Now The Details

Next Generation Ombudsmen: Not Just for Media

2011-12-12T09:11:00.001-05:00

The idea of having an independent agent for the public is spreading beyond the world of media - especially these days.

The Occupy Wall Street movement evokes a powerful resonance for Ombudsmen: Can public concerns be heard and acknowledged by corporations, institutions and governments? News Ombudsmen have long believed this to be an essential aspect of responsible journalism.

Reputational maintenance seems to be a strong motivation. There are fears that any admission of error could unleash an instinct for litigation. Yet the presence of a news ombudsmen has been shown to reduce law suits, not encourage them.

For media watchers, the Leveson Inquiry into the activities of Murdoch-owned publications in the UK is fascinating to behold. Dozens of journalists have been summoned to testify before the inquiry. Other journalists have been charged in connection with the phone-hacking scandal. The Inquiry is not expected to hand down a decision for some months.

In Australia, a government inquiry is also looking into similar issues around how the media behave. It's assumed that in both countries, there will be recommendations for a more pro-active form of government-encouraged regulation. Media managers in other countries are paying close attention to the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry. Some news organizations are already beefing up their interactions with the public with more online openness. This may be too little for a public clamoring for significant changes beyond a real seat at the table.

While the journalistic lapses committed by the Murdoch empire are serious enough, the financial upheaval around the world has other serious consequences that may be more long-lasting and damaging.

And so some interesting thinking and discussions have begun:

These involve how to create institutional ombudsmen inside financial and other organizations. These can be both classical ombudsmen who act as agents for the public as well as organizational ombudsmen who act as advocates for fair process for internal constituencies, to help create cultures of trust, candor and accountability within these organizations.

Just as news ombudsmen do.

The value of corporate ombudsmen is evident: ombudsmen can act as an early warning system when financial and media organizations lose their sense of obligation to shareholders and/or the public. In doing so they can obviate the need for whistle blowers (both inside and out) by nurturing these positive cultures rather than simply condoning more conventional cultures of compliance.

Some companies that have successfully implemented the organizational ombuds role. But more needs to be done. For some banks, that particular barn door has been open for quite a while now. And many in the financial industry assume that once the financial insecurities are dealt with, then it can be back to business as usual. That scenario seems unlikely.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is clear about the urgency for banks, governments, large public and quasi-public institutions to hear what the public is saying. And it's not just a "feel-good" issue: a Canadian research group, Samara, has just published a study that shows that when public institutions remain unresponsive, it creates a sense of civic disengagement, lower voter turnout and higher public cynicism.

Simply hearing those voices may not be enough to reaffirm public confidence. It would be a start. But it may not be enough. Public confidence in institutions has been so shaken and so damaged by ethical lapses, that having a traditional ombudsman perceived as just an institutional maître d' may not be enough. The public doesn't want to be shown to a table. They want to sit down and eat.

Ombudsmen will need to be more pro-active, and more willing to identify the failings and weaknesses of media, banks, universities and governments. This may be a more vigorous and activist form of ombudsmanship than we have seen in the past. But the past, it is said, is another country. We are in a much different place these days and ombudsmen need to acknowledge that.

What if CBC Were More Like PBS?

2011-11-29T21:52:00.000-05:00

A lot of nervousness in the Canadian public broadcasting community these days.

Conservative MPs - emboldened by their newly achieved majority status in Parliament - are going after the CBC once again. This time, it's about the CBC's long-time refusal to open its accounts to more public and political scrutiny.

The issue has been - for the moment - defused. CBC President Hubert LaCroix handed over some documents to members of the House of Commons Ethics Committee. Tory MPs - spurred on by Canada's own wannabe Rupert Murdoch, Quebec media baron Pierre-Karl Péladeau, and the bullying of Péladeau's house organ, Sun Media, have been hectoring the CBC over its refusal to reveal how it spends the $1.1 billion budget. (About two thirds comes from an annual Parliamentary appropriation).

At first, the CBC maintained that certain information was highly confidential especially about staff salaries. (Full disclosure: in 2010, my declared earnings from the CBC were around $3500 for commentaries on information programs). Tory MPs were particularly interested in how much the CBC's stars earn. Presumably, a lot more than $3500. The CBC still refuses to release that information but it may eventually be forced to.

Now the issue is more high-minded: the CBC says it is concerned that the Committee not reveal the names of journalistic sources some of which are in the documents.

MPs agreed. They will not look at those names, but they insist on knowing more about how much is spent by the CBC on salaries and non-programming line items such as entertainment expenses. This may yet come out.

And there's more pressure from the government. Some Tory MPs are now speaking about a more radical restructuring of the CBC and its mandate. In effect, to make the CBC look more like PBS and less like the BBC.

If this were to be proposed, the public outcry would be loud and long, especially where Radio-Canada (the French-language arm of the CBC) is concerned. Radio-Canada has a unique and highly popular profile in the cultural life of French Canada in general, but particularly in Quebec. On air talent are superstars, more in the European sense. Public acclaim (even for Radio-Canada journalists) is always sky-high among Quebeckers.

In English Canada the response would be different.

If the changes to come from the government had an impact on CBC TV alone, the outcry would likely be a lot more muted. This is because television in English Canada is not seen to be a beacon of the country's highest cultural aspirations. As CBC TV over the years has increasingly sought to be seen as a media heavyweight, especially in entertainment, it has lost much of its cachet among the intellectuals who once supported it. This is usually dismissed as by CBC management as "elitism." But losing that stratum of Canadian society has meant a major decline in support for the CBC overall.

CBC Radio on the other hand, enjoys a level of loyal support among the grass roots and the elites that remains strong. It resembles the support in Quebec for Radio-Canada - both radio and television. The Tories would have to tread very carefully to avoid creating an ideological issue that would be difficult to manage. Interestingly enough, NPR has not been able to garner the same level of popular support as CBC Radio, but NPR retains significant support among elites, possibly even more than CBC Radio.

But the question of what should happen to CBC TV remains crucial: what if CBC TV (which has long annoyed whichever party is in power) did become more dependent on the public for its financial support? Is this an altogether bad idea? Might it force CBC management and program makers to rethink the strategy that has put them in this predicament? The implications are huge.

In the short term, are Canadian facing the prospect of pledge drives, matching grants, fundraising and all the annoying accoutrements of US public broadcasting?

During a pledge drive, regular programming is interrupted by an appeal for money by station employees, who ask the audience to make their contributions, usually by phone or the Internet, during this break.

Audiences usually decline during these events. Public radio has found a way to make
pledge drives a bit more programmatic, even entertaining. It hasn't completely worked, but it is better than it once was. The "beg-a-thons" have been replaced by some witty and self-deprecating shows...shows that still ask for donations (albeit with humor)...

Having manned the phones at local public radio stations in the US to take calls from listeners calling in to pledge $35, $50 or maybe even $100 (wow!), I was impressed with the spirit that public radio supporters have and the listeners' deep knowledge of the programs and the journalists. Public radio drives are often more successful than public television appeals. In some cases, where the station is a "joint licensee" (radio AND television) the money raised by radio drives is diverted over to bolster the needs of the TV side.

Pledge drive and fundraisers by themselves, do not support public broadcasting. Public donations only count for around 22% of a station's budget needs (on average).

In fact, PBS stations are not doing well financially. Some are in serious financial trouble. A few have had to sell their licenses to pay off their debts. The reasons are complex. In the end, PBS stations are just less connected to their communities, compared to public radio. Public television stations produce relatively little local programming and almost none have news departments. Public radio stations usually have newsrooms.

