Oh right, we have the Canadiens, who barely squeaked by the worst team in the NHL.

Time to watch curling.

Related Posts

• It was the best Olympics, it was the worst Olympics
• There has to be a name for it
• Bliss
• What part of “terre de nos aïeux” don’t you understand?
• Why Hamelin?

Recognizing, I guess, that despite not having most of its journalists the Journal de Montréal is still putting out a paper every day and people are still reading it, the union representing the 253 locked-out employees has released a new ad comparing the evil newspaper to some sort of drug, and Rue Frontenac to the nicotine patch.

It's cute, but it just reminds me that people are still reading the Journal. And I don't think most of them are trying to stop.

Meanwhile, the union has also put up a 13-question FAQ for those who want to learn more about their position and what's at stake in this conflict.

Related Posts

• Entrevue: Jean-François Codère, ruefrontenac.com
• Rue Frontenac and donation priorities
• Thoughts on local media
• Joannie who?
• Rue Frontenac on TVA

The Société de transport de Montréal had a whole thing today, inviting members of the media out to the airport to show off their new bus route. I was tempted to go, but I don't get up before noon unless I really have to.

The route is the 747 Express bus, which finally provides a direct, non-stop link between downtown and Dorval Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. It replaces an awkward public transit travel itinerary that involved taking the metro to Lionel-Groulx, hopping on the 211 or 221 and squeezing in with all the West Island kids, then either waiting half an hour at the Dorval train station or walking across the entire airport parking lot to get to the terminal.

It also replaces La Québécoise's Aérobus shuttle service between the bus station and the airport that used to run every half hour and cost $16. (And that was already much cheaper than the flat-rate $38 for a cab from downtown to the airport.)

More details from Cyberpresse, The Gazette, CTV, CBC, Rue Frontenac, Metro, the STM's press release, the airport's press release (PDF), or the Planibus with route and schedule (PDF).

The route enters service on Monday, March 29, and will be the STM's first 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year bus service.

The fares

Probably the most confusing thing about this bus will be the fare structure. Even though this is an STM bus run by the STM and accepting STM passes, you won't be able to pay a standard single fare or use a single-fare ticket to get on (which, because this is a trip into and out of town, is what many people using it would want to do).

Instead, the single-fare price is set at $7 (still less than half the old airport express), and in exchange you're given a one-day pass to use the entire STM network. Or you could just buy a one-day tourist pass, which is accepted on the bus and also costs $7.

All unlimited-use passes (tourist passes, weekly passes, monthly passes) are accepted on the bus at no extra charge.

I guess the STM is trying to get some money out of tourists with this, but it just seems unnecessarily confusing. Many tourists will want the tourist pass anyway when they're coming in to town, so it won't make much of a difference for them. Those heading out of town, meanwhile, will have no use for a one-day pass once they're on a plane.

Expect drivers of these buses to have to exercise a lot of patience explaining the fare structure.

The STM says transit passes will be on sale in the airport, so those who want a three-day pass or weekly pass will have that option before they get on the bus.

The stops

Nine stops westbound and 10 stops eastbound, including the two terminuses.

Going toward the airport:

• Station Centrale bus terminal (inside the terminal)
• René-Lévesque and St-Laurent (Chinatown)
• René-Lévesque and Bleury
• René-Lévesque and Mansfield (Place Ville Marie, Central Station)
• René-Lévesque and Peel (tourist information centre)
• René-Lévesque and de la Montagne (Lucien-L'Allier station, Bell Centre)
• René-Lévesque and Bishop
• Lionel-Groulx metro
• Trudeau airport

Going toward downtown:

• Trudeau airport
• Lionel-Groulx metro
• Guy and René-Lévesque
• René-Lévesque and Drummond (Bell Centre)
• René-Lévesque and Peel (tourist information centre)
• René-Lévesque and Mansfield (Place Ville Marie, Central Station)
• René-Lévesque and Jeanne-Mance (Complexe Desjardins, Complexe Guy Favreau)
• René-Lévesque and St-Laurent (Chinatown)
• Berri-UQAM metro
• Station Centrale bus terminal

The schedule

The schedule of this new bus is an improvement on the one it's replacing:

• Every 20 minutes during morning and evening weekday rush hours
• Every 30 minutes during midday and late evenings
• Every 30 minutes on weekends
• Every hour overnight between 1am and 5am

Depending on the time of day and traffic conditions, the entire trip from one terminus to the other is expected to take between 35 and 50 minutes (about half that for trips between the airport and Lionel-Groulx).

It's unclear at this point how this bus will affect other STM buses, like the 211 and 221 that shuttle between Lionel-Groulx and the Dorval train station, and the 204 bus that stops at the airport terminal.

The bus

The bus itself will be special, though very familiar to STM users. The outer design will have an airplane-chevron logo and the bus number painted on the body. Inside, the bus will be equipped with three luggage racks (one above each front wheel, and one just opposite the rear door), each with two shelves. This means the bus will have fewer seats than a standard bus of its size, but the ride will be more convenient for people with heavy bags.

