Cities and (Alberta) civilization

It has been an interesting week to hang around the coffee shop reading papers in Alberta's big cities. Civic politicians in Edmonton and Calgary have been involved in large-scale public hearings on issues which figure to be critical for the futures of both places. While the news reporting on these hearings has been serviceable, the hearings themselves have proven far more interesting than the press accounts would suggest. There has been more thoughtful comment, more passion and much more new information shared than the newspapers and e-media have found space for, so far. In Calgary, where I live, regular viewing of the video feed of the hearings on the Plan/It Calgary report, which proposes to put an end to urban sprawl hereabouts, has rewarded the audience with a close-up look not only at the issue but at the people who live here and care about this place. It has been uplifting, to say the least. I can't speak for the Edmonton process, except to note that the fate of the municipal airport has been a long-time preoccupation there. But judging by the news accounts, the issue is being engaged vigorously, which surely is a sign of a healthy community. Good for them, and for us. Now if only we could get the local news media, who appear to be interested mainly in the death of Michael Jackson, to play to their real strength and report at length on what has been said and what it means for these cities and their futures, everything would be great. Why not leave the wall-to-wall celebrity stuff to TV, and to Twitter?

And what do we do if the information is wrong?

Here's yet another version of the 'old media' critique from yet another wannabe journalist on the web. The interesting bit is the childlike trust this person has in whatever comes through on Twitter. Sure hope all these folks will know what to do when the online gossip mill gets it wrong.

We'll get back to the Iranian revolution but first, this!

Who says everything is suddenly gone all serious at Twitter. In the wake of reports on how the quick message utility had served as a window on the bloody insurgency in Iran last weekend, we learned that hoopster Shaq O'Neal first learned he had been traded from Phoenix of the NBA to Cleveland via Twitter posts. Just to underline the point, the satirical website The Onion posted an 'item' quoting the founder of Twitter as being unhappy with the utility's newfound political role. As John McEnroe said, you can't be serious.

Seven golf pundits in search of a storyline

With the U.S. Open going into Monday play just to complete the final round, TV critics have been hammering NBC for its meandering coverage of this waterlogged marathon. Too bad, really, because to our eyes, the coverage hasn't been much different than other years. What's different is the event itself. Due to the seemingly endless rainfall on Long Island, N.Y., play has been interrupted or stopped several times, making it very tough for TV to sustain any narrative lines. Golf is a great game to play, but not so great to watch on TV unless there is at least some drama. All this shows just how important storytelling is in media, whether it is in newspapers, TV, multimedia online, or even in a simple blog. It isn't just content, but narrative, that rules.

Another ad stream craters

The many news reports this morning warning that GM and Chrysler are going to massively trim their dealer networks will translate into more lost ad revenue for newspapers. A check of the local dailies any day lately shows numerous ads placed by dealers eager to reverse their recent sales slump. You can bet the newspapers have been charging the going rate for these ads, which are often in colour and take up lots of space. Having already said farewell to most of their classifieds, the newspapers may shortly be down to real estate ads as the main accounts paying the bills for their operations.

Winning the right to be wrong

The Supreme Court of Canada is currently (Wednesday, Feb. 18) hearing an important test case involving libel law. The Ottawa Citizen, joined by other major newspapers and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, is appealing a jury award of $125,000 to an Ontario policeman, on the grounds the news story was adequately researched and was in the public interest. At stake is the long-standing requirement in law that reporters must be able to prove the truth of every statement in a story in court, in order to avoid a defamation ruling. Under existing practice, lawyers for the newspapers have argued, it is too easy for parties wishing to avoid public scrutiny to use the threat of a libel action to avoid press coverage. What is needed, they have argued, is a new doctrine under which a reporter who can show he or she inquired into a situation fully and fairly, and who produced a story that was in the public interest, can avoid sanctions under the defamation statutes. Such a change could apply to bloggers as well as print and electronic journalists, and could have the useful side-effect of forcing those posting information online to professionalize their work, something that is badly needed now. The court is likely to take some time to decide what to do with this case. But questions put to lawyers for both sides Tuesday suggest at least some of the judges are having problems with the idea that a public interest should be allowed equal time with considerations of personal reputation when it comes to considering defamation issues."If it is in the public interest, then they have the right to be wrong?" Madam Justice Rosalie Abella asked during Tuesday's hearing, according to Kirk Makin's account in The Globe and Mail. "If they have acted in the public interest, yes, they would have that right to be wrong," replied Paul Schabas, a lawyer for the Toronto Star.

Some people want information to be free

Unless they created it themselves, that is. Jeff Jarvis, for example, author of the well-known blog Buzz Machine, makes at least part of his living charging people to hear and read content he has created. He has argued tirelessly that content on the Internet, including news, should be free for everyone to use, whether it is created by professionals or not. Newspapers, as entities that have survived by charging for their content, are therefore as dead as Monty Python's parrot, in Jarvis' view. Allan Mutter (Reflections of a Newsosaur) skewered this hypocrisy nicely today (Feb. 17, 2009) but, in light of all the posts arguing back, it's clear the webbies will continue to insist that if they can find something online, they should have the God-given right to use it without paying for it, whether it has been created by somebody who knows what they are doing, or by Monty Python. This raises interesting questions about exactly how sophisticated these folks are when it comes to the credibility of their news sources (the earth really is flat: I read it on the web!), and how they would like it if somebody threatened their livelihood by suggesting that since they aren't the only (pick one: plumber, lawyer, web designer, bail bondsman, or whatever) in the market, they must therefore donate their services rather than charge for them. Everyone loves a free lunch. But the web seems to attract a particular crowd that believes not only that they should eat free at every meal, but that means everything on the menu is good and that eating free is their perfect right. In fact, they see this as a business plan. Good luck with that, gang.