Another complication: in Southern Ontario and specifically in Toronto, the Buffalo based PBS station - WNED raises a considerable amount of money from Canadians. If CBC TV were forced to compete and raise money from the public, this would undoubtedly have a serious impact on the border public television stations. Many PBS stations count on the remarkably generous support of Canadian viewers who in turn might be disinclined to support the CBC.

Finally, if CBC were forced to compete, as the Tories apparently wish, there is no question that there would be layoffs in the creative and journalistic communities across the country.

CBC TV has locked itself into an untenable situation: it has claimed that it must be popular to merit the $1.1 billion budget. But to do that means that it must look a lot like every other commercial broadcaster. So it's not unreasonable for the Tories to ask, why support a public broadcaster that resembles its commercial rivals?

On the other hand, the goal of public broadcasting can't just be about jobs. It has to be about citizenship and excellence. CBC Radio (and NPR) seem to have found out that you can be both excellent and popular at the same time. Is it really beyond the ability of television to do the same?

Are Newspapers Killing Journalists?

2011-11-01T20:09:00.000-04:00

Rosie DiManno

Well, yes, according to Rosie DiManno, a columnist for the Toronto Star.

DiManno attributed the recent death of Earl McCrae, 69, a longtime Ottawa Sun columnist, to the stress of multi-tasking.

"...faced with the multi-tasking demands of our profession in this integrated media era, he’d first filed the online audio version of his story. So I blame Quebecor (the Montreal-based owner of the Sun Media chain) for what was lost to print journalism."

But wait! There's more, according to DiManno. Newspapers owners are also killing the entire newspaper industry, along with their employees. It's quite a read.

DiManno goes on to attack the buyout of the previous publisher of her own newspaper. She also thinks that the "Occupy Wall Street" movement should occupy newsrooms to restore some common sense and old fashioned newspaper values back into the business.

To the barricades!

The former science correspondent of the Globe and Mail, Stephen Strauss thinks this is all tosh. He sent off a missile to the Star which may or may not get published. So in the interest of fairness (and a personal friendship), I reprint here:

This column may well make it into the Why Newspapers Went Extinct Hall of Fame. Its basic argument is that in the year 2011 there is nothing about print newspapers’ futures which cannot be attributed to the greed of publishers and owners. The technological changes that drive readers to read, and listen and view news on-line? A piffle. Flights of advertising to web-based sites? A passing breeze. The rise of a whole set of skills which weren’t required in the past? Don’t get me talking about that.

All of this is tied to a 69-year-old reporter’s heart attack which Rosie, based on nothing as far as I can tell, decides wouldn’t have occurred if he just was trying to meet a print deadline.

What Rosie doesn’t seem to get is that given their druthers, newspapers wouldn’t have changed anything ever. That probably should be EVER. Their old business model was not just comfortably profitable, it was exceeding, exceeding comfortably profitable. A 20 per cent return on equity was often the norm. The “sky is falling scenario” she scorns is a panic based on the realization that what worked in the past isn’t going to work in the future. If people want multimedia information and newspapers only work in one media, reader/viewer/listeners are going to go elsewhere. (And indeed have). If advertisers link up with websites that people go to when actually wanting to buy a product, there is going to be less money to pay her and her like. If bloggers and twitterers and iPhoners put up information for free, paying for a newspaper (maybe) makes no sense.

This is not an imagined crisis. This is what Schumpeter calls creative destruction. But Rosie believes – mainly based on the supposition that she has been doing things a certain way for so long and is so comfortable in working like that that she shouldn’t have to change – today’s news revolution is a conspiracy. She reminds me in this of copyists and scribes who decried the death of beautiful handwriting and page illustration which the printed page brought on. I cannot say that the multi-media expertise news organizations now demand is going to work out in the long run. I cannot say that good writers won’t always be bad video interviewers and vice versa. I cannot say twittering is here to stay. But I can say that Rosie DiManno’s career path is dead. When she talks to the “young’uns” it should be almost apologetically, begging their forgiveness for a work life they are never going to have no matter how much they want it.

I've asked my students to decide whether DiManno or Strauss has it right.

NPR's Free Speech Dilemma

2011-10-21T21:26:00.000-04:00

Lisa Simeone

Just when NPR thought the Juan Williams fiasco was behind them, another issue concerning the First Amendment rights of employees has arisen. This time it involves someone on the cultural side of the organization - a talented on air host called Lisa Simeone.

Unlike Juan Williams, Lisa Simeone is not an NPR News employee and her work and voice are not heard on any NPR News programs. Juan Williams, you may recall, was fired from NPR for statements he made as a commentator on Fox News.

This time it involves Lisa Simeone, a freelance announcer who has been the host of "World of Opera" and a documentary program called "Soundprint" - both programs are produced by member stations and not by NPR.

For some months, Lisa Simeone has been part of the "Occupy DC" movement. She also appeared on a youtube video as a spokesperson for the cause. At no time in the video is she identified as a public radio broadcaster. Juan Williams, on the other hand, while in the employ of NPR, was on Fox regularly as a paid pundit and was identified by Fox as an NPR News analyst.

Williams' appearances on Fox, and his opinions were frequently the subject of complaints to me as the Ombudsman. During my tenure, management demurred and preferred to allow Williams to express himself, along with other NPR journalists who would appear on other media. I made my opinion known to management, but to no avail.

Earlier this year, Williams seemed to go too far when he stated that when he sees Muslims at airports dressed in their "traditional garb", it makes him nervous. NPR summarily fired Williams for that statement but did so in a way that appeared to some observers to violate his First Amendment rights.

Simeone has been involved in the Occupy movement for months so her profile has been higher than that of the rank and file. According to the Baltimore Sun, she saw no conflict between her work as a broadcaster and an activist:

"I'm not an NPR employee ... I'm a freelancer. NPR doesn't pay me. I'm also not a news reporter. I don't cover politics. I've never brought a whiff of my political activities into the work I've done for NPR World of Opera. What is NPR afraid I'll do -- insert a seditious comment into a synopsis of Madame Butterfly?"

My own view has been that NPR is right to question Simeone's role as an activist. The public views NPR essentially as a news organization and the nuances of public radio are lost on most people outside the organization. NPR employees - staff or freelance - have a right to their opinions; they do not have a First Amendment right to work for NPR.

But a learned legal friend in Washington informs me of a ruling called the Pickering Balancing Test. He writes: If NPR is a governmental actor, it raises First Amendment issues. The courts apply the "Pickering" balancing test, weighing the government's interest with the individual's right. If her NPR commentary is limited to opera, what is NPR's interest in getting her fired for this?

Pickering was a New York State civil servant (a corrections officer) who decided one day to fly a Nazi flag from his from porch. His employer (the State of New York) told him not to. He sued and the court ruled that Pickering's First Amendment rights trumped any efforts by a government body to restrict his speech.

That seems clear but can demonstrating for a cause would create widespread doubts about NPR's public mission as a broadcaster? In the Pickering case, flying a Nazi flag by a civil servant would not cast doubts on the government who employed him (I assume). The State of New York does not advocate the Nazi philosophy. But could NPR be reputationally affected by the statement of its employees attempting to exercise their First Amendment rights?

If NPR management assumes that an employee who engaged in free speech would damage NPR's reputation for excellent news coverage, even slightly, they could ask that person to desist.

But after the Pickering case, the employee would also have the right to refuse.

The Modern News Ombudsman: A User's Guide

2011-10-10T08:07:00.000-04:00

(This is an excerpt from the soon to be published Handbook for News Ombudsmen. Details on how to obtain your copy will be available on the ONO website www.newsombudsmen.org.)

