A day in the life of a community newspaper journalist is one of contrasts.
On Tuesday, I started the day out having breakfast with the business community covering a speech by MP John Duncan on the softwood lumber war with the U.S. and a presentation to the Daybreak Rotary Club recognizing its Maritime Heritage Centre project. The (long) day ended with me covering the labour movement with the local teachers holding a rally outside the school district office. Start with business and end with labour. In between I labour to write stuff and layout pages.
I've been thinking a lot lately about tailoring our content to attract younger readers. It's an issue that newspapers all over North America are fretting about. There's lots of suggestions but few people actually doing anything concrete. It is a difficult thing to radically change your look and content to cater to a single demographic. Newspaper – and community newspapers in particular – have relied on trying to be all things to everyone so narrowing our focus is a risky business. You want to attract younger readers (who apparently are not reading traditional newspaper much any more) but you don't want to alienate loyal, older readers. A dilemma.
I did come across an exciting project that I think can provide me with a prototype to follow. It's a project by the Readership Institute and the Star Tribune in Minnesota wich developed prototypes for revamping your paper to make it more appealing to younger readers. I like what they do because I think it is a dynamic style that will appeal to anyone. Look for me to incorporate some of the suggestions.
In the meantime, if anyone has suggestions of their own as to what a community newspaper can and should do to appeal to younger – say twentysomething – readers, I'd love to hear them.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005
A sense of purpose needed
I'm too overly optimistic, I admit. While people are crying the blues around me about the disintegration of western society, I'm usually the first to say it's not that bad.
You hear it all the time. The economy is collapsing, crime is rampant (when it actually isn't), politicians are all corrupt (well...), public servants are incompetent, merchandise is crap. But I'm reluctant to join in the carping chorus.
In a cynic's profession, the one-eyed optimist is looked down upon with pity.
But even I have to admit that our nation is rudderless, tilting helplessly in the wind with no sense of direction or purpose. It's something that has been troubling me for some time and it took a song to crystalize it in my mind.
Legendary Canadian folksinger Ian Tamblyn (What? you've never heard of him? Now why doesn't that surprise me?) wrote a song sort of in response to Gordon Lightfoot's Canadian Railroad Trilogy. You know, that epic Lightfoot song (aren't they all?) about the building of the Canadian nation on the back of a railway from "sea to the sea." Tamblyn put Lightfoot's song in perspective with Once Upon a Railroad in which he sang of the last cross-country train ride. What strikes me about the song is the perspective it puts not only on the Canadian Railroad Trilogy but also on this country and the symbolism of the national railway. Now, I like trains but I never got too caught up in the preserve-every-stretch-of-rail-in-this-country sentiment of some people do. You'd think that every railway closure was like the loss of a national park or something. To me, trains were an outmoded form of transportation that nobody wants to use, so why hang onto them? Abandoned rail beds make better hiking and biking trails anyway.
Now other than the obvious symbolism of a national railway tying a country together, I didn't get what all the big fuss about the national railway was. Okay, it tied us together but we've moved on from that technology, so what? A country grows, a society evolves, get over it. Tamblyn's song, however, pointed out that the railway debate isn't about the past, it's about the future.
The national railway symbolizes a time when this country had a purpose. It had a dream, a concrete goal to achieve. For the first time in our short history, we no longer have a dream, a purpose or a goal. After the railway was built we set about industrializing our land (well, parts of it like Central Canada. The hinterlands were set up to serve the central core with resources).
Then the wars came and we united to fight evil. You can't beat fighting evil for uniting a country for a common purpose. Canada came of age during the wars, the Second World War, in particular. We became an efficient, productive industrial juggernaut as well as a military power. But it was all because we had a purpose – defeat the Nazis and restore order to the world.