The STM has modified eight buses for this route. With a route length of just under an hour and a minimum headway of 20 minutes, that would mean six buses in service during rush hour with two spares.

The fallout

Despite its confusing fare structure, since the bus is replacing a service already in place, and because people have been demanding better airport shuttle service for years, the demand is clearly there. The bus might not see dozens of passengers for every trip, but it won't be empty all the time either.

The STM estimates the bus will attract between 1,000 and 2,500 riders daily. With about 100 departures a day, this would mean about 10-25 people per bus on average.

As the ADM points out, this service will also be useful for airport employees who work at odd hours. I've seen a few of them half asleep on the 356 night bus (which stops at the airport) trying not to get thrown up on. Those employees aren't going to spend $16 one-way for the Aérobus, but they will take the STM's express bus if it comes with their monthly pass.

This service also doesn't preclude the creation of a train link between downtown and the airport. Both the STM and the airport still believe such a rail service is essential. But this bus will help bridge the gap until the rail dream becomes a reality.

The scandal

One group has already called foul in all this: taxi drivers. They're calling this a "catastrophe" for the industry, and complaining that they weren't consulted about it. Some are suggesting that the STM's move should be considered illegal competition from a government agency with the private sector.

Not that I don't have sympathy for taxi drivers, but this just exemplifies the fact that some industry somewhere will have a problem with just about anything the government does, especially when it makes our lives easier and saves us money.

With that caveat in mind, I'd rate this service an about-fscking-time.

Related Posts

• Fall STM schedules: New buses to Nuns’ Island, airport
• 515 colour plan only adds confusion
• New summer bus schedules
• STM adds Saint-Michel express bus
• STM on new schedule today

It's been a rough few days, that's for sure. I am really heartened to see the support I have, especially from listeners. I can't tell you how much I love hosting Daybreak. I just wish the CBC loved me half as much. I guess I'll never really know why they don't want me.

- Nancy Wood, Feb. 22

Nancy Wood hasn't said much since she learned almost a month ago that she was being pulled from the host chair at Daybreak. Part of that is because Wood has never been one to draw too much attention to herself (at least, that's the impression I get from listening to her), and part of it is that there are still discussions happening behind the scenes - and CBC employees have been told not to talk to the media.

The short note above is all she wrote to me when I asked her about this whole thing almost three weeks ago. On Twitter, where she has a personal account, only this tweet, saying she'd be glad to return to her job, but providing no new details about what's going on. On her Facebook account (which isn't open to non-friends), similarly cryptic messages.

Even though I've never conversed with Wood in person, those brief crumbs of thought tug at my heartstrings. Here we have a veteran journalist and a professional radio host who is being forced from her dream job and doesn't even know why. It's been reported that Wood was hospitalized for stress, and while I haven't confirmed that (and it's really none of my business), the emotional impact this has had on her seems pretty apparent.

Is she gone or isn't she?

This whole situation is in a strange kind of limbo because the CBC hasn't yet made any public announcement. So not only has there been no comment from management about what's going on (other than to say she hasn't been fired from the CBC), but there's been no comment on Daybreak itself about the matter. The journalists who work in the Montreal radio newsroom, the same ones who desperately try to track people down for comment about matters of public interest, are under orders from management not to comment themselves, even though many of them are outraged about what's going on. Instead, they're being asked to forward all inquiries to communications man Hugh Brodie (who, of course, hasn't gotten back to me).

Even though no announcement has been made yet, the process of scrubbing Wood has already begun. The Daybreak homepage doesn't even mention her anymore, replacing her photo with one of the "Daybreak team" (which interestingly includes Steve Rukavina, even though he's not a regular Daybreak columnist - Rukavina has been one of the fill-in hosts and is one of the rumoured candidates to replace her). Fill-in hosts now don't even bother mentioning that they're "filling in for Nancy Wood" - instead leaving the whole thing ambiguous and treating listeners like idiots.

The CBC seems to think this decision is official enough to take Wood off the website but not official enough to actually confirm it to listeners. Go figure. Attempts by journalists and others to talk to those in charge have been met with boilerplate answers from the audience relations department saying they don't comment on staff issues.

Voice for the voiceless

While the CBC remains silent, others have spoken up. Four Gazette columnists (Mike Boone, Basem Boshra, Doug Camilli and Henry Aubin) and one La Presse columnist (Marie-Claude Lortie) have written about the matter, all saying the decision makes no sense (though the fact Wood once worked at The Gazette might have had something to do with it - I hope they're as loyal when I get fired from a radio host job). Letters are still coming in to the Gazette, leading to a lot of ink with her name on it.

Listeners themselves have also gotten in on the action, setting up a Facebook group in protest (almost 500 527 members now), and flooding the program's official Facebook page with questions and demands (all the while, the columnists and researchers who use it pretend like they can't see all the comments, instead talking about the weather and asking for story tips). There are even rumours that there might be a protest outside McLean's Pub on Sunday when the Daybreak team and other CBC personalities will be hosting a pre-St. Patrick's Parade breakfast.

