Admittedly, I was a bit put off by the title; I don’t think overcoming a bias that may have been festering for years can be overcome in the time it takes to cover most stories.

The real strategy is to acknowledge your bias and do your utmost to ensure it doesn’t impact your work. As it turns out, that’s exactly what the book talks about. I loved it–and the accompanying website.

The author, American J-Prof Sue Ellen Christian, wrote the book after becoming alarmed over her students’ inability to separate beliefs from facts–I stole that line from the J-Source article I just posted that stemmed from my interview with Christian. You can hear an excerpt of our conversation here.

For that article, I also interviewed via email three Canadian reporters. In light of calls for journalists to be more open about their own perspectives, I asked “What is your reaction to the idea that reporters should share their personal bias in order to achieve balance in a story?”

I didn’t have room for their responses to that question in my J-source piece, but thought they’d be great fodder for discussion. Here are their answers:

“Not realistic/ridiculous/unwieldy.  No one cares what I think/believe, nor should they, unless it truly impacts the way I’m covering news.  How could I declare a personal bias…and just one?…and then proceed to offer a news story….it’s coloured the whole story, even if the treatment of the story is fair and accurate.” Karen Owen, CTV Calgary

“I think that the personal bias in a typical reporter piece should not be reflected, unless it adds to the story in some meaningful way. I think there is room for different kinds of journalism in which the reporter’s opinion becomes part of the story.  I think the opinion pieces, columns, and editorials should complement the traditional news story.  I want the facts, but I also enjoy getting different analysis on the facts.” Sneha Kulkarni, SUN News Network, Toronto

“There is a place for that type of journalism. But not in hard-hitting, local news. Balance is always possible without diluting the story with your own opinion. The reporter’s reaction would be a third side to the story. A story needs only two sides.” David Squires, NTV, St. John’s

Does it matter, for example, that I know all three sources I quoted above? Did it impact my choice of quotes, or the balance of facts? Those are questions I asked myself before including them in my piece. As someone who’s been working in journalism for two decades, I’m confident that interviewing people I have a personal connection to will not, necessarily, impact my story. And as someone who’s worked in journalism for over two decades I’m cognizant of how important it is that I ask myself those questions and really think about my answers.

Although traditionally something to avoid, biased reporting is making a lot of people a lot of money in our industry, with some networks catering to ideology over information sharing. But that doesn’t mean the majority of journalists aren’t doing their best to uphold ethical standards that ensure the public is getting the facts from an objective standpoint. Not to mention ordinary citizens who are adding their voices to the fray.

Christian’s book provides some good strategies for both students and professionals to ensure journalists achieve the prime directive of balanced reporting. And perhaps if we do what she suggests, and spend more time reflecting on how we form our views and shape our stories, it will be easier for the audience to distinguish a good story from a well voiced opinion.

P.S. If you listened to the interview, sorry for the hissing–that’s my how clean audio loaded on to podbean  –if you know why, please share

Of course, my primary interest is news media and on the 9th I’ll be presenting my research on participatory journalism at the CBC.

Throughout the conference, which runs November 8th through 9th, I’ll be live blogging keynotes and panel discussions, as well as anything else I find interesting. Since I use the free version of WordPress I can’t embed my ScribbleLive blog, but you can link to it here. Remember, it won’t be up till November 8th.

You can also watch or participate in the conference online.

Really looking forward to my trip and meeting a few of the people I used as references in my work–not looking forward to the fact I won’t be able to follow incoming American election results as I cross the pond!

Government funding cuts–and management decisions on how to spend what money is leftover–have put it on the chopping block.

I’ve probably given a lot more thought to Connect than most people because it was one of the sites of research for my thesis — I’ve also written about it before on this blog.

That’s why I felt compelled to write something about its cancellation – you can read the full article here on J-source. And here is a link to the full transcript of my interview with the executive director of CBC News Network, Todd Spencer.

While researching and writing that article for J-Source, one of the topics that emerged was whether Connect might be overstaffed–making it a target. I spent a significant amount of time watching production at Connect and never had that sense. And I feel my own experience makes me a good judge of that.

At one point in my newsroom career I was the only producer working on two hours of live programming each weekday: A half-hour noon newscast followed by a half-hour viewer talk back show, and later in the day an hour-long show that was more lifestyle/talk combined with news hits.

I was in charge of lining it all up, making final editorial decisions including writing and vetting scripts, selecting viewer comments to be aired, booking on average three or four guests a day, and taking the shows to air in the control room.

Eventually, when I almost blew a gasket because of the amount of work I was doing, I was given an Associate Producer. Despite the extra body, we were always short on time and resources and built a list of contacts we would regularly call on to be guests depending on the topic.

There was the parenting expert, education expert, City Councillors we knew were hungry for airtime, the money expert, the real estate expert — the list goes on.

Although some of those guests were fabulous, the real necessity was to fill airtime, and the chair(s) that would otherwise remain empty on the set. If we couldn’t get one of our stand-bys we’d throw out a wide net desperate for a warm body.

