A political legacy is just eight votes away

The 2012 Calgary civic election is now just one week away, and it promises to be more interesting than anyone expected. Coming into campaign season, the prospect of an election without the catalyst of a seriously contested mayoralty had many people predicting a quiet fall, and a turnout on Oct. 21 below 25 per cent. The turnout could still be small, although solid totals at the advance polls so far seem to suggest the final participation total won’t be that bad. But the mayoralty race (how did we start calling it the mayoral race, by the way?) has basically been a fizzle, despite the best efforts of a certain newspaper columnist to draw the mayor onto the partisan battlefield. The result will be the re-election of Naheed Nenshi, as expected, although it wouldn’t be a surprise if his victory margin was surprisingly small. That’s what you get when you let your supporters conclude you are a cinch to be returned, and they can basically stay home and watch TV. Inviting so-called progressive voters to sit this one out may not have serious consequences for the mayor. But it is very likely to make things tough for some incumbent aldermen, who have formed the bedrock of his voting support on council over the past three years. Councillors Macleod, Farrell, Pootmans, Pincott and Carra have reliably supported Nenshi on what he clearly considers the key issues before the city: Planning, growth management and tax equity. The mayor’s real focus, however, has been on communications and representation, rather than governance. While his predecessor, David Bronconnier, made his reputation by getting things done in council (and carefully counting votes for his projects at every single meeting), Nenshi has more or less let council run free, and has concentrated instead on the more visible public assignments his position affords. One example of this is the life-size cardboard images of the mayor, grinning and holding up a borrowing card, which have adorned local branches of the public library for the past couple of years. Thanks to his high-profile approach to his job, Nenshi is widely known, generally appreciated, and considered by most Calgarians to be a symbol of what we want our city to be in the 21st Century. His outstanding work as a communicator during the flood crisis and its aftermath cemented his standing in this regard. In sum, Nenshi has successfully practiced representative politics while in office, and he is pretty much certain to be given the chance to continue in this role after Oct. 21. But his relative disinterest in the mechanics of decision-making on council have given his opponents a real chance to seize control of council in this election. Throughout this campaign, it has been hard to shake the feeling that the mayor and his supporters haven’t been doing enough to ensure that his voting bloc on council survives. His side has basically brought a knife to a gunfight throughout the campaign, a sign perhaps of his and their political inexperience, or their failure to understand the real political stakes at play. Nenshi has issued a general endorsement of Pincott/Farrell et al. But the energy that surrounded his first campaign has clearly been missing. The people who have missed it most are the very ones Nenshi needs to get anything meaningful done in the next four years. While the progressive camp has basically sat this election out, the other side (we’ll dub them the conservatives, for want of a more descriptive term), have been busy raising money, commissioning studies, marshaling the news media and building up the notion that the mayor’s priorities are out of line with those of the electorate, and that it is time for a change. Taking their cue from Bronconnier, who famously pointed out last winter that the real goal for an incumbent mayor in a civic election is to see enough friendly aldermen elected to control council votes, the conservatives have opted to ignore Nenshi and have been working instead to take over council. At this writing, they appear to be poised to achieve their goal. If they do, they will succeed in making Nenshi’s victory a hollow one, and condemn him to four years of presiding over a council that is committed to move in a radically different direction than he himself wants to go. It could even lead to the emergence of a leader on council who could seriously challenge the mayor in the 2017 civic election, assuming Nenshi wants to stay on. Should all this come to pass, Nenshi and his followers may wish they had paid more attention to that eight-vote idea in his first term in office, and during the 2013 campaign.

