On my (disabled) Facebook account #FacebookUnfairToNailaJ

As you may or may not have noticed, I am no longer on Facebook. This was not my decision.

Sometime between 2am and 10am on Monday, March 28, 2011, Facebook disabled my account. I'm still not sure why or how or when this happened, since I didn't get a warning or even a notification of any kind. Instead, on Monday morning, when I tried to log-in to my account, I was met with this message:

Account Disabled
Your account has been disabled. If you have any questions or concerns, you can visit our FAQ page here.

Ironically, the "here" link wasn't actually working, so I painstakingly navigated to this page, which told me:

Disabled - Ineligible
Upon investigation, we have determined that you are ineligible to use Facebook. Unfortunately, for safety and security reasons, we cannot provide additional information as to why your account was disabled. This decision is final.

Sounds ominous, doesn't it? I'm not quite sure how I was ineligible to use Facebook. I'm over the age of 13, I hadn't posted any spam or scam links (not even the "Sports commentator shows her boobs on TV" virus video that had been going around). I don't have a fake account, or multiple accounts, or a business account as a personal profile. I hadn't done anything different than I usually do, so none of the reasons Facebook Help pointed me to apply. And it's not like I had received any "warnings" from Facebook prior to my account being disabled, which apparently means that it was a "severe" security violation, according to this.

Finally, I found this disabled report form which I only knew to look for because I pay attention to these things. Did I mention I always read the terms and conditions for websites like these? I'm one of the few people I know who is actually fully aware of all the clauses in my insurance policies. I filled out and sent the form on Monday around noon, which is also about when I replied to their "confirm your identity" email, which told me that my case would be put in a queue and there was nothing I could do but wait. Fine.

Let me point out that I am an ideal Facebook user. If you're one of my Facebook friends, you know this to be true. I post a lot, encourage people to sign up or direct them to little-used features, and I report spammers and abusers. My career path involves using social networking so I'm all over the new tools and trends. Well, except Facebook Pages because I'd rather not get robbed while I'm out on the town. I'm the main administrator for the "Fans of Wil Wheaton" group, for which I received an unofficial stamp of approval from Wil Wheaton himself. I am also an admin on the World Partnership Walk Ottawa fan page and on the Macdonald Festival fan page. None of this is illegal, according to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Go ahead. Skim through it. I haven't violated any clauses.

Unless someone (or several people) reported me for spam or abuse (multiple times), I'm not quite sure how my account was flagged or why. Even then, reporting my account would be an act of malice and cyberbullying, which, according to Facebook's own policies, should have that user banned from using the site.

It's been 5 days. So far, I have not received any form of personalised communication from Facebook. In fact, other than the "please confirm your identity" email, I haven't heard a single thing from Facebook. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In the mean time, I'm barred from starting a new account because that would be a violation of Facebook's policies. Meanwhile, I can't do my job, do my volunteer work, and even, in some cases, my school work (where I use my Facebook account to "connect" with other online tools to access their information). Plus, multi-tasking with Facebook helps me clear my head when I'm dealing with complex ideas during my researching and writing process. As a result, I have been LESS productive during this busy time than I would have had my Facebook account still been active.

In order to try to expedite the process, I sent in the "disabled by error" form once more yesterday, filling in the content box with an abridged version of the information I've presented here. I also pointed them to #FacebookUnfairToNailaJ, a clever idea from @tfromdtown, who suggested I get everyone I know to trend that hashtag. That hasn't quite happened but several people in my Twitter network have been using the tag to express their concern or discontent at my profile still being disabled, and, worse, still not knowing why and when I can get it back.

Some examples:

@charlesjbarry: @NailaJ I was wondering why you unfriended me.
http://twitter.com/charlesjbarry/status/52769453997436928

@EastCoastKnits: Keep checking to see if @NailaJ is back on Facebook yet. Nope. #FacebookUnfairToNailaJ
http://twitter.com/EastCoastKnits/statuses/53581074462289920

@ToulasTake: @NailaJ WHAT?? You should create a #FacebookUnfairToNailaJgroup and ask ppl to join!! Oh, wait. You don't have a FB account. ;) #ISoSuck
http://twitter.com/ToulasTake/statuses/53305936877592576

Clearly, the impact of my account being disabled reaches beyond just me. I have effectively been disconnected from family members on the other side of the world because I never bothered to get an updated email address - we were Facebook friends. They can no longer reach me either. And on a local level, I can no longer interact with certain Kingston-area businesses whose main web presence is on Facebook. I can't check to see if my friend got the birthday card I sent her. I can't even wish a Happy Birthday to some of my friends and family. And when my birthday rolls around next week, they won't be able to send me their wishes either. I don't even know how many people will actually be showing up to my birthday dinner because by disabling my account, Facebook also disabled my event, which means my friends haven't been able to adjust their RSVPs (as I have been repeatedly reminded) and I can't make proper reservations.