Epic fail

To say this was a blunder by CBC management is to make a huge understatement. This is a mess. The only thing the corporation can hope for now is that most listeners forget about Wood and move on when they announce who will replace her. This is ironic because morning hosts are humanized so listeners can relate to them, and that builds an emotional connection. That emotional connection is great for building audience loyalty, but it really sucks when their favourite radio host gets the shaft. The audience could leave en masse (unlikely, since they don't have much of an alternative), or decide to turn on the next host, blaming him or her for getting Wood reassigned.

Mike Finnerty got oodles of marketing when he was host of Daybreak. What about Nancy Wood?

On the other hand, maybe forgetting Wood is exactly what most people will do. The CBC didn't spend that much marketing her, and she had only been in the big chair for five months before they decided to pull the plug, giving her no time to build a following. There's clearly a small, motivated group of listeners committed to keeping her there, but it's not clear whether that group will reach a critical mass.

Even if we accept that getting rid of Wood was the right decision (and that will depend a lot on who they bring in to replace her), the way it was handled was awful. To announce to the staff that you're going to get rid of the show host, then tell the staff to keep that information quiet, then tell the host that she actually has to stay on like a lame duck for a few more months to finish out her contract, then to ignore the inevitable protest from listeners, all while not announcing who will replace the jettisoned personality - I can't think of a worse way this could have been done.

In private radio, the decisions are quick and final. Hosts are called in, told they're being let go and asked to surrender their security passes. They're not allowed anywhere near a microphone, so they don't become a loose cannon. The decision is publicized quickly, and program directors make some statement about how they decided to go in another direction.

I've never been entirely comfortable with the way it's done in private radio, not even allowing people a chance to say goodbye, but to have someone on air with a noose around her neck for months is just cruel.

As a result, Wood has hosted Daybreak only once since she heard the news - Friday, Feb. 19, mere hours before The Gazette broke the story that she was being dumped. Since then, fill-in hosts have given no indication why she hasn't been on the air.

Breaking with precedent

If local management at CBC look like they're having trouble writing the book about this kind of staff issues, it may be because they haven't gone through something like this before. The previous seven Daybreak hosts over the past 30 years all left because they decided it was time to move on. Bob McKeown left for the Fifth Estate in 1981, Dennis Trudeau left for As it Happens in 1985, and Jim Duff left in 1987 to start the ill-fated Montreal Daily News. The next three hosts, Jon Kalina (1988-1993), Royal Orr (1994-1996) and Dave Bronstetter (1996-2006), all left because they were tired of getting to work at 4am every weekday. And Mike Finnerty, who lasted from 2007 to 2009, left to join his partner in London.

Ratings aren't everything

Supposedly one of the main reasons for removing Wood from this position is that Daybreak wasn't doing well in ratings numbers (at least not as well as Radio Noon and Home Run).

I'm not against the CBC using ratings as a measurement of a show's performance. I think the CBC could learn a lot from what gets the attention of the people. But there must be considerations of quality above quantity. How was Wood as an interviewer? How well did she do technically? How does she manage her team? How does she connect with listeners? If the CBC's sole concern was ratings, they could just put pop songs on the air, or porn. Clearly they have higher ambitions.

One criticism levelled against Wood is that she's "boring". It's not a nice thing to say, but I see where the comment is coming from (especially in light of the ratings). Wood isn't a personality like Tommy Schnurmacher, Pete Marier or Murray Sherriffs. She's just a regular person like everyone else. And she goes to work and does her job like a professional.

I'm a regular listener to the Daybreak podcast (recorded just after the morning show ends and featuring replays of interviews from the show), so I've heard quite a bit of Wood's voice. It's not a silly voice, it's soothing, warm, but serious. She knows her stuff, and she can be compassionate or aggressive with an interviewee depending on the situation.

But to some people (including, apparently, CBC bosses), that's not enough. They think she lacks personality and leadership.

What's wrong with Daybreak

Daybreak is boring in some ways, some Wood's fault, many not. The show is incredibly repetitive. It keeps repeating the same news headlines, weather, sports news and traffic every 30 minutes, leaving only a tiny window in every half-hour block for actual content. And that content is inevitably filled with an interview with some bureaucrat struggling to express himself in English through the telephone while sipping his morning coffee. That interview will usually be about some serious but boring issue that was brought up in that day's newspaper (or, in many cases, the previous day's). And after six minutes of barely explaining anything, they're awkwardly cut off by the host because it's time to go to traffic again.

The powers that be at Daybreak prefer this to alternatives. Why not record interviews the day before and edit them instead of allowing people to just run out the clock live? Why not have your staff go out and produce package reports about issues and play them for morning listeners? Why not host an in-studio discussion about an important topic instead of relying on your reporters to regurgitate what they learned like an office gossip queen? (These things do happen on occasion, but not nearly as often as the interviews.) Why not have an opinion columnist who can make serious, insightful points about current affairs instead of the knee-jerk uninformed ranting we see in private broadcasting?

The reason they prefer the live interview is because it's easy. Call someone up the previous day, ask if they're willing to spend a few minutes on the phone the next morning, figure out what they're going to say, and write questions into a script. It's not that they don't want to do anything more interesting than that, it's that they don't have the time, and they don't have the budget to hire people with the time.