A change in the climate on climate change

Green is no longer the colour, at least in politics. That reality began to sink in late last year at the Copenhagen climate change summit, which turned into more of a media circus than a serious exercise in working out a new international treaty to curb carbon emissions. Other straws in the wind have also been showing up, all of which add up to the decline in public concern about this issue. One such straw arrived this week, in form of new survey of TV weathermen in the U.S. The study, done by the Centre for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, shows that only about a third of weather forecasters surveyed believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is a reality. This, despite the fact that such a consensus has been in place for some time. Given the influence the forecasters, and other TV and radio types, have over public opinion, this finding says several things about the role of the media in shaping opinion on important issues. For example, it seems to suggest that it is time for advocates of action on emissions to go to an education strategy, instead of relying so much on confrontation and its close cousin, the politics of fear. People eventually get tired of being warned that the end of the world is near, even though that might be true. So, if the scientific and environmental communities are going to turn back the tide now running toward inaction on these issues, they are going to have to stop trying to frighten people and concentrate instead on making the case for government policy change by sharing information that ordinary people can understand. That, in turn, leads to step two, which would be to do what the energy industry has always done and focus on marketing its case through the media, in part by getting the media on side. That's where the weathermen come in. The scientific types may, and likely do, resent the influence the talking heads seem to have on this issue. But if they want to change the direction of public opinion, they are going too have to start informing, and persuading, these public spokesmen of the validity of the scientific evidence. In other words, they are going to have to get a coherent communications strategy to sell the case for action on climate change, to counter the impression many people have that there is no real climate problem and that the five-day forecast proves that is the case. The challenge to the scientists and environmentalists is large, in no small part because it will require them to start taking communication seriously, and stop assuming that mere expertise is enough to win the argument. It will also require them to get their act together, instead of speaking as individuals. It might even mean some of them will have to go on TV and look those weathermen, and their audience, in the eye. Can they do it? The jury is out.

Climate change in the news ecosystem

The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) last week produced a new study on how local news is shared in the changing media environment of the early 21st Century. This study can be found here, and is a good starting point to consider some trends that have been developing in Canada, as well as in the U.S. We plan to look more deeply into some of these trends on this site in coming days, but here are a couple of quick observations based on the study:

• People still seem to be getting a lot of their news from professional reporters, even though they access it using new media on the Internet. According to PEJ, stories containing new information carried by Baltimore, Md. media outlets in one-week period last summer were mostly produced by local newspaper or TV reporters. The new information was accessed by most readers online, sometimes through aggregators, or blog posts. But the information was developed the old-fashioned way, simply because it takes serious, purposeful inquiry to produce useful material. To quote the anchor-people, more on this later.

• What the Internet has done is speed up the delivery of hard news. Breaking developments in a community, which used to take hours to share via local radio and TV, now are disseminated in minutes via blogs and websites, many of which are maintained by mainstream media. The faster pace seems to agree with many readers, who frequently cite this as a reason to abandon newspapers and the evening newscasts. But it is having an impact on the contents of the reporting, and non-journalists are often oblivious to these effects, which include a tendency to exaggerate the significance of new developments, an absence of context and a heavy reliance on official sources. Once again, we will write more about this in a future post.

Facebook 'activism'

How much clout does Facebook have in Canadian politics, really?

We may be about to find out, thanks to the online group Canadians Against Proroguing Parlaiment. This group, founded by Edmontonian Chris White just before New Year's, was up to 150,000 members as of this morning (Jan. 11, 2010) and is now encouraging its members to organize local protest events to show the governing Conservatives just how angry they are at Stephen Harper's decision to shut down Parliament until after the Winter Olympics. Harper was dismissive of the complaints in comments last week, suggesting the Opposition parties would be really upset about the government's move when they got back from their Christmas holidays. The Liberals were out this past weekend with attack ads, slamming the government for being anti-democratic. The Facebook group, meanwhile, was drawing fire from talk radio conservatives, who questioned whether all the online anger really meant anything in political terms. This, in turn, prompted a Vancouver online politics expert to argue that Facebook is the new face of political action in Canada and is ignored by old-style politicians at their peril.

