Supreme Court of Canada. The 'Supremes,' as some wags have dubbed them, have ruled 9-0 to uphold an Ontario Court of Appeal decision throwing out libel awards against two Ontario papers. In effect, the high court said that if the reporter/news outlet could show it engaged in 'responsible journalism' in reporting an allegedly libelous article, that would be a defense against a claim. The Globe and CBC, among others, hit the decision story hard. For journalists, there is a lot of like about this decision. But as with any court ruling, the devil will be in the details and those will take awhile to work out. So we will withhold our high-fives for now. One aspect of the decision that does appear to be positive, however, is the inclusion by the court of bloggers under the new umbrella of protection from defamation actions. In effect, the high court recognized bloggers as journalists, for purposes of the decision. What is really interesting about this is, in order for the blogosphere to actually claim this protection, it must meet the same tests of responsible practice as regular journalists, including balance, and a serious effort to check information for accuracy. That's something many (most? all?) bloggers aren't currently doing. So what this decision may do, among other things, is force all those freelance opinion peddlars who have been merrily defaming their various pet targets to actually get some information for a change, check it out, talk to people they don't agree with and include those comments in their posts. In other words, they are going to have to start practicing real journalism. Or they can risk getting sued. Some of them may consider this decision a gag order. It is no such thing. It is simply a legal request that they do more than just call themselves journalists, but actually do what professional journalists do. If they can meet the test, great. We need more good journalism. If not, well, see you in court?

Back at it

Greetings to you who have checked this page periodically, looking for new posts. There haven't been any for about six months now, obviously. Life, and work, have gotten all my time in the interval. Consider this and the following a down payment on a more communicative new year, as well as a wish that you enjoy a very happy Christmas/holiday and a great new year.