Of course, this has been how Daybreak has worked for years, and previous hosts had the same problem with many of the same staff, but managed to build an audience to management's liking. Clearly there is something about Wood that isn't taking off here. (But there's something about Bernard St-Laurent that is?) It's her show, and the subdued personality that makes her a great journalist is a fault when it comes to hosting a radio show - especially in the morning, "when boring radio is least acceptable," as one CBC insider told me.

Yes, blame the new boss

Supposedly the main reason Wood was pulled so prematurely was that the CBC was about to bring in a new regional boss - Pia Marquard - and didn't want her to be stained with this decision. That obviously backfired, and for good reason: If she disagreed with the decision, couldn't she just reverse it?

The public outcry from the Nancy Wood saga has probably been larger than the CBC anticipated (certainly larger than Wood herself anticipated). And this is before they've even announced anything to their listeners - that might kick this campaign into the next gear. We'll see if it's enough to sway the new boss to keep her.

But even if they do bring her back (and she said she'd love to come back), the damage is done. The marks of that noose will be around her neck even if she's never hanged, and she won't be able to breathe comfortably so long as she's in that chair.

If you want to express your opinion to the person in charge, you can write Pia Marquard at pia.marquard@cbc.ca.

Bullshit hits the fan

UPDATE (March 11): About the same time I posted this, word finally started coming out of the CBC that Wood had indeed been removed from her Daybreak post. This post on the show's official Facebook page has a text from Marquard that many listeners reported getting word for word:

First, we'd like to thank you for your dedication to Daybreak - we're glad to know that it's part of your weekday morning. We also understand that because you're a regular Daybreak listener, you are concerned about our recent decision to change the show's host.

Nancy Wood joined the Daybreak team as the interim host in August 2009. It was not a permanent assignment and when she returns from her current absence she will begin a new assignment at the CBC.

We understand that some of Daybreak's listeners will not only miss Nancy as the show's host, but have also asked for more details regarding our decision. Our policy, like most organizations, is not to disclose personal and confidential information regarding our employees. We think this is an important principle of privacy and respect for all of our employees.

We sincerely thank Nancy for her continued commitment to the CBC and most recently, while she was in the Daybreak host's chair. We look forward to continuing to work with her when she returns.

Thank you for listening to Daybreak

Pia Marquard
Managing Director, Québec

This is pure, unmitigated bullshit. Whatever the technical status of Wood's contract with the CBC, she was hired as the permanent host of Daybreak. There was an announcement, an interview with Mike Boone, a whole production. Her face became the official face of Daybreak. At no time was the word "interim" mentioned in relation to her post, nor was there any indication that the CBC was looking to replace her during her five months on the job.

Either I'm misunderstanding something pretty fundamental (like the definition of "interim") or Marquard is outright lying here.

As for statements about "personal and confidential information regarding our employees," please. We're not asking for her salary or even the reason she's on temporary leave right now. We want to know why the CBC has decided to make a programming change by removing her as the host of Daybreak.

UPDATE (March 13): Henry Aubin has another column on Wood, focused on the response of anglo Montrealers, who copied him on 92 emails to the CBC. The column also mentions an online petition that has just started.

Related Posts

• CBC dumps Nancy Wood from Daybreak
• CBC 11pm local newscast launches Monday
• Gardening expert Stuart Robertson dies
• CBC Montreal to start 11pm newscast: sources
• CBC’s Homerun expands to three hours

CBC summarizes some reaction from around the world.

Internationally, it seemed how countries thought about these Olympics had everything to do with whether the number of medals they got met expectations.

NBC, which laid on the love for Canada pretty thick (or maybe we just thought it was thick because we're so unused to international praise), continued afterward, with Brian Williams sending a thank-you note. Jim Caple of ESPN went the opposite way, poking fun at the northern neighbours but still with the attitude that these games were awesome. (He even made fun of Canada's men's hockey team after the U.S. beat them in round-robin play, with some jokes he probably regrets now)

For Australia, which won only three Olympic medals, it was still the best winter games ever, screamed headlines from Australian Associated Press, the Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian minister for sport.

On the other hand, Russia was a disappointment at these games (a disappointment that forced the resignation of the head of the Russian Olympic Committee), and Pravda went on a rant saying simply that Vancouver is not fit to hold the Winter Olympics. On the day of the closing ceremony, criticisms read more like conspiracy theories about how organizers and officials unfairly hurt Russia to Canada's benefit.

And then, of course, there's Great Britain, which managed only a single medal at these games. But in their defence, the criticism came long before that result.

Lawrence Donegan of The Guardian was the most cited, calling it the worst Olympics ever. His words were repeated by his peers.

Of course, that prompted a lot of defend-Canada pieces from Canadian media, who quoted Olympic historians, members of the IOC and VANOC attacking that view and rating these games highly. Other columnists and editorial writers took it upon themselves to defend Vancouver 2010.