White and his supporters believe their campaign is having an effect but of course you would expect them to say that. Their efforts to get those who joined the Facebook group to get out and march betrays them a little, however. They seem to have grasped one basic truth about Internet activism, which is that online outrage is easy for politicians to ignore, as long as it doesn't translate into action in the actual arena, which is the street and, ultimately, the ballot box. Obama Nation, the best example we have of an online movement that ultimately turned an election, was only able to achieve its objectives by leaving cyberspace and entering the actual political marketplace. For many of these activists, this included joining a party, mobilizing others to do the same, campaigning in an election and getting out the vote on election day. Setting up a Facebook group pales in comparison to this list of assignments. That is why old style politicians like Harper and his supporters are, and will be able to dismiss groups like CAPP: Because they haven't shown their activism extends to the real world. But as the Obama campaisn demonstrates, such activism can make a huge difference, as soon as its practitioners engage in meaningful political action, on the politicians' turf. Or until we move the whole political process online.

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.

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.

Supplementary income

Times are truly getting tough in the print media business. The first body hit the floor in Calgary Thursday, Feb. 12, with the announcement that Calgary Inc., the business magazine published by RedPoint Media Group, will suspend publication in March. We are sorry to see the magazine go and hope there are no more announcements like this. But the economy is hurting everyone, the news business included, so its entirely possible there will be more casualties. On another front, journalists are having to resort to some new tactics to keep the wolf from the door. David Mayo, a sports columnist in Grand Rapids, Mich., had his own little safety net but that one is going to land him in court.

The hot breath of the news media

Pack journalism is apparently getting to be a little too much for the premier of Ontario. Dalton McGuinty Wednesday, Feb. 11 implored reporters and camera people at the Ontario Legislature to stand at least five feet back from him while scrumming. For non-Canadians, scrum is our word for those scenes in which the politician is tracked down in public and surrounded by press folks while taking questions. One Washington reporter of our acquaintance said these are called availabilities in the U.S. capital. That's a nice corporate term but we like scrum better. It sounds kind of sweaty and close and borderline dangerous, which is what accountability is usually like. Guess that was the problem in Toronto. It shouldn't long before the media handlers for other premiers, MLAs, mayors, aldermen, businessmen, lawyers, labour leaders and celebrities start getting standoffish as well. Too bad.

Erratum

Thanks to Kevin Green of SAIT's Radio Television Broadcast News program for pointing out that Montreal does have two English-language TV stations. Wrong information appeared in an earlier post on this site, So Long, Tom and Sally?

Images and the Law

An important issue for journalists, particularly those who work on the visual side, is unfolding in the U.S. just now. Resolution of this matter may go some way to determining whether journalists can be said to 'own' the work they create, or whether it becomes public property once they have published it and thus open to exploitation by others. The issue involves the well-known Obama Hope poster, which gained widespread circulation during last year's presidential election in the U.S. The poster was the work of a Los Angeles street artist, Shepherd Fairey, who basically took an image captured by freelance photographer Mannie Garcia for the Associated Press in 2006, reworked it to resemble his own graffiti style, and began circulating it. The Obama campaign never adopted it officially but its widespread use certainly did nothing to discourage support for the Democratic candidate, or interest in the creator of the poster. Earlier this month, The AP reportedly signalled its intention to sue Fairey for infringement of its copyright on the image, a standard big media tactic. The news service didn't follow through, however, and earlier this week, Fairey and his lawyers at the Fair Use Project at the Stanford University Law School, turned the tables by suing AP, claiming the poster was an allowed use under U.S. copyright law. At this writing, The AP had not responded formally to the suit. To complicate matters further, the photographer has been quoted in news accountsas saying he had no problem with Fairey's poster and felt the situation was "unique." Fairey, meanwhile, was the subject of a piece this week on CBC's The Current.
Journalists would be well advised to keep an eye on this one for a couple of reasons. Should a judge end up siding with Fairey that his use of Garcia's image was fair, it could open the way to widespread exploitation of material which had formerly been protected under law. All an artist, or anyone else for that matter, would need to do would be to give a photo a few digital tweaks and voila, an original work which itself could be protected by copyright law. (One nice potential irony here would be if someone were to rework Fairey's poster and gain the same protection for the do-over that he is seeking). Also buried in this maze is the perpetual issue of who actually owns work done by freelancers, the client or the contractor? I'm not clear on the state of the law on that one in the U.S. but in Canada, this issue has been a point of real contention in recent years and as far as I know hasn't been fully sorted out.