Yes, it is sad, to a certain extent, that I have come to depend so much on Facebook. The good news is, I'm not the only one. The bad news is, without a Facebook account, you are very much excluded from life in 2011. What frustrates me the most, though, is that I haven't gotten even a hint of a response from Facebook and there is no other way to contact them. I'm in social media limbo and I am powerless to do anything to get myself out of it.

A Twitter friend mentioned that this happened to her in the fall and her account was restored in 3 days. Well, Facebook, it's been 5 days. I'm waiting.

On the Future of TV News

With reports of journalism jobs being hard(er) to find and discussions at conferences like the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications's annual convention, people in the news industry can't help but wonder about the future. Not just their individual futures but their industry's future.

It's a discussion we've had before, on various platforms and from various points of view. The conclusion remains that we don't know what the future will look like. We just know that it will be different.

I'd like to take a look at what is commonly referred to as journalism's main enemy: the Internet. Why does it work? Because it's customizable. It's targeted. Similarly, which TV stations/networks/coverage tend to make the most cash (and therefore survive longer)? Specialised stations and shows. Things like live sports, or channels dedicated to a single interest, like home design and renovations or fashion. These networks survive because they've found a niche market and they're feeding off of it, both in terms of ratings and ads - it's a targeted "sure thing" investment opportunity.

How does this apply to TV news? Journalists usually agree that all consumers should have access to a source of news that will educate and inform them as well-rounded citizens. In other words, just because your main interest is the stock market doesn't mean you shouldn't know what's going on in Parliament. But let's be honest. After the first five minutes or so of political news, you'll probably switch channels. A good news network will try to keep you watching despite your lack of interest, by using teases, for example. But that's not a commercially viable long-term strategy to retain your attention.

The only way TV news is going to survive in a future overtaken by the Internet, PVRs and "On Demand" is to give consumers what they want, and now. That, for lack of a better word, is what they want. So why not give it to them?

It's not just sports or specialised channels that draw audiences in. News events do the same. Remember #Obamawa? What about the #H1N1 scare or #Haiti aid or, the latest big issue, the BP oil spill? What do these things have in common?

People want to know. They want to know everything and they want to know it now. They just can't get enough coverage and they'll watch several news cycles on several news networks to get their fix. This effectively creates a niche market for information on this issue. But after a day or so, most of the viewers think enough is enough.

What is the future of TV news? Feed the monster. But only if it's hungry.

Every time an event or issue temporarily overtakes the news market, create a specialised "On Demand" stream that will broadcast anything and everything that has to do with the subject. Whether it's NASA's latest space mission or Canada Day, a natural disaster or a political faux-pas, create an individualised stream and feed the monster.

Most of the networks already do it online. Those who know about it and have access to the Internet at the peak of their interest will routinely stream press conference feeds or sporting event coverage. Currently, the networks offer these services for free, mostly because consumers won't pay for a service they're already paying for, whether they consider that to be their cable TV or Internet. Also, most people aren't comfortable paying for any kind of information on the Internet because they're certain they can get it somewhere for free.

But can anyone guarantee a high-quality, uninterrupted, 24h specialised stream? Not on the Internet. Not yet, anyway. But on TV? They've pretty much got it down.

My suggestion - and I want to note that I haven't crunched the numbers on this since broadcast finances are not something I'm familiar with - is to provide that specialised stream on cable TV. Users with a digital box can simply call up their provider (or use self-serve menus) and add CBC News Network 2 or 3 or 4 (for example), depending on which major news story they would like to follow non-stop. The subscription would automatically expire once the story and coverage dies down, or the user could call and cancel it at any time. Set a one-time subscription fee of under $5 per story/stream - my suggestion is somewhere around $3 plus any applicable taxes - and a minimum subscription period of 48 hours, and I'm sure people will pick up on it. I would.

The network would have to broadcast several signals, but since we're switching to digital anyway, it probably wouldn't put too much of a dent in the budget. Getting CRTC clearance is another story.