The truth is that the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games were somewhere in between. The people were friendly, but they could also be dicks sometimes, especially when they let their national pride get the better of them. The organizers were beset with an avalanche of problems, but reacted quickly to them. The opening and closing ceremonies were well choreographed, but ... well, I won't get into another debate about that.

And as for the athletic performances, there were plenty of triumphs and disappointments (or, in the case of Lindsey Vonn, Apolo Ohno and the Canadian men's speed-skating teams, both in the same week). There was the tragedy of Nodar Kumaritashvili, the heartbreaking disqualification of Sven Kramer in the 10,000-metre race, the childish reaction of Evgeni Plushenko after failing to win gold in men's figure skating, and of course Joannie Rochette, who stole some of the spotlight away from an incredible performance by Kim Yu-Na.

I spent most of these Olympics in front of my TV, and will remember quite a bit of them. I'll also remember quite a bit from the 2008 Games in Beijing, and other Olympics before them.

But to suggest that the Vancouver Olympics were the greatest ever (better than Lillehammer? Lake Placid?) or the worst ever (worse than Munich? Atlanta?) is probably pushing it a bit much.

The next games are in Russia in 2014. And even though it's four years away, it's already being denounced as the worst ever.

Related Posts

• Can we do the Olympics again?
• There has to be a name for it
• Bliss
• What part of “terre de nos aïeux” don’t you understand?
• Why Hamelin?

Happy International Women's Day everyone!

Related Posts

• Why am I fascinated by this ad?
• Ad placement is everything
• Videotron: Peachy
• Hi done need to lurn hinglish
• Pourquoi suis-je obsédé par cette photo ironique?*

Verdun politely declined, and turned around and suggested the city of Montreal do the same.

What was it?

UPDATE: William Moss got it right on the first shot: Montreal wanted Verdun to rename Church St., because there was already a Church St. in Montreal and they were worried about confusion. Verdun said its Church St. was bigger than Montreal's and suggested the bigger city change the name of its smaller street if it cared so much.

Of course, Church St. in Verdun is now called de l'Église.

But, for an extra point, what became of Church St. in Montreal?

Montreal's Church St. was renamed shortly after Verdun's response. The downtown street, which runs only from Sherbrooke to Ontario, was renamed in 1927 after John Wodehouse, count of Kimberley, on the 25th anniversary of his death.

Though it is now part of UQAM's downtown campus and closed to traffic, Rue Kimberley still exists.

Related Posts

• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 70
• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 69
• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 68
• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 67
• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 66

(Thanks to Joe Clark for the tip)

Related Posts

• Can we do the Olympics again?
• It was the best Olympics, it was the worst Olympics
• Podium: Owned.

Tickets are $12 for the weekend or $8 a day. The fun is at 752 Sherbrooke W.

And if you're into board games and other non-computerized geekiness, there's also the monthly Geek Outs at Burritoville on Bishop St. The next one is March 20 at 2pm. Attendance is free.

Related Posts

• Geeking out with Macadam tribus

As part of their 30th anniversary celebrations, The Link is playing host to a regional conference of Canadian University Press, hosting student newspapers from Quebec and Ontario (emphasis on the Ontario, since CUP is still a mostly English-dominated organization, even in its tiny Quebec chapter).

The conference, which goes Friday night to Sunday morning (but most activities of interest are on Saturday). It is hosted at Concordia's downtown campus. It's $7 for the general public to attend (according to the Facebook event page), and free for alumni of the paper.

The schedule is here (PDF). Speakers include:

• David Gutnick (CBC)
• Craig Silverman (Regret the Error)
• David Secko (Concordia, The Scientist)
• Daniel Renaud (Rue Frontenac)
• Gloria Galloway (Globe and Mail)
• Alastair Sutherland (The Mirror)
• Geeta Narang (lawyer)
• Mark Smith (Associated Press)
• Giuseppe Valiante (National Post)
• Brian Gabrial (Concordia)
• Loreen Pindera (CBC)
• Pierre Foglia (La Presse)
• Alexander Panetta (Canadian Press)
• Linda Kay (Concordia)
• Andrew McIntosh (Sacramento Bee - ex-National Post, ex-Gazette)

Related Posts

• Young writers on old writers
• Learning journalism with the McGill Daily
• The Link looks at media democracy
• Learn play-by-play from the pros*
• How to score a newspaper internship (I think)

There's an obituary in Thursday's paper, but the more interesting pieces are the ones written by Anderson himself, who explored the issue of death in his columns recently.

Anderson disappeared from the paper briefly in 2007, and returned to write a series of articles about the death of his wife and the process of grieving the loss of a loved one. He disappeared again last fall, returning in January with a piece about his own cancer diagnosis, knowing his life was very likely coming to an end.

With that piece, the column was transformed into The Next Chapter, expanding to include baby boomers (who don't like to think of themselves as seniors yet) and including pieces from other writers.

Anderson's last column, about euthanasia, was published on Feb. 15.

UPDATE: Gazette Arts & Life editor Michael Shenker uses the space once occupied by Anderson's column to write about him and about death.