So long, Tom and Sally?

Could the days of local TV news be numbered?
Maybe. CanWest Global, Canada's big TV-newspaper company, which is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, announced last week (Feb. 5, 2009) it was putting five local TV stations on the sales block, including outlets in Montreal, Hamilton, Ont. and Victoria. All five stations are the only news stations in their respective markets, in English. With the recession in full cry and revenue plunging at all Canadian media companies, it isn't clear who, if anyone, might buy these assets and keep their local news anchors on the air. What it clear is that, without the local news coverage these stations provide, journalism in these communities may be about to take a hit, and that isn't a good thing. The same fate might be in store for numerous communities in U.S., according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. Maybe this is the time for our broadcast regulators to step forward and insist either that journalists with an interest in covering local news be granted space on the cable grids in their communities, on a free basis, or that the cable companies themselves be required to invest seriously in local news coverage as a condition of their holding licenses.

Evolution

There are a couple of interesting trends emerging in the Obama White House. No, we're not referring to the return of Big Government, or wide-open public works expenditures, or rampant environmentalism, although all of those also are very much on the agenda just now. The trends we're referring to have to do with the way the new president is communicating with Americans, and who is covering him.
Much has been made in the press, especially since the Inauguration, of Obama's communications style. Would he, commentators have asked, model his approach on that of Franklin Roosevelt, the last president to enter office in the middle of a Depression? In addition to emulating FDR's prescription for fighting economic crisis with wads of federal money, would he also seek to emulate FDR's communications strategy of holding regular fireside chats with Americans? It's still early days for the new president but the answer to the latter question is already in, and it is a resounding yes. Since taking office, Obama has been on TV and radio pretty much every day, talking about the economic crisis and what he wants to do about it. There have been some missteps and already some in the so-called chattering classes are dismissing all this message work as boring, old hat, or spin. But setting aside the predictable complaints, what is more interesting is the way the president is adapting his successful campaign tactics to his new situation. Of particular note was the town hall session on the economy Obama staged this past Monday, Feb. 9 in Elkhart, Indiana. I didn't catch all of it, but the clip I did see had the president, looking very relaxed and in his element, wandering the stage in the centre of a large, responsive crowd, mic in hand, talking about the eocnomy and the government's plans. Two things jumped out at me: I believe this was exactly how Obama used to conduct community sessions back in Chicago when he was a community organizer. Facing a big challenge, you build support for your leadership and your plan by talking to your community openly, not by communicating through intermediaries or the media. The format is perfect for a president who needs to build consensus and cultivate the appearance of openness without allowing himself to get bogged down in inside politics or the agendas of others. The president can sell his plan, and appear to be taking questions without actually doing so. It also looks great on TV. Here's a prediction that the town hall format will end up being Obama's version of the fireside chat. Secondly, the folks covering the new president are a notably different group than the old White House press gallery. Whereas Bush and previous presidents mostly faced a press pack made up of representatives of mainstream news outlets, the new group includes fewer newspaper and TV network reps, and many more people from so-called niche publications, many of which serve specialized audiences interested in coverage of particular issues. Some of these audiences are paying big bucks for quality information on their areas of interest, and many of the news outlets are delivering their information online. This, of course, means coverage will be more immediate, probing and critical, at least in the interest areas of the publications involved. But the overall White House news report is also likely to be more fragmented and, frankly, less interesting and useful to general audiences. This may well create major agenda-setting opportunities for a president who is already proving adept at getting his message out. But it may not end up serving the general public well, particularly in terms of making the new administration accountable on issues of concern to the broad community. Watching this situation play out over the next couple of years should prove very interesting.