Then the post-war era saw our economy leap forward on the back of abundant natural resources which we could sell off with near-abandon. We also cranked up our industry and the post war period of wealth allowed us to assert ourselves in the world. Education improved and we became a civilized and modern culture. Our purpose at this time became a peacekeeper, a pillar of civilization in a world wallowing in nuclear madness. We saw ourselves as a better people. Canada the good, to paraphrase a term that was used to apply to Toronto.
But now. Now, we can't be a peacekeeper because we can't, or won't, afford it. There is no evil empire to defeat and there is no national building project that we can undertake. Our best friend is also our biggest headache. And we're seen as a diminished force in the world. Our society is retreating into a sort of isolationism as our reputation takes a beating in the world. Internally, we gripe about each other. We're not unified in our approach to everything from medicare to economic development.
We have no vision of what we want to become. Given that there's a lot of dissatisfaction with what we are, the need to grow would follow from that. We could be satisfied with what we are. That's an option. We do quite frequently count our blessings and take pride in who we are and what we've got.
But in reality, there's a malaise in this country that seems to sour everything. We have no confidence in our political leaders to do the right thing. There seems to be few creative solutions to problems. Nothing gets resolved to a level that makes us stand back and go, "Impressive." Usually, our tendency to compromise means nobody is happy with the outcome instead of the proverbial win-win situation. Everything is half-measure.
The reason, I put to you, is because we have no purpose in life. We're not building anything concrete (figuratively and literally). We need a goal.
We're an ambitious lot. We want to be the best and we get cranky when we don't turn out to be (in our mind – ask a developing country if they'd like to trade circumstances and you know what the answer would be). But what are we going to be the best at? What is Canada going to do with itself? Continually fight to keep together? Is our biggest accomplishment each year the fact that we didn't spin apart into 10 or so different fragments? What kind of accomplishment is that?
I fear our lack of a goal will see us drift into a merger with the American federation. For every flare up of nationalism and national pride I see, I see two or more acceptance of Americanism. Now, this is nothing against the Americans. They are who they are because history, circumstance and ambition has built their nation. Americans are in no fear of becoming somebody else but we are.
Whenever we complain about our government it's because it can't build a free market economy that's like the U.S. economy. Our sports are minor league, compared to the Americans. Even our nation-defining medicare is a mess. Scrap it, let's privative health care like, well, like the Americans.
Of course, when you really analyze things, much of what we do is the best in the world but that current popular mindset is very negative and down on ourselves, no matter how unjustified.
But what? What, you say, should be our purpose? I'm interested in hearing some ideas.
Perhaps we should set a goal to be the most productive economy in the world. Or maybe we should set about to be the most ecologically efficient nation in the world. There is an economic impetus to do that. It's a matter of efficiency. Perhaps we should attempt, again, to eradicate poverty in children in our country.
Our goals don't have to be just or exclusively social. Perhaps we could take the Russian and American leads and set a goal of being a major explorer and user of space.
When I went to university, senior governments were being urged to get on board the new industrial revolution of digital technology. Maybe there's still time to revamp our economy and rid ourselves of dependence on resource extraction. Let's replicate what Japan did after the Second World War and become a major manufacturer.
Are these too small in scope? I don't know. It's hard to imagine a goal that would get everyone on board, given our social fractiousness. Maybe we need to disband this country and make it 10 individual nations? Heresy? Maybe.
What could be our purpose in the 21st Century. It's a question than Canadians are going to have to answer at some point.
You hear it all the time. The economy is collapsing, crime is rampant (when it actually isn't), politicians are all corrupt (well...), public servants are incompetent, merchandise is crap. But I'm reluctant to join in the carping chorus.
In a cynic's profession, the one-eyed optimist is looked down upon with pity.
But even I have to admit that our nation is rudderless, tilting helplessly in the wind with no sense of direction or purpose. It's something that has been troubling me for some time and it took a song to crystalize it in my mind.