Related Posts

• Boshra’s back
• Obit: Henry Lehmann
• Gardening expert Stuart Robertson dies
• Thomas McEntee
• The new boss, same as the old boss

From Dave Rosen on Facebook, a video of Vancouver's False Creek during the gold medal men's hockey game on Sunday. The overtime goal comes at 1:20.

Related Posts

• Can we do the Olympics again?
• It was the best Olympics, it was the worst Olympics
• What part of “terre de nos aïeux” don’t you understand?
• Why Hamelin?
• Podium: Owned.

A little under two weeks ago, my record of employment came in the mail, along with the pay stubs for my last two paycheques at the Gazette. It was about then that it hit me that I didn't work there anymore. Now I was unemployed, and I needed to figure out what I was going to do for the rest of my life.

As I figured out what that would mean, a week ago Sunday I went on the government of Canada's website and filed for unemployment insurance benefits. At least it would seem like I was still getting a salary while I looked for a new job.

That's when Murphy's Law (or a corollary thereof) took effect. Shortly after I woke up on Monday afternoon, I got emails, Facebook messages and telephone calls from my former colleagues, telling me about a job opening at The Gazette for a part-time copy editor on contract.

The paper is in the process of switching to a new content management system for both print an online, which will notably include a change of page layout software from QuarkXPress (version 3.32, released in 1996) to Adobe InDesign. This will mean a lot of training for existing copy editors, so they decided to hire a few more to help put out the paper. My name, apparently, was one of the first to come up.

Yeah, she's dumped me a few times, but I keep going back. Funny what love does to you.

The interview was pretty short. It's not like I needed to provide references. "Can you start Monday?" I was asked over the phone. And just like that, I had my old job back.

There was a bit of paperwork to deal with (actually none of it on paper, it was all getting electronic accounts setup and a security pass reactivated), but at 4pm Monday, exactly one month after leaving for what I thought could easily have been forever, I entered the office and went to work as if I'd never left, stopping occasionally to hear a "welcome back" and a joke from a colleague.

I felt a bit weird. I mean, there was some drama exactly four weeks ago. I sent a going-away email, had a going-away party. Everyone knew I'd be back, even though they didn't know how or when. It seems they were right.

Instead of venturing into the unknown and beginning on a new path, my unemployment turned into little more than an unpaid month-long vacation, ending the day after the closing ceremonies of the Olympics.

This will be my fifth contract at The Gazette, my fourth as a copy editor. And the length is unknown, even to my bosses. It could be measured in weeks or months. It could last forever, or I could be back on EI benefits before you know it. I've gotten accustomed over the past five years to not knowing what's in store for the future beyond the two or three-week notice that's given on the posted schedule. Living a contract life is a sacrifice I've made in exchange for being able to work at my favourite job in my favourite city, and without a wife and kids to support it's hardly a burden to be occasionally unemployed or underemployed for short periods.

So like I have for the past few years, I'll enjoy it while I can. Particularly the awful, awful puns.

I'm a hypocrite again. All hail The Gazette.

Related Posts

• Another unemployed journalist
• Gazette loses Uncle Hughie
• Know your Olympians
• Bill Tierney replaces Huntley Addie as West Island Gazette columnist
• Ted Bird joins Gazette as a blogger

45, 100, 131, 132, 159, 171, 179, 197, 221, 505

UPDATE: It took a day, but two of you (plam and Kaycee) got it within minutes of each other: These are STM bus routes that end at a métro station and share the same name.

From contributor and transit geek Shanake Seneviratne:

The practice of placing a bus route's ultimate terminus on the destination sign is not one that has been adopted by the STM. Unlike other systems that indicate the endpoints of a route (Laval, Longueuil, Ottawa, and Toronto all do good jobs with their destination signs), Montreal has adopted a "dominant street or neighbourhood" naming policy. While this works well in principle, in actual fact this can backfire. The 168, for example, hasn't served Cité du Havre proper in decades. The 460 doesn't go on the Métropolitaine but rather parallel to it. The 215 is more deserving of the title Brunswick than the 208 is!

With new buses with excellent capabilities with regard to their destination sign, the STM can surely be more flexible and proactive.

Of course, most of these buses are actually named for the streets that the métro stations are named after, but there's an interesting debate on what names bus routes should take.

Maybe it's just because I'm so used to the Montreal system, but I tend to like it for the most part. It runs into trouble when routes don't take any particular street for very long. Naming buses for their destination assumes that people are going to that destination. While métro stations and terminuses are certainly big draws for transit users, they're not the destination for all.

Besides, with maps at most bus stops now, and the increasing use of smartphones to get information on the go, the importance of the name of a bus route has diminished.

Related Posts

• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 71
• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 69
• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 68
• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 67
• Montreal Geography Trivia No. 66

Remember a couple of weeks ago, just after the opening ceremony to your great Olympic Winter Games, when there were complaints from around here that there wasn't enough space given to Canada's other official language?

I defended you back then, downplaying the seriousness of your transgression, deflecting some attention to the media, and criticizing those who criticized you. I said there should have been more French, but I wasn't going to make a federal case out of it.

After watching the closing ceremony, I'm reconsidering that.