INTRODUCTION: What is a news ombudsman?

The loneliest job in the newsroom

Anon.

Why should your media – or any media organization for that matter - have an independent news ombudsman? And why would anyone want this job, which to the uninitiated can seem like being the grumpy in-house scold?

From the beginning, there is the idea – inherent in the position itself – that there must be something wrong with the news organization in the first place, or why would management bother to create this position?

Many journalists, when faced with the prospect of having to deal with an ombudsman, assume that management is simply fed up with having to deal with complaints, so someone has been hired to handle the traffic and catch the flak.

And the public might also see the creation of an ombudsman as a tacit admission that the newspaper, website or broadcaster is admitting that it is a flawed enterprise.

While some of these assumptions may on occasion, be true, the reality is often quite different: all organizations – media or otherwise – can suffer from an affliction known as “groupthink.” This is the delusionary idea to which all organizations are occasionally susceptible. It is the notion that inside the newsroom, whatever happens must be for the best, in this best of all possible media. And that anyone who says otherwise, must be mistaken, or an outsider who can’t or won’t understand how well-intentioned the organization really is.

A news ombudsman is not there to confirm the worst suspicions of the public, neither to placate management, nor to support the newsroom.

An ombudsman is there to act as a counterweight or antidote to the natural assumptions of any organization that everything that happens is usually for a good reason or is done for the best of motives.

An ombudsman is there to ask simple questions: “Are you sure?” “How do you know?”

S/he is there to connect the public with the media organization to assure that the content produced is of the highest standards. And if not, why not? The readers, listeners and viewers deserve no less.

Those of us who have done the job all have stories about what works and what doesn’t. This handbook is to help new and still active ombudsmen navigate through the cross currents of 21^st century media. It is also a guide for students of journalism, as well as interested members of the public. When it comes to high-quality journalism, we are all in this together.

Before we do, that vexing issue of gender and language needs to be acknowledged.

“Ombudsman” may evoke strong feelings from those who feel that the word excludes women from the job. Far from it. The word itself is Scandinavian in origin. Even so, the word may have implications that don’t sit well with our 21^st century sensibilities; for some, it may imply that a woman’s place is not in the newsroom. That’s why some prefer a more accurate and neutral phrase such as “readers’ representative,” “public editor” or “readers’ editor.” In the Organization of News Ombudsmen we feel no particular ownership of the word. There is no sexist or discriminatory implication here.

The important thing is that the job is done and done well, by those of ether gender who occupy the position, whatever it may be called.

Not every ombudsman does the job in the same way. But some similar challenges and dilemmas occur. We’ll try to identify the most helpful suggestions. One thing all ombudsmen share: a powerful commitment to making journalism better by letting the public inside the process of information gathering, editing and distribution. There can be no finer goal.

The Organization of News Ombudsmen and the Open Society Institute are supporters of this handbook. Both believe that excellent journalism is predicated on that concept. Given the state of journalism today, being an advocate for that ideal can be tough. But the future of journalism itself and, by extension, democracy itself, are ultimately what is at stake right now.

That is why ombudsmanship matters.

Journalism in a Dangerous Place

2011-09-30T10:54:00.000-04:00

Here is my script on the challenges of reporting in Moldova, aired this week on CBC Radio's "Dispatches."

INTRO: What happens when journalists from Russia, Ukraine and three South Caucasus republics get together? They surprise themselves - and a visiting Canadian professor with how far they have come.

The purpose? To talk about media self-regulation. Which is prof-speak for how to make media more democratic, more independent and more responsive to the needs of readers, listeners and viewers.

Jeffrey Dvorkin reports on what he found in south eastern Europe earlier this year.

Chisinau is the capital of Moldova – a former Soviet republic squeezed up tight between Romania on the west and Ukraine on the east. Not exactly the land that time forgot, but not exactly on any high traffic tourist routes.

Chisinau charmingly exudes a sense of “old Europe” – it has wide boulevards, huge trees, marvelous centuries old Orthodox churches and flower boxes everywhere. But a closer look shows why Moldova is still the poorest country in Europe.

At first it looked like the construction crews working on the roads quit early the day I arrived… Sidewalks more rubble than pavement. As I hauled myself and my suitcase from the taxi into the hotel over the broken concrete, it occurred to me that I could easily break an ankle trying to go for a walk any time of day. At night, don’t even think about it unless you are carrying a flashlight. And street lighting is non-existent, except for the neon glare from what are advertised as “casinos.”

They are bright enough to shed some light on the street and inside you can catch a glimpse of a bar leaned on by waiting women. The repetitive sounds of Euro Pop pound onto the streets. Every block has at least three or four of these joints but they are in fact fronts, I was told, making Chisinau the most active center for human trafficking in Europe and the Middle East.

My self-consciously “hip” guidebook only alludes to this by saying that Chisinau has an abundance of BMWs and Mercedes and quote ”fashionably dressed youth who strut down boutique-lined avenues and dine in fancy restaurants.” Where does all this flaunting of wealth come from? “You don’t wanna know and we ain’t asking” says the entry. So much for the helpful guidebook.

So Moldova is not exactly a journalistic utopia where independent media thrive. Doing journalism here, I was told, is a deliberately bold act – and sometimes a dangerous one as well.

As a result, much of the newspaper business is simply a variation on slightly safer themes like sports and sex. If you thought that some of the English tabloids were risqué, they are nothing compared to the Moldovan media.

Television is mostly sports and cable talk shows in Russian or Romanian. There is some independent online media. Some bloggers have tried to get write about this, pointing to high levels of official corruption. But they tend to get beaten up if they get too close. There have even been a few unsolved murders. Blogging without government sanction is technically illegal. So there isn’t much of it. New media still feels like the “samizdat” or underground journalism of the Soviet era.

I met with a number of bloggers who wanted to know how it is done in the West…how lucky we are to practice journalism without fear. Some have left to try their luck in a more supportive and slightly more open journalistic environment in Moscow! Now there’s a shift!

The journalists who stay in Moldova are remarkable men and women who know what they need to do but are somewhat unsure of the best way to do it. The light at the end of the tunnel is called “civic journalism.”

The problem is – no tunnel. Not yet.

So the challenge for the media here and in other former Soviet republics is two fold: how to give government more confidence that independent journalists can be trusted, and second how to give the authorities fewer reasons to return to the bad old days of Soviet-style censorship.

Even so…Some curious and distinctly un-western ideas were floated at the meeting:

We heard from a colleague from Romania how earlier this year, a law was proposed in her country: all registered journalists would have to submit to a psychiatric examination every three years. This was how journalists would stay licensed by the state. Fortunately that distinctly loopy idea was defeated.

Some of the people at the conference were not surprised by this suggestion: psychiatry has a long tradition in the former Soviet bloc of being used as a means of civic repression. It’s an indication of what journalists in the region have to deal with.

Another dangerous notion: why not create ethics guides that journalists would have to agree to in order to get jobs in journalism. Those who refused would be declared “unethical journalists.” That would not necessarily deny them work. But it wouldn’t help them either. Some of us at the meeting suggested that this was also too Soviet. So it was dropped.

We from the west tried to steer the meeting in another direction. Especially toward ideas that would not get result in either prison or murder: We suggested press councils and independent news ombudsmen. Those were ideas that were enthusiastically endorsed.

And we also started a conversation about the value of starting small. Looking at some of the immediate issues that touch people in Chisinau every day. Like, well, what about the sidewalks? And the lack of street lights? Doing stories like that might just be sort of journalism to help citizens restore their trust in their newspapers and broadcasters.