And what kind of coverage would our reduced newsrooms offer to their new avid customers? Live streams of any of the gazillions of press conferences going on about the topic, interspersed with airport-style "breaking news" segments recorded in a centralised studio, potentially by anchors assigned only to that specific developing news topic or perhaps by the anchor on shift recording for all the specialised channels. You could also throw in live hits from the network reporters on location assigned to the story, interviews with experts and people affected by the story, and related pre-packaged reports - which you're producing anyway. Add in re-packed news conference highlights - longer than the ones played in the main network's news cycle - and boards showing upcoming events related to story, and you've got a nice loop-able mix of non-stop coverage on the news event du jour for the modern news junkie.

In terms of staff, the only extra hires would be technicians to monitor the various streams and editors to package and produce the stream's content. Current online editors would be perfect candidates for this position since they already understand the technology and short attention span of today's news audience. Most of the content is already coming in for the 24h news stations and the live press conference feeds are usually provided as in-house service for a minimal fee.

That way, when a major news story or event takes over the news industry, we won't be overwhelmed by endless reports on an issue, meanwhile getting less than satisfactory coverage of all the other going-ons in the world. And we won't be saturated by a constant flow of information that will make us stop caring about a potentially important issue, or worse, make us actually care about a non-important issue. Like Lindsay Lohan being sentenced to jail.

I don't know about you, but if I could buy non-stop quality coverage of the next shuttle launch, I would. Even if I know I could watch it for free online at NASA TV. Why? Because I can get everything I need to know about that one topic in one spot. And because I'm a space geek. And a political geek would buy coverage to Obama's visit to Canada, and a TV geek would purchase a CRTC telecommunications panel package. In this case, the repetition of the news cycle wouldn't be such a bore because you would choose to watch it.

What do you think? Could dedicated temporary cable streams be the future of TV news?

I guess there's only one way to find out... Stay tuned!

On Nodar Kumaritashvili

As you have no doubt heard by now, there was a tragic accident at Men's Singles Luge training at the Whistler Sliding Centre on Friday.

21-year old Georgian athlete Nodar Kumaritashvili slid off his sled and off the track, hitting a solid post. When it happened, I was in the Mixed Zone. I didn't not personally see the incident, but I heard a disturbance. The reporters who were watching the live footage on the big screen exclaimed in surprise and distress.

Hours after it was all over, after the Opening Ceremonies, after a comforting dinner with some of my co-workers and lighting some candles at the Olympic rings in Whistler Village, I came home and turned on the TV. It was still all over the news. As well as a soldier's death in Afghanistan and a young woman's death in Ontario. It was a tough night for Canada.

I also posted a few stories on the incident. One on juggling being a reporter and being a human being. One on the balance between reporting the news and exploiting someone's death.

The latter got a lot of comments on my Facebook page, and most people agreed that the footage of the crash leading to Nodar's death should not have been showed. However, they disagreed on the degree to which the death should have been reported. I would like to share the comment I wrote in response to theirs.

It is worth noting that this was my third comment on the story. The first explained how the Olympic Broadcast Service cut the feed of the crash as soon as it happened, but CTV, ABC and other networks aired the full crash footage. CTV stopped airing the actual crash once it became clear that Nodar had passed away. ABC not only showed the full crash, they also aired a picture of his bloody face, receiving CPR before being put in the ambulance.

My second comment referred to the idea that people "need to know" and the media being the ones to deliver that information to keep people informed, though I didn't agree with airing the full footage and said that if someone was truly compelled to watch it, they could be pointed to it online.

Commentators on the post talked about conscience, the morbid interest we have in death - something we can't understand, on ratings and money, on having limits and respect and not airing something if you're "struggling" with the decision, on family and friends having to see it over and over again, and on how the incident airing live could not have been prevented but networks would never air the footage of someone being shot to death.

Without further ado, here is my long-winded response to all these concerns and comments. It is my form of therapy and sharing it with you will make it easier for me to deal with this horrific incident, put it behind me, and enjoy the rest of the Olympic Games.

There was no way of knowing what would happen live, so that's not up for discussion. I personally don't think that it should have aired completely, but if it hadn't, I and other reporters who are covering the story would have seen it and wouldn't have been able to understand what happened.
That doesn't mean that I would have put it on a broadcast. Like I said, I would have aired up until the sled started slipping, and cut it there.

An article doesn't work for TV, unfortunately, and having an anchor on cam for over a minute describing the incident doesn't work either.

There are rules in Canada - and journalistic ethics - that prevent the showing of someone's death on TV and it should have stayed that way. If there was any indication at all that Nodar had passed away (which there was - one reporter I talked to who saw the crash live (on the venue screen) said right away that he thought Nodar might be dead), then you shouldn't show the moment of death. It's a lack of respect, it's unnecessary, and it's gruesome.