Outside of a few "bonjour"s and "merci"s, introductions and a speech by Jacques Rogge, the ceremonies seemed devoid of French. In the concert that came after, I kept waiting for some good French Canadian artists, but was disappointed when among the dozen or so English acts, all there was in French was a song by Marie-Mai (or as the Globe and Mail called her, "Marie-Maiv"*).

I'm not the kind of person who will sit with a stopwatch and complain when something's not exactly 50-50. Even 75-25, reflecting the approximate ratio of English to French speakers in Canada, would have been fine by me. But it wasn't even that.

When combined with the opening ceremonies, which included a single performance by Garou, it's really hard not to see this as tokenism of one of Canada's founding peoples.

But unlike some of the newspaper columnists you'll no doubt be hearing from over the next couple of days, I'm not mad.

I'm disappointed.

It's not like you weren't aware of the problem. You knew about it months ago. Both the federal and Quebec governments made sure you knew about it. You made efforts elsewhere in the organization of these Games to ensure bilingualism (which apparently took a lot of work), and I commend you for that.

And even if you didn't realize before these complaints how little attention you gave to the French language, you made plenty of changes to the closing ceremonies after the opening ones were over (including adding a very cute bit about relighting a defective column for the Olympic flame). You could have added some more French Canadian artists, maybe even a speech or two in French.

Those who want to justify this slight can come up with all sorts of reasons why. It's Vancouver's games, not Quebec's. These ceremonies are for the world, which for the most part speaks English as either a first or second language. Some might even argue that you just don't care about French, that Canada should let Quebec separate and become an English-speaking country.

None of those explanations work for me. The ceremony was all about Canada, not Vancouver or British Columbia. Hell, French Canadians didn't even represent the majority of the acts you brought in from Montreal (William Shatner and Simple Plan were the others). And though the world speaks English, I'd like to think they'd want to be exposed to different cultures, even if they don't understand the language. Some Americans appreciated Marie-Mai even if they had no idea what she was singing about. And not knowing Russian didn't take away from enjoying the Russian national anthem as performed live.

The third explanation, that you just don't care, is something I have no rebuttal for. It's just something I'd like not to believe. Because even though I'm an anglophone, I live in Quebec, I have friends and relatives who are part of this culture, who speak this language as their mother tongue, and who hoped that maybe, just maybe, they could spend a couple of hours believing that the Vancouver Olympics were their Olympics too, not just those of English Canada. The opening ceremony brought on doubts that this could be achieved, and the closing ceremony confirmed them.

I love this country, but I love Quebec too, and Montreal. I'm a federalist, and even facing what some might think are overwhelming practical arguments against it, I believe that a Canada that has two languages makes us all better. It's not something I have a rational reasons for, or scientific data to support, it's just something I feel.

What you've done has made justifying this belief more difficult. A few people on Twitter half-joked that you'd done more for the cause of Quebec sovereignty than the PQ has in decades. It's easy to dismiss that as the close-minded ravings of a die-hard separatist, but I'm understanding where they're coming from. You've made these people seem like a minor part of your country, confined to a single province out of 10. You've made them feel excluded from their own Olympics.

A people, I'll remind you, that contributed greatly to the Vancouver Games as athletes, including the one who gave Canada its first Olympic gold medal at home, the one who stole your hearts this week with a spectacular performance, and three of Canada's four double medallists. (I'm not usually one of those people who will separate Quebec athletes from Canadian ones for the sake of argument, but this point needs to be made.)

And yet, all of these athletes were proud to contribute to Canada's historic medal count, proud to drape the Canadian flag around their shoulders as they celebrated their Olympic medals, proud to look up as the Canadian flag was raised and the crowd sang their anthem in English, proud to have the word "Canada" across their chests and backs during the two memorable weeks they spent in Vancouver.

Those athletes have too much class to complain about the closing ceremony. Most of the rest of us don't care enough to make a case out of it. Even some of those in the media who calculate how many of Canada's medals came from Quebecers will take away good memories of these Olympics. Which leaves people like Réjean Tremblay, whose words can be so easily dismissed because they've been heard so often before.

So I'm speaking up. As a Canadian, as an anglophone, as someone who's not a separatist or hyper-sensitive to every perceived slight against French Canada. As someone who believes that francophones, whether they're in Quebec or elsewhere, are part of Canada too. Not just an interest group, but an equal partner in the creation of this great country. One that has as much right to speak and hear their language and live their lives in French as we do in English.

I speak as someone who believes that the French language is as much a part of Canada as the beavers, Mounties, self-deprecating humour and endearing politeness that you so proudly showcased during these ceremonies.

You may think this is minor, and in the grand scheme of things it probably is, but in what is supposed to be an event that brings the entire country together and serves as a shining moment of national pride, even a slight movement in another direction makes a big difference.

VANOC, you disappointed many Canadians. And even if every French speaker in this country comes on this blog and says it didn't matter, what's important is that you disappointed me.

And now that the Games are over, you've lost your chance to make up for it.