It was not journalism at its best–but it was a job. And that, sadly, is the reality for many people who work in broadcast news. It’s about filling formatted time-slots, not spending time on critical thinking about who could bring a different angle to the story, or having the time to unearth voices that might be entirely ignored.

That’s why I’m so disappointed in the loss of Connect.

Despite the fact I watch, listen, and read more news in a day than most might absorb in a matter of weeks, I could tune in and get the point-of-view of someone I’d never seen before, or hear an angle on a story I may not have considered.

That was possible because of the way the show was staffed–and Mark Kelley’s determination to do things a bit differently than everyone else–ignore the experts and go for the experience. Talk to people who really understood the impact of a certain type of event because they had lived through it, or lived through something comparable.

If you spend any time on this blog, you will see that I am a huge proponent of public broadcasting. Having a news service that is not tied intrinsically to advertising dollars or the ideals of an ever-shrinking base of conglomerates helps ensure healthy public discourse about issues that matter to us all.

Could CBC spend its money differently and keep Connect on the air? I don’t have enough information to make that call–but I do know that Connect with Mark Kelley encompasses the ideals of public television: Innovation, diversification, and transparency–built on a foundation of solid journalism.

It’s hard to see it fade to black.

Refugee camp in Dadaab, Kenya: Courtesy Dr. Alastair Summerlee

The media find African famine boring.

I cringed when I heard the President of the University of Guelph, Dr. Alastair Summerlee, express that sentiment at a conference I recently attended. Not because I thought he was wrong, but because I was worried he was right.

That’s the beginning of an article I wrote for J-Source on how the media is covering the famine in Somalia, and the humanitarian crisis that bleeds into refugee camps in Kenya. You can find the full story here. But it doesn’t end with the J-Source piece.

I wanted to write the article and talk with Dr. Summerlee so that I could see if there are ways to connect him with mainstream media–and help him find alternatives that will allow him to tell his own story and shed light on the suffering of thousands.

Refugee camp in Dadaab, Kenya: Courtesy Dr. Alastair Summerlee

I also talked to CBC’s Brian Stewart who is, quite literally, a wealth of information on the topic of covering African famine and have attached his full interview transcript as a public service

Brian Stewart interview

Working on this article brought up many issues I have discussed on this blog before: media basing story coverage on perceived public interest in an effort to maintain ratings, lack of resources in newsrooms, media dropping the ball on important stories because they’re hard to cover, and, perhaps most importantly, why we should be looking to ordinary citizens doing extraordinary things to help fill the gaps in news coverage as we know it.

And all of this served as a reminder of how truly important it is to ensure that as many voices as possible, contribute as many stories as possible, on topics that really matter.

Number 1: Liquid News Room

This participatory site is being developed by Steffen Konrath and has a lot of potential. The idea is to monitor which stories the audience finds most interesting, then assign a reporter to further investigate and create a longer format piece.

While speaking with Konrath, I expressed concern that sometimes there are stories that should be covered that no one is interested in—the danger in this type of format is the push to follow, for example, a celebrity wedding instead of a political crisis. And as Mike Brannen eloquently points out in his blog: “We have access to an abundance of stories on the Internet, and based on those, we can draw a conclusion on the public’s attitude. But, there is no substitute for human observation, instinct and interpretation of perceptual cues.”

Konrath assured me that the site is dedicated to quality journalism. While all types of participation are encouraged, editorial heft is weighed, and the ideal is to get freelance, experienced journalists located where a story is taking place to do the fact-checking, digging, and writing.

Number 2: ScribbleLive

This live blogging tool was introduced to me by a professor at Ryerson. We put it to the test at Sheridan during a special production of our student newscast, live from the grand opening of a new campus in Mississauga. You can use ScribbleLive from your computer, or download an app on your smartphone that allows you to easily upload pictures, video, and text. Then it’s a simple step to pull in Twitter feeds, and allow the audience to comment and engage in the process.

As you can see from the live blog of the event, we just scratched the surface of this blogging tool’s capability. The students loved using it and became engaged with the idea of engaging an audience. This semester we’ll be live blogging during each of our newscasts—asking for audience input on editorial decisions, posting commentary on stories/interviews we’re working on, and allowing a behind-the-scenes look at what goes into our production.

Number 3: Cheap tablets

One of the biggest barriers to fulsome audience participation is the digital divide—some people can afford to be online and involved, others can’t—and their issues and concerns aren’t always addressed in the news.

This is not just a matter of being able to afford news stories housed behind a paywall—something that according to an article from the Nieman Lab could be more related to philosophy than socio-economics—but the ability to own technology and obtain Internet and/or wireless service.

Even in the instance of using ScribbleLive for our student newscast, only students live at the scene with Blackberries or iPhones were able to take part. Now to a tool that might help solve this type of problem: $35 tablets.

A tablet will soon be sold in India for $35 to students, $60 to the general public.  Assuming developers can live up to their promise to allow access through second generation phone networks instead of wireless, the number of people able to access information on existing news sites, or even tell their own story, could grow by about a billion.