We talked about how there actually is a direct connection from broken sidewalks to broken lives. A year from now, my guess is that these journalists might also be doing stories on human trafficking and why the authorities are tolerating that.

For Dispatches, I’m Jeffrey Dvorkin in Chisinau, Moldova.

Is Double Dipping Ethical?

2011-09-24T21:21:00.000-04:00

I received the following note from a journalism student who has been assigned a class project about conflict of interest.

The student asked me for my take on it. Here is the problem the student received:

You've just been transferred off the medicine and health beat for a Toronto daily and are now writing about municipal politics.

You get a call from a contact at the Canadian Medical Association, who asks you if you will write, anonymously, a brief to be presented to the federal government advocating the privatization of selected sorts of medical services now covered by medicare. Medicine is an area you know well.

The CMA will pay you $15,000 to write this brief, and you can do it in your spare time in less than a month. You are behind on your mortgage and, despite repeated attempts by your union to increase salaries at your very profitable paper, they rank well behind some other unionized papers in smaller, and less expensive Canadian cities.

You'd never realized that contract writers for lobby groups earned such large fees, but your contact tells you this is quite a standard rate. She says it can be a very lucrative line of work, but adds that anyone considering it 'shouldn't quit their day job until they've built up a bit of a track record, because no one wants to hire someone who hasn't proven themselves.'

Do you accept the CMA offer? Why?

Here is my response:

First as a reporter, your primary obligation is to your employer. S/he should know that you have been approached. There should be no double-dipping. It is unethical and compromises your journalistic independence. If your editor says s/he doesn't mind, find another line of work. This reveals a lack of standards at your newspaper.

Second, there is no such thing as anonymity when it comes to lobby groups. Even if they claim that everything will be kept confidential, how do you know?

Third, there may come a time when the lobby group may ask for another favor that is more difficult to do. But you have taken their money once. What's to stop the lobby group from making your previous relationship public?

Finally, you have to choose whether you prefer to make the big bucks as a hired hack or whether you still think journalism has some value.

You could of course, do the work, and give the money to a charity, but once you have taken the money, you are caught and are henceforth in the paid service of the lobby group. They don't care what you do with the money. The point is, you took it and now you are on their hook.

Conclusion? You could do it, but there are real and long lasting consequences.

* * *

As I thought about it, I wondered why this was deemed to be an ethical issue at all? It seems very straight-forward to me. Is there something more nuanced here that I have overlooked?

It reminded me that when I was NPR's ombudsman some years ago, I was approached by a large California based p.r. firm. I was asked to give a speech on accountability to the annual general meeting of a major defense contractor.

The speaking fee was enormous (by NPR standards). I said I would do it, but I said that I wouldn't/couldn't accept the money, nor the plane ticket (first class) nor the boutique hotel reservation. I told them I would be happy to come.

Two days later, the offer to speak was withdrawn.

Evidently, there are strings attached everywhere, even if they aren't apparent at first.

Why So Few Female Ombuds?

2011-09-19T19:24:00.000-04:00

One of the pleasures of this job is that I get to speak to up and coming journalism students around the world.

Their optimism and their clarity about journalism's strengths, gaps and its ability to make a difference can be truly inspiring.

Recently I spent some time with undergraduates at the School of Journalism at Stony Brook University on Long Island, New York.

I fielded a lot of good questions such as how ombudsmen can possibly operate in an environment of heightened competition among media and in this time of deepening public skepticism and hostility? Tough questions with no easy answers.

One question today was particularly pointed:

Why are there so few women ombudsmen? asked one (male) student.

It's true that if you go to the website of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, the preponderance are male.

There may be many factors that contribute to this situation: while I found being on ombudsman a fascinating place to be (for a while), many people in the news organizations (male and female) told me that they didn't know how I could stand the pressures: taking shots from the public and the newsroom; enduring personal abuse; being caught between the defensiveness of the journalistic culture and the offensive demands of the public. It is true it can be wearing.

I don't think that being a male is a prerequisite for taking on the job. On the contrary, many ombuds were and are women who proved themselves to be just as tough and tough minded as any one had to be in that role.

But to respond to the student, I think the really answer lies in the demographics of newsrooms.

Not today's newsrooms. But the newsrooms of the 1970s and 1980s.

Most ombudsmen happen to be senior (aka older) journalists. That means they entered the workplace when men predominated in news organizations. As the work force ages, more women should achieve positions of authority in management and as ombudsmen/women.

If news organizations decide to appoint ombudsmen who are younger, there would quickly be more females among them.

And that is what we are seeing now - more women who have proven their journalistic worth, being appointed to those roles in their media organizations.

I would look forward to that, because it might change the dynamics of how the public interacts with the media. The red meat critics that I had to deal with might just be a bit more civil if a woman answered the phone and said: "Office of the Ombuds. Ombuds X speaking."

The Media's Moral Panic Over Child Abductions

2011-09-16T07:59:00.000-04:00

Kienan Hebert

A horrible story from British Columbia last week, but one with a very happy ending:

In a small town in southeastern BC called Sparwood, a 3 year old boy was snatched from his bedroom one night by a man who according to police, has a history of sex crimes.

People were in a justifiable state of anxiety as this is every parents' nightmare. But the outcome was as ideal as possible: the child, Kienan Hebert, was returned to his home a few days later, at 3 am by the same man who took him away. The alleged perpetrator was caught and has been charged. He will appear in court in six weeks after a psychiatric examination.

Randall Hopley

Randall Hopley, 46, was led into a crowded courtroom last week, where he was charged with abduction of a child, breaking and entering and breach of probation.

Outside the courtroom, a small crowd picketed. Signs called for the death penalty to be brought back for crimes against children.

The story was, as they say, too good to check: a beautiful little boy is taken from his bed by a seedy looking suspect who police say is a local drifter with a history of anti-social behavior including stalking, and sexual harassment.

While all right-thinking people can sleep a little easier now, there are a number of aspects to how the media handled this story that should keep most journalists and media managers awake at night:

This was an ideal media story. It allowed for the framing of this story in order to ramp up the public's fear of sexual predators. As usual, there was not a lot of context provided as to whether this was a single incident or a pattern? Without answering that question, the public's fear is only heightened.

Some questions remain: How was the child brought back to his parent's house at 3 am without anyone being at home? Where were the parents? Why was the house left unlocked?
Did the police make arrangements with the alleged kidnapper for the return of the child? Has this happened before in this area? Did the police handle the case well or poorly?

The media covered the story intensively but without much context about missing and abused children as a phenomenon.

In the US and increasingly in Canada, there is a growing level of hysteria on this issue. The
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Arlington, Virginia has been funded by Congress to inform the public on this issue. But in many ways, the Center also promotes hysteria around this issue.

It claims that 800,000 children go missing in the US every year. But a closer look at the numbers reveals something else: There are around 100 children murdered by strangers in the US annually. That's shocking enough. But far from the epidemic of murderous abductions that many believe is ongoing. Most are kids who runaway return home within 72 hours. They have been reported missing to police or the FBI. But the media rarely reports their return.

A study in Slate showed that the so-called epidemic of abductions is largely a media myth that often serves the police to create that sense of moral panic. The media also is complicit in this especially when the victim is young, or female and blonde.

Those are the preferred victims who gain media attention.

Dozens of young native women have vanished while hitchhiking in northern British Columbia. But the media seem unwilling to spend any time or money on that issue.

Are Universities Unwitting Enablers of Idiotic Ideas?

