Self-styled rabble rouser Sean Holman, who I saw yell at Northern Voice back in 2005, has run a speculative story about the dismissal of Victoria Times Columnists writer Vivian Smith.
To recap the story, Smith wrote a column raising questions about the value of visiting some well-established Victoria tourist destinations and suggested some alternate, free attractions. Tourism industry representatives sought and got a meeting with the Times Columnist publisher, Bob McKenzie, and a day later Smith was sacked. Now that's good gossip!
(Here's Holman's copy of the full column with the correction the Times Columnist ran on the front page (!) the next day.)
It's funny the journalists are always going on about journalists' ethics - their perpetual decline, their currency, their transgressions - when in fact it's the ethics of journalism organizations that need to be scrutinized and upheld to ensure good reporting. Individual reporters often get singled out from the herd and held to account but organizations have inbred self-censoring practices that influence what we see, read and hear far more than misguided individuals. The person with the by-line is rarely the spiker of the story. More often it's the editor or producer who teaches the reporter what is acceptable to cover and how it should be covered.
Watch the coverage of the BellGlobeMedia - CHUM merger in their respective outlets to see what I mean. No one speaks in anything but reverential terms for the Thomson family, who control BGM. Moses Znaimer always gets held up as a transitioning visionary.
No one looks at the real story here - that it's a consolidation move by two companies in uncertain times to get together and cut costs. They both play the same crappy imported TV and make most of their money off the media oligopoly. CHUM news reporters stand up and are poorly lit while CTV news reporters sit down amid a neutral pallette. CHUM plays cheap, sci-fi serieses shot in cheap locations, cheap-to-license D-list movies, cheap local programming and rehashed pop culture pap from its other channels. CTV plays the same with some Corner Gas, Canadian Idol a few government-funded movies of the week mixed in. I can't see the difference, can you see the difference?
Strategy decay is a facinating thing to witness. Watch the media industry flagellate right now and you'll see it. The merger of BGM and CHUM will yield some short term gains in profit due to cost cutting, then the revenues of the consolidated enterprise will continue to erode, just as advertising revenues across all media except the web are currently eroding.
Why? People don't watch as much TV, read as many newspapers, and listen to as much radio. The value of those vehicles to reach people is degraded. The effectiveness of those vehicles to influence opinion and behaviour is revealed as suspect at best. The various mainstream media outlets in Canada have homogenized themselves so well telling mindless, boring stories that they deserve their fate or reduced relevance.
Doesn't anyone remember the promises of media synergies?
Posted by James Sherrett at July 13, 2006 09:37 AMUnfortunately journalists and editorial staff don't do themselves any favours either.
Case in point ... the article in question is less about Victoria's free attractions than about Ms. Smith's resentment of the tourism industry's commercialization of her home town. Otherwise the article would have conformed to the traditonal 'inverted pyramid' style of newspaper journalism, i.e. put the most important points up front (lest the latter parts get cut in copyfitting).
Further to you point about the person with the byline, a good editor (and publisher) would demand better from a "respected" and experienced journalist than an emotional harangue against pricey tourist attractions, with information that's actually useful to local readers tacked on as an afterthought.
So what, really, if Ms. Smith thinks Butchart Gardens charges too much for admission, and the Empress too much for tea? That's their business, and those who pay for it. Ms. Smith and the papers should mind their own.
If the article's focus truly was Victoria's free attractions, as the aggrieved parties claim, then the last paragraph would have led ... and the word count would have been taken up with more detail about them than with kvetching about pricey tourist attractions.
But then, it's easy to criticize the front lines. Bottom line is, if the paper's leadership doesn't care about quality, why should the workers?
Posted by: PM at July 14, 2006 09:27 PMBut if the tourist attractions are overpriced, surely that is news. It is the business of newspapers to print information...all kinds of information, as long as it is true. Looking at whether Victoria has become overcommercialized at the expense of free attractions is a legitimate angle.
Posted by: raincoaster at July 16, 2006 04:28 AM'But if the tourist attractions are overpriced, surely that is news.'
No, it is not news, it is opinion.
'It is the business of newspapers to print information...all kinds of information, as long as it is true.'
Then it would print just the prices and let readers decide for themselves whether or not they are overpriced.
'Looking at whether Victoria has become overcommercialized at the expense of free attractions is a legitimate angle.'
Sure it is. But the article doesn't make any kind of a case about the detrimental effects on free attractions. It is really mainly about the author's displeasure with commercial enterprises charging people more than she thinks they should to enjoy Victoria. So why not admit it? Hiding behind the right to publish facts to justify the publication of opinion is just plain disingenuous...and a detriment to the craft.
Posted by: PM at July 27, 2006 06:28 PM