Legendary Canadian folksinger Ian Tamblyn (What? you've never heard of him? Now why doesn't that surprise me?) wrote a song sort of in response to Gordon Lightfoot's Canadian Railroad Trilogy. You know, that epic Lightfoot song (aren't they all?) about the building of the Canadian nation on the back of a railway from "sea to the sea." Tamblyn put Lightfoot's song in perspective with Once Upon a Railroad in which he sang of the last cross-country train ride. What strikes me about the song is the perspective it puts not only on the Canadian Railroad Trilogy but also on this country and the symbolism of the national railway. Now, I like trains but I never got too caught up in the preserve-every-stretch-of-rail-in-this-country sentiment of some people do. You'd think that every railway closure was like the loss of a national park or something. To me, trains were an outmoded form of transportation that nobody wants to use, so why hang onto them? Abandoned rail beds make better hiking and biking trails anyway.
Now other than the obvious symbolism of a national railway tying a country together, I didn't get what all the big fuss about the national railway was. Okay, it tied us together but we've moved on from that technology, so what? A country grows, a society evolves, get over it. Tamblyn's song, however, pointed out that the railway debate isn't about the past, it's about the future.
The national railway symbolizes a time when this country had a purpose. It had a dream, a concrete goal to achieve. For the first time in our short history, we no longer have a dream, a purpose or a goal. After the railway was built we set about industrializing our land (well, parts of it like Central Canada. The hinterlands were set up to serve the central core with resources).
Then the wars came and we united to fight evil. You can't beat fighting evil for uniting a country for a common purpose. Canada came of age during the wars, the Second World War, in particular. We became an efficient, productive industrial juggernaut as well as a military power. But it was all because we had a purpose – defeat the Nazis and restore order to the world.
Then the post-war era saw our economy leap forward on the back of abundant natural resources which we could sell off with near-abandon. We also cranked up our industry and the post war period of wealth allowed us to assert ourselves in the world. Education improved and we became a civilized and modern culture. Our purpose at this time became a peacekeeper, a pillar of civilization in a world wallowing in nuclear madness. We saw ourselves as a better people. Canada the good, to paraphrase a term that was used to apply to Toronto.
But now. Now, we can't be a peacekeeper because we can't, or won't, afford it. There is no evil empire to defeat and there is no national building project that we can undertake. Our best friend is also our biggest headache. And we're seen as a diminished force in the world. Our society is retreating into a sort of isolationism as our reputation takes a beating in the world. Internally, we gripe about each other. We're not unified in our approach to everything from medicare to economic development.
We have no vision of what we want to become. Given that there's a lot of dissatisfaction with what we are, the need to grow would follow from that. We could be satisfied with what we are. That's an option. We do quite frequently count our blessings and take pride in who we are and what we've got.
But in reality, there's a malaise in this country that seems to sour everything. We have no confidence in our political leaders to do the right thing. There seems to be few creative solutions to problems. Nothing gets resolved to a level that makes us stand back and go, "Impressive." Usually, our tendency to compromise means nobody is happy with the outcome instead of the proverbial win-win situation. Everything is half-measure.
The reason, I put to you, is because we have no purpose in life. We're not building anything concrete (figuratively and literally). We need a goal.
We're an ambitious lot. We want to be the best and we get cranky when we don't turn out to be (in our mind – ask a developing country if they'd like to trade circumstances and you know what the answer would be). But what are we going to be the best at? What is Canada going to do with itself? Continually fight to keep together? Is our biggest accomplishment each year the fact that we didn't spin apart into 10 or so different fragments? What kind of accomplishment is that?
I fear our lack of a goal will see us drift into a merger with the American federation. For every flare up of nationalism and national pride I see, I see two or more acceptance of Americanism. Now, this is nothing against the Americans. They are who they are because history, circumstance and ambition has built their nation. Americans are in no fear of becoming somebody else but we are.