2011-09-09T12:32:00.003-04:00

Last week, Ryerson University in Toronto hosted a four day conference of "Truthers." The conference was devoted to exploring and advocating the notion that 9/11 was an "inside job" and that the Bush administration, the CIA and the bicycle riders were behind it. (Well, not all bicycle riders...just the ones who, you know...).

Ryerson has one of the best journalism schools in Canada and I was delighted to be a Visiting Professor there from 2008-2010. But something about having Ryerson hosting this conference is both unseemly and unjournalistic.

In an interview in the Globe and Mail with one of the organizers (a professor of religious studies at McMaster University), this gathering seemed more about faith than facts. Mostly it seemed to be an excuse to indulge in another bout of anti-Americanism. Not so far below the surface of course is Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as the underlying cause of terrorism.

Which seems to be the point: are the origins of Middle East terrorism only about American policy in the region? Or is it about how so-called western values evoke and provoke Middle Easterners? Not easy questions with easy answers.

For the "truthers," the reality seems overly complicated. Like many today who find our present plight unbearable, "truthers" seek simple answers to complex issues. Conspiracy theories are an easy way out.

In some ways, "truthers" bear an uncanny resemblance to Holocaust deniers. They also claim It never happened. And if it did, there must be some reason that "they" are keeping from them.

Holding a "truther" conference the week before the 10th anniversary of 9/11 is offensive enough, but holding it on the site of one of the best journalism schools in the country is doubly odd. The fact that no new ideas or evidence were presented seems to be only about mutual psychological reinforcement rather than helping understand what happened and why.

Of course, some will say there are good, free speech reasons to hold a conference about unpalatable views and where better than on a university campus?

Universities have an obligation to be more than intellectual telephone poles, mutely standing there transmitting all signals. In this instance, Ryerson, in my opinion, did a disservice to the concept of open public inquiry and was actually offensive to the memory of those who died ten years ago this weekend.

Are Laytonistas and CBC Supporters The Same People?

2011-08-26T21:35:00.000-04:00

There is a genuine and rarely seen phenomenon occurring in Toronto right now: the extraordinary public expression of loss for a politician who the media often dismissed as a left wing Don Quixote.

In the streets of Toronto today, I saw dozens - maybe hundreds of people teary-eyed, emotional, speaking fondly of the late NDP leader. Thousands are lining up to pay their respects at City Hall where Jack Layton's body is lying in repose.

Saturday afternoon, a state funeral is planned for Roy Thompson Hall, Toronto's premier concert venue. Several thousand are expected, with a spillover crowd to be accommodated in a nearby park and inside the capacious CBC atrium.

Historically, in English Canada, the electoral success of the NDP was always marginal. After every election, NDP leaders would talk about how being in third place was a "moral victory."

Jack Layton changed that in the last election by garnering enormous support in Quebec. But his popular vote in English Canada, while slightly improved, was unchanged from the traditional low to mid teens. It was the landslide in Quebec that vaulted the NDP into second place with 26% of the popular vote and the role of Official Opposition in Ottawa.

So why this public keening for a leader who, while well-liked, was never really popular enough to win big?

The chalk graffiti around Toronto City Hall tells the story: I think Canadians in general and Torontonians in particular are seeing the death of Jack Layton as symbolic of other losses:

A loss of municipal social cohesion as a right wing mayor, Rob Ford is a distinctly odd representation of a city that always prided itself on its progressive values.

A loss of a national figure able to articulate the higher social aspirations of its citizens. Gay rights, public services, bike lanes - Layton espoused all the elements dear to the left.

Canadians may not have voted for him, but they were glad he was there. He was a contrast to Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper who is unable to articulate much passion or vision at all.

And without acknowledging it, Layton's departure represents a threat to another national institution - the CBC.

It may trouble upper management at the public broadcaster, but the people who are mourning Jack Layton are exactly the same people who would - given the right circumstances - speak out against the decline of the public broadcaster. If CBC management understands this, they are unwilling to acknowledge it.

There is a certain Princess Di quality to all of this: the loss of someone who embodied a certain view of the people. The acres of graffiti at City Hall are an expression of a build up of a mass emotionalism - bordering on hysteria - which as in England, the powers that were, could not understand.

Back in 1997, the BBC missed the story for days, and eventually, it was the public's demand for a deeper and more intense media treatment that forced the BBC to cover the story differently. And better.

The CBC (and the other national networks) also missed the intensity of public response at the beginning. They are now in full official mourning mode and covering every aspect of this extraordinary public expression.

The sense of loss in the streets of Toronto remains palpable and powerful, and that is what is driving the coverage now.

Jack Layton's Obit: An Excuse for Bashing Leftwing Bias in the Media?

2011-08-24T07:27:00.002-04:00

The outpouring of sadness and regret for the death of NDP leader Jack Layton has been remarkable. Layton was a unique politician, a man of the left whose integrity and passion for the working class was in the best tradition of English Canadian socialism.

Less remarkable is the nasty and mean-spirited attacks by The National Post and Sun Media. It's too soon for them to attack Layton as they did when he was alive. So they are going after the other media and especially the CBC, mostly for its alleged socialist tendencies dressed up as eulogies.

Now there may have been a few reporters who got caught up in the emotion of the story. And not all of them were on the CBC.

But the story is almost entirely emotional and has plenty of pathos. Consider these elements:

Layton was only 61.
He just ran the most effective campaign in Canadian political history.
He wiped out the separatist vote in Quebec, pulling it almost entirely to the NDP through a combination of his own charm and the idea of social justice - still a major draw in French Canada.
He pushed the Liberal Party into third place.
He made the NDP the Official Opposition in Ottawa for the first time in Canadian history.
He died before he could realize his political ambitions for himself and the party.

Those are compelling story lines for any newsroom.

Layton had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and just before the election was called, he had a small fracture in his hip that required surgery. Despite those ailments, he ran a brilliant campaign. Three weeks ago he called a news conference to announce that "another" cancer - never identified - had been found.

So his death was sudden but not unexpected. But it had all the hallmarks of a great journalistic drama. If you were to write a focus statement about Layton's death, it had all the emotion necessary. And Canadians always have enormous sympathy for an underdog, especially when he dies unexpectedly.

Terry Fox is also a similar sort of national hero. He was the one-legged cancer victim to tried to run across the country but died en route. Canadians identify intensely with Terry Fox and I think they will with Jack Layton as well.

Has the media been pro-Layton? Well, yes. The media has also been given a story that has enormous emotional potential. It is, at the same time, sad and ironic. And that fits the national psyche better than any nasty tone that some media are trying to evoke.

More Accountability = Less Privacy?

2011-08-18T20:43:00.000-04:00

I received an email from a young woman who made a mistake. She was arrested and charged with breaking and entering. The charges were dismissed, and the local newspaper wrote it up.

She has asked my advice re: her local newspaper's refusal to remove the story from the website. She is convinced this story will damage her employment prospects.

I'm repeating our exchange (but removing any identifying features). I think this is fairly typical of how our media are contributing to a rapidly but inevitably changing concept of privacy. I'd be interested in how others regard this young woman's dilemma and what responsibility does the newspaper have in this case.

Here is her email:

Dear Mr. Dvorkin,

I am writing to you because I need help. I was arrested back in (xxx) of this year for B&E. It was a stupid mistake and more-or-less a case of "curiosity killed the cat" - and what was supposed to be the night of my going away party, gone wrong. The charges have now been cleared and my issue is with a online news source - ......

I have contacted ...... regarding the police brief report they posted on their website which included my name and the charges. The article is now archived and when someone searches my name on Google, it is one of the hits that comes up.