It’s not just digital engagement that should be the goal in participatory journalism, but digital diversity.  And digital diversity comes from finding new ways for more people to get involved in the storytelling process.

Happy New Year

That definition comes from one of my second year broadcast students. He was part of a cohort that was asked to produce a short piece defining journalism from a student perspective—both as an assignment and to encourage interest in an upcoming conference.

His group’s work can be seen here. But all the pieces—despite the sometimes soft-focus or backgrounds that include somebody’s closet —show honest reflection, and recognition, of the important job these students are preparing to do.

“Blowing the lid off bullshit” is a worthy goal no matter if you’re at a major network or running a private blog. And without people willing to do so, democracy has a poor chance of survival.

As another group identified, we’re lucky to be part of a privileged minority, the free press.  And as part of the free press, it’s important to note the significance of seeing a story “from every angle”— one of my favourite pieces captures the relevance of perspective.

Some other student reflections (just click on any quote to see the video):

• Journalists are like “adventurers searching for the Lost Ark”
• “Journalism is about trust” 
•  Journalism is “a mirror to democracy” 
• Journalism is about “giving a voice to the voiceless” 

But these students also acknowledged that today’s journalism is often flawed. As one eloquently put it, too often “journalism is about perfectly parted bangs.”

What is journalism? That’s a monumental question—but thinking about the answer is time well spent for students, teachers, and journalists alike.

“Radio” isn’t one device, but audio content delivered on multiple platforms, including smart phones. As Bell Media’s Paul Cugliari identified, “the pipeline is irrelevant”; radio has a bright future if it is defined as “the medium we deliver content through.”

That future though, is intrinsically bound with the web. “You need to have digital bleeding through everything you do” was the advice from Eric Morrison, a panel member and long-time media exec.

For students another clear message: “You can’t just be the on-air person who doesn’t write. You can’t be the person in the field who doesn’t like technology.” Jeremy Smith from CBC Field Operations echoed multiple panelists who emphasized the need for students to hone their storytelling skills, as well as their ability to continually learn new technologies.

Renowned radio co-hosts Humble & Fred got lots of laughs on their panel, but that doesn’t mean they don’t take the subject of radio seriously. Humble’s observation that what audiences want is “authentic content” is bang on—and that’s what they’re trying to bring to their new Internet radio show . Whether the show will be a hit remains to be seen—as does the best way to measure a radio program’s success.

Chris Boyce, the Executive Director of CBC Radio and Audio, said there should be “less concentration on ratings.” The focus should be connecting with the audience, consumption patterns, and the value of the engaged user.

Media Consultant Jeff Vidler said, PPM—the Portable People Metre used to see who’s watching or listening to what—only measures “exposure” and that the ratings watch should be balanced with monitoring engagement. If you want to know more about why, here’s an article by self-described “newsosuar” Alan D. Mutter that focuses on newspapers, but is relevant to all media.

While everyone agreed engagement is what matters, Corus’ head of radio, Chris Pandoff, rightly reminded everyone that the radio advertising business is still based on the number of listeners a program can draw, and that’s how stations make money to stay on the air.

A few other highlights:

• Program Directors and radio execs need to make room for more live content, because that’s what people want
• Making room for more live content will give new radio talent a chance to grow—lack of new talent was pinpointed as a big problem
• Radio needs to work on letting the audience pull content, not just push it out

And I’ll end with my random favourite quote of the conference, and a little plug for publicly funded radio:

“CBC is the vegetable of radio. You’re supposed to eat it because it’s good for you and then you get older and realize its importance.” Jeremy Smith, CBC

I’ll admit that my years of news writing and teaching have made me slightly obsessive about the importance of clarity when telling a story. Especially in broadcast writing, when there is so little time to begin with, throw away lines like the one I quoted above are an outrage. However, it seems the more concerned I become with the spoken and written word, the less the rest of the universe seems to care.

The same weekend I watched that newscast, I marked multiple papers in which students “defiantly” liked the book they read for an assignment. I defiantly suggest that “spell check” is definitely no replacement for proof reading.

Aside from the fact you might be marked for your use of grammar, or listeners in a newscast may be distracted by a cryptic line and miss the importance of the story, no one will know what you really mean if you don’t express yourself properly.

Take this magazine cover for example.

Is Rachael Ray a cannibal? Does she enjoy cooking her pets? Lack of punctuation most certainly muddles the message.

In the picture that follows, was it the “woman” or her “girlfriend” who waved at the man dressed like a Snickers bar? There’s no way to tell.

Joking aside, a well-written script or story turns the mundane into the magical; brings home the suffering or jubilation of others; provides context to events that have lasting impact. If you’re working as a journalist you should choose your words carefully, and use them well. If you’re studying to be a journalist you should be practicing your language skills like an artist practicing different strokes with a brush.

Words matter—local newscast or not. And yes, I know that last sentence is grammatically incorrect, but I chose my words carefully and, hopefully, used them well.