Whenever we complain about our government it's because it can't build a free market economy that's like the U.S. economy. Our sports are minor league, compared to the Americans. Even our nation-defining medicare is a mess. Scrap it, let's privative health care like, well, like the Americans.
Of course, when you really analyze things, much of what we do is the best in the world but that current popular mindset is very negative and down on ourselves, no matter how unjustified.
But what? What, you say, should be our purpose? I'm interested in hearing some ideas.
Perhaps we should set a goal to be the most productive economy in the world. Or maybe we should set about to be the most ecologically efficient nation in the world. There is an economic impetus to do that. It's a matter of efficiency. Perhaps we should attempt, again, to eradicate poverty in children in our country.
Our goals don't have to be just or exclusively social. Perhaps we could take the Russian and American leads and set a goal of being a major explorer and user of space.
When I went to university, senior governments were being urged to get on board the new industrial revolution of digital technology. Maybe there's still time to revamp our economy and rid ourselves of dependence on resource extraction. Let's replicate what Japan did after the Second World War and become a major manufacturer.
Are these too small in scope? I don't know. It's hard to imagine a goal that would get everyone on board, given our social fractiousness. Maybe we need to disband this country and make it 10 individual nations? Heresy? Maybe.
What could be our purpose in the 21st Century. It's a question than Canadians are going to have to answer at some point.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Blog fear?
I received this reply to a earlier to posting:
At 7:12 PM, Fearing Consequences said...
I Wonder if the lack of comment isn't because people are afraid they will be quoted in the paper.... after all, we all know ANONYMOUS opinions are considered invalid.
I don't know if this is a valid point or not. I thought one of the points of blogging is to get your point of view out there and/or generate discussion. I guess people can reply anonymously (as this responder did) or with a pseudonum. If I were to use anything generated by this blog in the paper, I'd confirm it with both the source and from alternate sources. I'd assume that anybody who signs their real name is not shy about having it used. But if anybody is sending a tip for a story or idea, I can assure their anonymity if that's what they want.
I have had two responses to my blog. Both were in reply to the Wal-Mart item. One was replied to from the blog site and e-mailed to my e-mail. I forget at this point whether it was anonymous or not. Once I'm finished posting this I can have a look from the blog page.
The other was from Coun. Morgan Ostler who was partially the topic of the Wal-Mart blog. She replied directly in person, though. It was a very interesting and enlightening conversation. Much has happened since she talked to me but one point I remember in particular was her comment about the seeming inconsistency of voting to allow Ocean Cedar to operate their mill on the estuary for another five years while, at the same time, opposing Wal-Mart on the estuary. Among other things about that she said that the presence of log booms didn't kill the salmon runs - bad DFO management did. All the while logs were being boomed on the Campbell River estuary for the better part of the last century, massive salmon runs were swimming underneath them heading upstream. It's a hard point to argue against. Overfishing on the ocean did more to kill the Campbell's legendary salmon runs than log booms.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart's rezoning application has been delayed to allow council to get more information from the applicant. It will be interesting to see what more they come back with and whether that will convince councillors to approve the rezoning. It certainly sounds like some councillors have reservations.
At 7:12 PM, Fearing Consequences said...
I Wonder if the lack of comment isn't because people are afraid they will be quoted in the paper.... after all, we all know ANONYMOUS opinions are considered invalid.
I don't know if this is a valid point or not. I thought one of the points of blogging is to get your point of view out there and/or generate discussion. I guess people can reply anonymously (as this responder did) or with a pseudonum. If I were to use anything generated by this blog in the paper, I'd confirm it with both the source and from alternate sources. I'd assume that anybody who signs their real name is not shy about having it used. But if anybody is sending a tip for a story or idea, I can assure their anonymity if that's what they want.
I have had two responses to my blog. Both were in reply to the Wal-Mart item. One was replied to from the blog site and e-mailed to my e-mail. I forget at this point whether it was anonymous or not. Once I'm finished posting this I can have a look from the blog page.