Long story short, I made a really stupid mistake. I am a recent graduate of a... program from ... College. I worked hard for 3 years in the program to graduate at the top of my class with a 3.95GPA. I've also worked hard building a reputation for my photography work and have done many Pro Bono gigs for non-profits and small businesses. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not a criminal and I've worked hard to get where I am.

I am writing to you to ask your advice. I have contacted the news editor, ..., as well as three other people within the ..... organization regarding my name in the archived article. I am now working for one of the largest law firms in Canada, and I don't want my name showing up under the police briefs when someone searches my name.

I've asked that they either remove the article, or edit the article to remove my name. I was told that this is public information and ... would not edit the article; however, ... did update the article to reflect the charges have been dropped (moving google priority in the search up and making things worse). I don't understand why ... will not edit the archived article - it brings no additional traffic to their site and provides serious consequences for myself.
After getting no results with the editor, I contacted three other people from the organization, all of which told me I would have to resolve the issue with (the editor).

Please help me. I know the information is public, but it's a matter of ethics and the repercussions the article has had, and will continue to have, on my reputation. I've done two days in jail, 2 months of bail conditions, lost out on a $400 train ticket, and have racked up $2,900 in lawyer fees and $500 in charges already because of this ordeal - not to mention the emotional stress. I want to be able to move on without having to worry about this article.

Please, any information or guidance you can provide me regarding this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Signed.

Here is my response:

Dear Ms. .....,

I appreciate the dilemma and the frustration that you are facing. But I think that
overall, the online paper has been correct in not "unpublishing" the story.

News ombudsmen and media ethicists have wrestled over this
one ever since news organizations started posting everything on the internet.
Now that Google and Yahoo can aggregate everything in perpetuity, the question of
privacy has become everyone's dilemma. Recently, Kathy English, public editor at
the Toronto Star weighed in -
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/publiceditor/article/1029335--english-the-long-half-life-of-news

When you say "I don't understand why ... will not edit the archived article - it brings
no additional traffic to their site and provides serious consequences for myself",
you are missing the point. The issue here is not monetary. It is about the role of the media as a reflection of society.

If (....) did this for you, one could legitimately ask, "who else are they doing it for?"

As a general principle, the public's right to know should trump the need for privacy. Should it
in every case? There are always exceptions especially for people who are not in the public eye.

Should it in yours? As you say, you made a mistake that most people would say was
simply an instance of youthful foolishness and hijinks. Do you deserve to be punished beyond what is reasonable? Most people would say no, since your academic record and history of civic engagement seem to be exemplary.

However we live in an era where there is less privacy and more scrutiny.
In your case, the news organization did the right thing by noting that the charges
were dismissed. In addition, the new information is prominently displayed at the top of the story.

I sense your discomfort, but you can't have it both ways: the record has been
corrected; and at the same time, the record is now more evident.

If it is any consolation, in looking for your name on the (....) website, it was not readily apparent. Also when I did a search for your name on google, your usual social media links were shown. Nothing about the event in question.

My guess is that a prospective employer would have to dig fairly deep
to be able to make the connection.

The consequences of your actions are probably minimal; the real consequence is that
you will have to live with uncertainty.

I wish you well, but I can't say that this has been handled incorrectly.

There is one other way you might proceed, which is to contact the Ontario Press Council
http://www.ontpress.com/ and see if they might advocate for you. Their executive director is Don McCurdy and his email is donmcc@sympatico.ca.

Signed.

Lament for a Notion: On The Further Hollowing Out of the CBC

2011-08-11T07:23:00.000-04:00

In Toronto's media circles, the subject of the CBC can still come up over coffee and beer, but not as often, or as passionately as it once did.

An exception to that was a posting by Tim Knight who excoriated CBC TV's nightly newscast for its over the top coverage of the recent royal visit and the minimizing of the end of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. I thought it was a timely critique.

Located on a lively website called J-Source, Tim's essay was powerful, as were the comments which evoked many strongly felt positions, some opposing, but most in support. It was heartening to read that the public broadcaster could still summon up those feelings. Tim's lament combined with a similar piece from a young tv reporter for CTV, Kai Nagata who quit the private broadcaster for reasons similar to Tim's. This generational bookend of media criticism is worth noting, given the state of television journalism in Canada right now.

But as Howard Bernstein writes in his blog, it may be too little, too late as the CBC continues down the path toward the "unbearable lightness of broadcasting." Howard notes that even longtime supporters of the CBC in Atlantic Canada (a traditionally strong region of pro-CBC sentiment) are now suggesting that it may be time to sell it off.

In the midst of all this is Sun Media - the so-called Fox News North which obsesses nightly about the CBC. Recently, a federal cabinet minister Vic Toews attacked the CBC for its refusal (correct in my opinion) to broadcast the names of suspected war criminals in Canada.

Sun Media picked up on that theme to hammer the CBC once again.

While attacks on the CBC from elements in the Conservative government are not unusual, what was disturbing was how the minister described the CBC as the "state broadcaster" and not the public broadcaster. This assumes that the CBC must behave as a government propagandist and not as the BBC-modeled independent agency that it is supposed to be. Nor did I see a press release from the CBC correcting the minister for his "error". As I mentioned a few months ago, the CBC ignores this phenomenon at its peril.

Sun Media is having an effect. CTV now actively planning to create a program or two that will be all bloviating and little reporting to try to shift some of that market over to its side of the media fence.

When that happens, what impact will that have on the CBC? The public broadcaster now increasingly tends to follow trends rather than set them, as it once did.

Murdoch's Moral Panic

2011-07-23T11:46:00.000-04:00

As the strange and compelling tale of Murdoch's Missing Management continues to play out, we are waiting to see who in the News Corporation food chain will end up being thrown to the legal, political and media lions.

In the meantime, the stock market value of the Murdoch empire continues to rise, as shareholders support the idea that an explanatory conclusion is emerging. Once it does, stability will be restored along with profitability.

At the same time, questions about the continued suitability of the Murdoch family as stewards of the business also begin to surface.

One aspect that hasn't been discussed is how News Corporation overplayed its hand editorially speaking by its constant and obsessional playing of the story that Britain is being overrun by sexual predators and that the government must do something about this.

This is a classical example of creating an environment of moral panic.

Moral panic was first defined as by Stanley Cohen, in his work, Folk Devils and Moral Panics. (1987). He said that it is a sporadic episode which, as it occurs, subjects society to bouts of worry about the values and principles which society upholds and which may be in jeopardy. He describes its characteristics as "a condition, episode, person or group of persons [who] become defined as a threat to societal values and interests."

The media often engages in bouts of moral panic when they go on crusades to clean up crime, government waste or other such concerns around which the public can rally. And not co-incidentally, see the media as their protectors.

Murdoch's media outlets have been beating this drum around sexual predators in the UK for a number of years.This, in spite of the fact that the reported crime rate for sexual offenses has remained stable and even gone into a slight decline over the past ten years, according to Home Office statistics.

Other media in other countries have also indulged in this, including Australia and Canada where crime rates have fallen, yet crime reporting continues to climb.

News Corp has shown itself to be adept at manipulating public opinion, by needlessly hyping public concerns to drive up ratings and circulation.

At the same time, media induced moral panic pushes public opinion to the right. It then is no accident that collusion between the media and government result in a position of mutual benefit: more crime reporting = more social anxiety = more conservative voters.

And in the UK, it worked pretty well, until the News of the World hacked into Milly Dowler's cell phone.

How Mainstream Journalism Kept NOTW Going: Or Getting Away With Murdoch

2011-07-10T16:37:00.003-04:00

Rupert Murdoch

Only second to the joys of a Pulitzer or a Peabody, is the delight journalists feel when the mighty get their comeuppance.