*UPDATE: A Globe and Mail insider tells me this wasn't actually a spelling mistake but a coding error. The "v", which also appears after other names in the piece, is actually an internal-use checkmark used by Globe editors - ironically to verify the spelling of a name - and was improperly translated into a printable character on the CTV Olympics website.

Related Posts

• French at the Olympics: Unsatisfied below 50%+1
• Can we do the Olympics again?
• It was the best Olympics, it was the worst Olympics
• Bliss
• Why Hamelin?

There was another one of those embarrassing media-gets-it-wrong stories today, about who was going to carry the flag into the closing ceremonies Sunday evening.

The report apparently came out of Canadian Press, which reported that after meeting Saturday night, officials from the Canadian Olympic Committee had selected double-gold-medallist Charles Hamelin to be Canada's flag-bearer. CP said it got confirmation from "two federal government sources" as well as Hamelin himself, but not from the COC.

Websites that carry Canadian Press content posted the story. Other news sources, like Agence QMI, Cyberpresse, Canwest News Service and Rue Frontenac, rewrote CP's story, some being more careful than others about its unofficial nature.

The COC quickly denied the report, and later announced that in fact it would be Joannie Rochette who would carry the flag into the closing ceremony.

Assuming what CP reported was true - that Hamelin was told he'd be carrying the flag, that he was getting congratulations already from fellow athletes, and that people in the government also had reliable information confirming the selection - then the erroneous report is reasonable and forgiveable. To its credit, CP left room throughout the process for the possibility that it might be wrong.

I haven't found a story yet asking the obvious question: Why did Hamelin think he would be the flag-bearer? Was he asked about it and incorrectly assumed that meant he'd been selected? Did the COC intentionally mislead him to throw the media off the trail? Did someone just assume that Hamelin would be selected because he was the double-gold-medallist?

I'm hopeful that someone will be able to ask Hamelin that question, and that the various media won't shy away from it because it draws attention to the fact that they got the story wrong.

(UPDATE: This story has this paragraph: "A short-track team spokesman said later that the team was either sick of being asked about the flag-bearer job or had simply started to believe rumours that had been circulating." - Not really an explanation. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories are spreading.)

Like with the Gordon Lightfoot story, my issue isn't so much with the media getting the story wrong as their attempts to cover it up once they're corrected.

Even as I write this, hours after the official announcement, many sources still have the wrong story, including Yahoo! News, LCN, the Vancouver Province and CTV Montreal. Other stories were simply deleted, while most were quietly replaced with the announcement. Few mentioned getting the story wrong previously, some making vague references to rumours in unnamed media.

No apologies, no analysis of how they got the story wrong. And the credibility of the news media takes another hit as a result.

Related Posts

• Joannie who?
• Know your Olympians
• Can we do the Olympics again?
• It was the best Olympics, it was the worst Olympics
• Bliss

Canada has won 14 gold medals, more than any other country ever in an Olympic Winter Games.

Physically, there are 69 actual gold medals (23 in men's hockey, 23 in women's hockey, five in curling, four in short-track men's relay, three in speed-skating team pursuit, two in women's bobsleigh, two in ice dancing, and seven individual gold medals) spread among 68 gold medallists, including double-gold-medallist Charles Hamelin.

The 26 total medals is more than Canada has won at any previous Winter Olympics (more than any Olympics except for the boycotted 1984 Games in Los Angeles), and the third spot on the medal count behind the United States and Germany is the highest Canada has ever been in that ranking.

Own the Podium may have had the unrealistic goal of Canada having more total medals than any other country, but I don't think anyone would argue now that it wasn't successful.

Canada reached for the stars, and though it didn't get there, if the consolation prize is a sea of gold, we'll take it.

Related Posts

• The Bay hates Canada
• Can we do the Olympics again?
• It was the best Olympics, it was the worst Olympics
• There has to be a name for it
• Bliss

Related Posts

• Joannie who?
• Congratulations, Joannie
• Can we do the Olympics again?
• It was the best Olympics, it was the worst Olympics
• Bliss

Journal de Montréal Feb. 24, 2010

I'm sure Joannie Rochette and her family would love to save the newspapers that carried the story of her courageous and impressive bronze medal in figure skating.

Fortunately the Journal de Montréal learned to spell her name properly today. They screwed it up on Wednesday's front page after her short program.

Related Posts

• Why Hamelin?
• Joannie front pages
• Congratulations, Joannie
• Know your Olympians
• Can we do the Olympics again?

One is Yoopa, a kids' channel (ages 2-6) that was approved by the CRTC as "TVA Junior". Quebecor plans to launch it April 1, and it will have some advertising, though not of the traditional kind, says Richard Therrien.

The other is Zeste, a food channel set to launch March 22 by the company behind Évasion.

Both are digital channels and will launch in both standard and high definition.

UPDATE (Feb. 26): The CRTC has also approved TVA Sports, though it refused to step in and force RDS to give up is exclusivity contract with the Canadiens.

Related Posts

• CRTC Roundup: Videotron must closed-caption porn
• CRTC roundup: Deciding the future of TV
• CRTC Roundup: The American retransmission consent model
• CRTC Roundup: Global, porn and death
• CRTC roundup: broken television