The other was from Coun. Morgan Ostler who was partially the topic of the Wal-Mart blog. She replied directly in person, though. It was a very interesting and enlightening conversation. Much has happened since she talked to me but one point I remember in particular was her comment about the seeming inconsistency of voting to allow Ocean Cedar to operate their mill on the estuary for another five years while, at the same time, opposing Wal-Mart on the estuary. Among other things about that she said that the presence of log booms didn't kill the salmon runs - bad DFO management did. All the while logs were being boomed on the Campbell River estuary for the better part of the last century, massive salmon runs were swimming underneath them heading upstream. It's a hard point to argue against. Overfishing on the ocean did more to kill the Campbell's legendary salmon runs than log booms.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart's rezoning application has been delayed to allow council to get more information from the applicant. It will be interesting to see what more they come back with and whether that will convince councillors to approve the rezoning. It certainly sounds like some councillors have reservations.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Wal-Mart continued
Protesters wave placards and express their displeasure about the choice of a lot adjacent to a Campbell River-side trail to build a Wal-Mart store. Photo: Paul Rudan/Campbell River Mirror
We continue to receive many letters regarding Wal-Mart's plan to build a store on the banks of the Campbell River.
It's become a hot issue with the unique angle that the most prominent complaint is the location of the building on land "in the Campbell River estuary." The community has spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions on rehabilitating both the estuary and the upper reaches of the famous Heritage River. Locating the Wal-Mart store and its parking lot on that land could impact the river, if not with seeping pollutants, then certainly visually.
There is a popular walking trail along the actual bank of the river and if the Wal-Mart is built on the adjacent lot (it used to be a dryland sort for a logging company), then the parking lot and the building would dominate the inland visual field. If opponents are unsuccessful in convincing city council to reject the developer's rezoning application, then I, personally, would want to see Wal-Mart plant a visual buffer of trees so that you couldn't see the building.
It's interesting to see that this is all coming down to a rezoning application. Council could reject it but I find it hard to believe that council will do that given that Wal-Mart has been negotiating with the city for some time now and, also, given the city's close relationship with the Campbell River Indian Band which owns the land and wants to develop it. It's hard to imagine that council could be so blind as to not see the potential uproar the store location would generate. I could also see that the Band would be rightfully furious if council were to reject the rezoning. Presumably, all parties have been talking about this for some months and to have council pull the carpet out from under the plan at this stage, would be a surprise to all parties I'm sure.
But that's where the public sentiment is these days. A protest rally on Tuesday drew over 150 people demanding the rezoning be rejected.
This issue is not your run of the mill oppose Wal-Mart battle. Many of the protesters don't object to Wal-Mart on the grounds that they are accused of killing competition and using forced Chinese labour, they're more concerned with the environmental implications.
One of the organizers of the rally is city councillor Morgan Ostler. To see her rally the opposition at this date is curious. Did she not speak out against the location during the previous months of negotiation with the big box giant? Why is she coming out with it now? Has the tide of public opinion prompted her stance on this issue? It's an election year.
This one's going to keep burning for a while.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Blogging's a bust
Managed to get around to checking my blog today.
It's been about a week. I'd almost forgotten I had it. I'm not getting much response. I wonder if there's many bloggers in Campbell River. This blog has been linked to our newspaper's Web page but so far no hits. At some point I'm going to promote it but I'm afraid to make a big deal about it and have nobody care.
Oh well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I'm interested in anything people think we're missing in the area. Did you see something intesting? Something piss you off? Questions about anything? Let me know.
I'll check back more often. Bye for now.
It's been about a week. I'd almost forgotten I had it. I'm not getting much response. I wonder if there's many bloggers in Campbell River. This blog has been linked to our newspaper's Web page but so far no hits. At some point I'm going to promote it but I'm afraid to make a big deal about it and have nobody care.
Oh well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I'm interested in anything people think we're missing in the area. Did you see something intesting? Something piss you off? Questions about anything? Let me know.