As News International and Rupert Murdoch get theirs, newsies everywhere are raising a glass of fine old Chateau Schadenfreude (2011 vintage).

It gets worse (or better, depending)...

Since News International is a US-registered corporation, it could be charged in America too.

If it can be proven that Murdoch executives allowed its journalists to bribe British police in pursuit of scoops, this would be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. According to an interview on the BBC, this could put Rupert Murdoch in the dock in New York where News International has its headquarters.

It's being called British journalism's version of the "Arab Spring" - a powerful and once unassailable power has gone too far and is now paying a considerable price.

The phone hacking scandal, the complicity of senior managers and the encouragement of boards of directors and shareholders allowed this to continue for years.

But truth to tell, we are all complicit in these dubious practices. We hesitate to be critical of fellow scribes, even if we think their practices are silly or worse. Under the banner of free speech, we permit all sorts of practices to continue even if we silently disapprove.

And who among us didn't chuckle at the over-the-top headlines in The Sun, the NOTW, the New York Daily News or the New York Post. We admire them for their brass and their willingness to be shocking...something the rest of us wouldn't or couldn't do.

News International's journalism practices aren't confined to print. Fox News allows its hosts to express some of the most scurrilous rumors and remarks. The same values that corrupted Fleet Street tabs have also spread their disdain for responsible journalism on this side of the Atlantic as well. And we still don't say a word.

* * * * *

As of last Friday, Denise Donlon is out as executive director of CBC Radio. Chris Boyce is Radio's program director and he will take over her responsibilities.

Donlon was appointed by former head of English service Richard Stursberg in 2008, but since he was fired last year, much of his management structure is slowly being changed by his replacement, Kirstine Stewart.

There are some similarities here with the recently removed President and CEO of NPR, Vivienne Schiller who was fired in March.

Schiller, like Donlon came into the job from the private sector. Both were expected to replicate the successes they achieved in their previous posts - Schiller at nytimes.com and Donlon at MuchMusic and Sony.

Both achieved those limited goals: Schiller made npr.org into one of the premier new media sites in the US; Donlon was less successful, but made controversial changes to CBC Radio's music offerings by downgrading classical music and accentuating Canadian pop and indie music. But both executives failed to see that NPR and CBC Radio are more than a website or a music playlist.

Those changes and others did not please CBC Radio's core audience. That displeasure has not been lost on the Canadian regulator, the CRTC, which has had more than an earful from angry listeners.

It is scheduled to hold license renewal hearings for the CBC this September.*

---------------------

Update: CRTC hearings for the CBC's license renewal have been postponed till June 2012. The ostensible reason is "impending budget cuts," according to Minister Jason Kenney and it would presumably unfair to hold hearings until the extent of the cuts is known.

Shock Horror: "News of the World" Shuts Down! "The Sun" Also Rises...

2011-07-07T13:58:00.000-04:00

After weeks of media, political and legal attacks on the outrageous and unethical practices of the editors and reporters of the storied London tab, (aka "Screws of the World" for its constant interest in the prurient and the salacious), publisher James Murdoch announced that this Sunday would be the paper's last edition.

Murdoch is of course, the son of media press baron Rupert Murdoch and only the Murdoch family would have the brass to do this, claiming that the N.O.the W. newsroom was out of control (sic).

In a fit of public abasement, the Murdochs have announced that all (rapidly diminishing) advertising revenues from Sunday's paper will go to worthy charities.

However rumors abound that another paper in the Murdoch stable will quickly fill the gap. The daily paper "The Sun" is even now, being prepped to go seven days a week. Yesterday the name "The Sun on Sunday" was copyrighted and journalists at "News of the World" have been told to get ready to apply for their jobs at the soon to be announced Sunday paper.

At the same time, the British government will announce two commissions of inquiry. One will look at the legal aspects of what the "News of the World" did, with possible criminal charges to follow.

The second commission will look at how well or poorly the British media are at self-regulatory journalism and whether the introduction of independent news ombudsmen will henceforth be a required for all media organizations. Now that would be a commission worth watching.

Meanwhile all eulogies for Murdoch and his empire are premature. He may have overstepped the bounds of decency in this case and his managerial minions are deserving of firing or worse.

But images of Rupert quietly retiring to Australia are highly suspect. Not with an American election just over a year away.

The Curious Case of DSK and French Intelligence

2011-07-01T11:50:00.000-04:00

When this story broke in mid-May, I was attending the annual conference of the Organization of News Ombudsmen in Montreal.

It was grist for the journalistic mills of the attendees, naturally. Responses to the charges of sexual assault against an African chamber maid were fascinating and of course, culturally specific.

Our colleagues from France and Québec were openly skeptical of the charges, while Anglo-Americans saw it as another example of sexual politics and hypocrisy at their worst.

Having been in Guinea in June 2010 to do journalism training and consulting, I was aware that West Africa has a long and sometimes rocky relationship with French intelligence. I also saw first hand how French embassy staff actively engaged with journalistic and electoral outcomes.

The successful candidate in the first free elections since independence from France was Alpha Condé who also has had close relations with France throughout his political career. This did not stop various dictators from jailing Condé from time to time, despite whatever connections he maintained with France. His democratic bonafides appeared solid and his election was a logical outcome.

France has maintained a watchful eye on all of its former colonies in Africa, occasionally intervening militarily to oust dictators, rescue French nationals and always to defend its economic interests. A serious French politico-military presence is a fact of life in sub-Saharan Africa and it could be argued, done better than many similar attempts at influence by the Americans.

So in Montreal it came as no surprise to me to hear our French colleagues state that there must be a French intelligence link to the Guinean chamber maid. While the Anglos scoffed at the time, the idea has been revived today by a no less serious American journalist than Christopher Dickey writing in The Daily Beast.

It stretches credulity to think that the French president himself would try to undermine his most credible opponent from the Socialist Party in this way. But French politics have a rich history of conspiratorial thinking and activities going back to the 4th Republic (1947-1958) and beyond. Could the DGSE (Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure) have been tasked to connect with Guinean expats in New York? Seems far-fetched but in these times, perhaps not.

And mid-level bureaucrats have a history in many countries (even in the US, Britain and Canada) of being "serviable," as the French say, while giving their masters "plausible deniability".

The Media and the Vancouver Riots

2011-06-19T23:47:00.000-04:00

I've been trying to understand how the Vancouver Riots of June 15th came about. There have been some excellent and thoughtful commentaries about what happened and specifically, my former CBC colleague Claude Adams has written one of the best.

While much has been said about the combination of factors including the consuming of too much alcohol downed by thousands of young people, suburban anomie, lack of police preparedness, etc., one other key element needs to be considered.

The uncritical and over the top media coverage of the NHL in general and the Stanley Cup playoffs in particular were, in my opinion, serious contributing factors to the mayhem that showed up in downtown Vancouver earlier this week.

No one news organization is more at fault than another, but all Canadian media - radio, television and print - share the blame for inciting a culture of violence.

Kovach and Rosensteil in their seminal book, "The Elements of Journalism," say journalists need to keep the news in proportion and make it comprehensive. Coverage of the Stanley Cup was anything but.

The media ramped up the emotionality of the story by playing to middle class Canadians' sense of nationalism, even anti-Americanism. The Canucks were frequently referred to as "Canada's Team." The CBC's Don Cherry is a long time proponent of keeping the game physical. Newscasts on all channels led with stories of heightened expectations, pumping up the volume of the story as the seventh and final game approached.

Newspaper headlines concentrated on this story to the exclusion of anything else, even as the Greek economic meltdown, the war in Libya and the e.coli outbreak in Europe all had strong Canadian angles that were never pursued because the stories themselves were largely ignored.

CBC TV, as the broadcaster of the series on their longstanding show "Hockey Night in Canada" went all out. It was undoubtedly a huge domestic story. But it was also a colossal moneymaker.

According to the Toronto Star, CBC garnered some of its largest audiences ever (6.2 million for the sixth game) and was therefore able to charge $140,000 for 30 second spots - an enormous amount by Canadian standards. CBC News played an unquestioning and supporting role by hyping the event and never really committing much journalism. Instead there were the inevitably soft features about enthusiastic Vancouverites and the sale of Canuck jerseys.

While there has been some reporting earlier about the rise in concussions in the NHL, caused in part by a faster game, that kind of reporting disappeared almost entirely as the Stanley Cup playoffs were underway.

It wasn't as though the series was a croquet match.

Jeff Z. Klein and Stu Hackel of the New York Times called it "the most rancorous Cup finals in a couple of decades. It was less about the best hockey of the year and more about biting, taunting, slashing, cheap shots, late shots, high-sticking, slew-footing, diving, embellishing, brawling, trash-talking and name-calling. Pushing and shoving after the whistle became the norm, and by the end, the teams had combined for 342 penalty minutes, the most in Cup finals since 1986."

But hardly any of that appeared on air or in print as newsroom across Canada drank the NHL Kool-Aid by sending out a strong message that this is how hockey should be played and woe to anyone who thinks otherwise.

So when thousands of people decided to behave outside the arena in much the same way the game is played, it sounded hollow for newscasters and editorialists to tut-tut about violence on the streets when the same media had been sanctioning it on the ice for weeks.

CBC: "Value for Money" = Deepening Commercial Values

2011-06-17T07:13:00.000-04:00

According to the Canadian Press, "the CBC released a study Wednesday (June 15) that pegs their gross impact on the Canadian economy last year at $3.7-billion. The analysis by consultants Deloitte & Touche LLP was commissioned by the public broadcaster in connection with their latest five-year strategic plan."

The goal of the study, according to CBC President Hubert Lacroix is to show that for every dollar the public broadcaster receives from the government, it generates another $3 in related economic activity.

This study was commissioned in anticipation of license renewal hearing before the Canadian regulator, the CRTC. D & L concludes that the CBC presence is actually good for other commercial sectors, saying it can operate as a beta site by developing new technologies and promoting digital content, especially in the Montreal area.

That's the good news.

The problem with the study is that it presumes that the values of the commercial sector now apply completely to the public broadcaster as well.

This puts the CBC on very perilous ground. By establishing commercial benchmarks against which it will henceforth be judged, the CBC must now prove itself to be an undoubted commercial success. And that can only mean more programming that imitates the commercial sector and fewer programs that don't.

But if the CBC falters due to a shaky economy, or is forced to implement a vigorous round of cost-cutting from the now emboldened Conservative government, the CBC-haters will point to this study and accuse the public broadcaster of failing, based on its own standards of commercial viability.

Despite this study, members of the Tory caucus such as Jason Kenney are still accusing the CBC of being profligate and Toronto-centric.

Interestingly, the BBC also commissioned Deloitte & Touche a few months ago which also came up with almost exactly the same conclusions that the BBC is value for money. That study also unleashed attacks from the Tory ranks, accusing the BBC of being "south-east centric."

According to The Observer on March 11:

The BBC will retaliate against cuts in its budget this week by claiming that its contribution to Britain's economy grew 5.6% to top £8bn last year, delivering well over £2 of value for every pound in fees from television licences.

As the former Conservative minister Lord Patten prepares to take the chair of the corporation, the BBC will step up its efforts to justify the licence fee, arguing that far from being a drain on taxpayers, its activities in commissioning programmes, buying services and supporting creative activities act as a net positive for the nation's finances.

A study by the accounting firm Deloitte will conclude that the BBC's UK activities generated £8.1bn of economic value in the last financial year, up from £7.7bn the previous year. And its "net" contribution – taking account of a simulation of activity that would replace the BBC if licence fees were scrapped – has grown to £5bn, up 14.9% compared with the results of similar research a year ago. Licence fee income is around £3.6bn per year.

In spite of efforts to broaden activities away from the south-east, the BBC remains highly London-centric – Deloitte found that 69% of the BBC's gross economic contribution remained in the capital, although benefit to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all increased. The BBC is trying to reduce its south-eastern focus: by 2016, half of network TV programmes and 40% of radio spending are due to be made outside London, partly through a move of five departments to Salford.

As the BBC and the CBC move away from their public broadcasting mandates, they may discover that being commercial cross-dressers will guarantee them neither love nor money.

In Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus, who controls the media?

2011-06-13T09:37:00.001-04:00

Over the past week, I attended a conference held in Chisinau, the capital of Moldova. There were journalists from Moldova, Azerbaijan, Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Georgia, and it was sponsored by the Council of Europe.

The Council is part of the European Union and its goal to connect the issues around civil society and democracy and especially how media can be part of the process.

Moldova is a landlocked post-Soviet republic, tucked in between Romania and Ukraine. Media and civic society in the region are making valiant efforts to emerge from a journalistic culture which has been deeply intimidated and deformed - first by decades of Soviet repression and now by a rampant commercialism. The urge to move into a better, more democratic place, is there, but how?

Right now, these countries have built informal networks committed to media self-regulation. In effect - independent media. But it comes with real dangers.

The challenge is two fold: how to give governmental regulators more confidence that journalism can be trusted and fewer reasons to return to the bad old days of censorship.

At the same time, the pressure for profits in commercial media is driving a heightened tabloid sensibility that often borders on pornography.

Control is still in the air: In Romania the government recently tried and failed to institute regular psychiatric examinations for all journalists. Fortunately, this idea was rebuffed but the thought itself is chilling and reminiscent of old Soviet techniques of political repression and intimidation.

There are some positive signs as well.

In Armenia as in other countries, there is a strong interest in creating ethics guides. 43 media outlets there now have codes.

In Azerbaijan, there has been a recent proliferation of media along with a national complaints commission which is entirely independent of government funding or oversight. So successful is this model that it has been adopted but the media in Russia.

In Georgia, six media organizations have combined to create a review board for public complaints, again free of government involvement. The board has a large public component which has proven to be more effective than any top-down approach. Training workshops for journalists are being held on a regular basis.

In Moldova, a new code of ethics has been implemented over the past year and 88% of all Moldovan journalists now have signed on.

In Russia, the enormous presence of media and government make simplicity impossible. Efforts at self-regulation are occurring but always with a long tradition of government oversight. Still there are some encouraging signs including training, public involvement, and a proliferation of journalists associations. The sense of physical danger is constant and the need for a stronger governmental presence makes self-regulatory media more difficult.

In Ukraine, as in Russia, journalistic self-regulation cannot be entirely free of governmental oversight. All media groups require the approval of the Ministry of Justice. At the same time, a code of ethics for 16,000 journalists has been created, complete with rules of conduct and reprimands for ethical violations. Throughout the South Caucasus, there is little or no government funding, but a strong NGO presence helps defray costs.

Is there a role here for independent news ombudsmen?

Press councils are now the preferred vehicle, but there is a strong interest in ombudsmen and how they might operate in partnership. The Moldovan public broadcaster is very interested in having an ombudsman as are a number of newspapers to bridge the enormous gaps between citizens and the media that attempt to serve them.

This is a story that is being written even now, and it was a privilege to be among these brave journalists for whom public service is a deep and cherished ideal.

Stay tuned.