I'll check back more often. Bye for now.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Sea lice, Wal-Mart and letters to the editor
Well, the Mirror's editorial page is burning up with missives vollying back and forth over sea lice on salmon and the arrival of Wal-Mart.
The sea lice debate is over who's got the accurate information. As is always the case in these debates, both sides quote either directly or anecdotally, experts and data that conclusively prove their case. For readers (include editors in that group too), it can be a confusing and daunting mish mash of reports and statistics. To determine your own position on the issue, you would need to go to those original reports and read them all. That is one shortcoming of the letters to the editor feature. It's not the place to quote or regurgitate data. It would take up too much space – more than what the paper has to offer. Sometimes we will run long letters on an issue but we're not prepared to provide any one letter unlimited space. The sea lice issue is a hotly contested scientific debate that not only has the general public debating the pros and cons but the academics as well.
Is there a conclusive position on the issue? Probably not at this stage. As a result the two sides lob their expert reports back and forth.
The letters to the editor space works best when people just express their opinion. Yes, it's good to back it up with data but the data doesn't need to be quoted or included. Just tell us how you feel about the issue in general. It's a good idea to direct people to where they can do further inquiry but leave the academic debate to the academics.
Meanwhile, the impending arrival of a Wal-Mart store in Campbell River is beginning to heat up the letters space. Now, this is an issue that is light on statistics and heavily weighted in favour of how you feel about big box stores. There are some studies out there that have been alluded to (as to whether Wal-Mart kills or doesn't kill smaller businesses) but for the most part, the debate is following along the lines of the impact the retailer will have on the character of the community. I still think that most people in Campbell River are supportive of or ambivalent towards the store but the letters are proving that there is some strong feeling against the store out there.
We will continue to watch both debates with interest.
The sea lice debate is over who's got the accurate information. As is always the case in these debates, both sides quote either directly or anecdotally, experts and data that conclusively prove their case. For readers (include editors in that group too), it can be a confusing and daunting mish mash of reports and statistics. To determine your own position on the issue, you would need to go to those original reports and read them all. That is one shortcoming of the letters to the editor feature. It's not the place to quote or regurgitate data. It would take up too much space – more than what the paper has to offer. Sometimes we will run long letters on an issue but we're not prepared to provide any one letter unlimited space. The sea lice issue is a hotly contested scientific debate that not only has the general public debating the pros and cons but the academics as well.
Is there a conclusive position on the issue? Probably not at this stage. As a result the two sides lob their expert reports back and forth.
The letters to the editor space works best when people just express their opinion. Yes, it's good to back it up with data but the data doesn't need to be quoted or included. Just tell us how you feel about the issue in general. It's a good idea to direct people to where they can do further inquiry but leave the academic debate to the academics.
Meanwhile, the impending arrival of a Wal-Mart store in Campbell River is beginning to heat up the letters space. Now, this is an issue that is light on statistics and heavily weighted in favour of how you feel about big box stores. There are some studies out there that have been alluded to (as to whether Wal-Mart kills or doesn't kill smaller businesses) but for the most part, the debate is following along the lines of the impact the retailer will have on the character of the community. I still think that most people in Campbell River are supportive of or ambivalent towards the store but the letters are proving that there is some strong feeling against the store out there.
We will continue to watch both debates with interest.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Welcome
Hi, this is a new blog designed to get my paper and myself into the blogosphere (if I'm using tha tterm correctly). I'm hoping this will be a useful forum and source for dialogue, opinion, ideas and information. If you see or hear something you think people should know about affecting the Campbell River area, please let me know about it. If you want to express your opinion about something you read in the Mirror or somewhere else, publish it here.
I want this to be interactive and lively, so join in and take a proactive approach to disseminating information and opinion.
I want this to be interactive and lively, so join in and take a proactive approach to disseminating information and opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)