Ratings shouldn't matter in this case. What if his family and/or friends had been watching and this was how they heard/learned about the death?

Similarly, nothing serious should have been tweeted/FB about the incident until the family was notified and the IOC confirmed the death. Reporting that there was a major crash is one thing. Putting it out there that he's dead when there hasn't been a confirmation is unacceptable.

Yes, journos want to get the story and get it first, but at some point, humanity has to step in. Just as there are embargo rules on deaths in military zones, there should be embargo rules applied to ALL deaths.

As for having it online, I don't think it should be advertised, but human beings can't help but be curious and want to see it for themselves to believe it, even if the footage is behind a gazillion disclaimers - people tend to ignore those. In this case, competition and ratings did take over, but before any networks put the OBS footage online, some people had apparently already put it on YouTube. That's gross and it pisses me off.

I was there, I heard the scrapping of the sled and the initial exclamation from those who saw it happen. I felt the moment of shock, when we were all frozen in our understanding and realization of what had and may have happened. Then, someone sprung into action and decided to head down to the crash site. By then, Nodar was already being moved into the ambulance. Some reporters saw more than I did, and photographers captured some gruesome images. I don't blame them, that's human curiosity. You do want comes natural, and taking the shot is what photographers do naturally.

I saw Nodar's feet as he was put into the ambulance. That was enough for me. When I saw the crash footage later, and how still Nodar had been, there was no doubt in my mind that he died instantly. The networks should have come to the same realization and decided NOT to air the footage.

Nodar Kumaritashvili, rest in peace. Here's a prayer for your soul and the quick healing of all our hearts. May we remember only the positives from your life and may your legacy make your favourite sport safer for all. I hope you left this world full of joy and the thrill of doing what you like the most, not fear or desperation.

My condolences to the whole Olympic family.

On Vancouver

Week 1 in Vancouver has been truly amazing. I finally met one my aunts and some cousins, I am about to see another set of cousins after, oh, maybe 15 years? And I am surrounded by the natural beauty of the Fraser Valley.

Oh, and did I mention I'm volunteering at the Olympics?

It's been a wonderful experience so far, from figuring out transit from Mission, BC to Canada Place (as opposed to Canada Hockey Place), to picking up my bright blue volunteer uniform and getting along so well with my family. I've only done a couple of shifts at the Main Press Centre and things have been slow due to the Games not starting for another week or so, but I'm going to be working with a great team, and I am now a master of the news system ;)

I will admit I was a bit bummed at not getting Main Media Centre accreditation, which would have allowed me to visit friends and to network at the International Broadcast Centre next door. However, limiting credentials to essential venues only is probably a good move by VANOC and I would assume that it severely reduces potential security threats. So I can't hold that against them. Still, IBC buddies, as you have access to the MPC with your accreditation, I look forward to you stopping in for a chat in my little neck of the woods.

Speaking of the woods, the scenery in Vancouver is absolutely stunning. Everywhere you turn, you can see mountains and tall trees. Whether you're downtown, on the SkyTrain, or in the suburbs, this wise, ancient environment surrounds you. Some of the mountains are lit at night, being ski hills. Others are best viewed during the day, with their snowy tops reflecting in the sun, which we've been having a lot of, thankfully. It's also consistently been between 9 degrees Celsius and 12C during the day, which is great for me but not so great for Cypress Mountain.

The bridges here are amazing as well. They are beautiful architectural structures and overlook the most entrancing landscapes. I imagine it might get boring after a while, but I keep feeling blessed by these mountains you just want to hug and lakes you can't wait to paddle. What else could I ask for? I have breakfast on the sunny deck looking out to the mountains, wait for the bus looking at other mountains, ride public transit on these gorgeous bridges and over the logging, cabin-sitting rivers, and all the while, the air is crisp and fresh and warm.

Vancouver seems like a great place for me. I haven't even reacted to the dog!

After a week, I've gotten used to the time change and actually went to sleep at 3am voluntarily last night, which is a good sign considering that once I really start my Olympic shifts, I'll only be able to get to bed around 2:30am. The only thing that's not so good about Pacific Time is, though I kept claiming to be living in that timezone when in Montreal, that it's hard to stay in touch with people. Not just friends and family, but my whole online system, my Twitter buddies and news streams... they're all based in Eastern Time, and I'm having trouble keeping up! Still, these kinds of busy trips help me eliminate some of the clutter in my life, from websites I realize I'm not really interested in catching up on or Facebook friends whose updates aren't really relevant to my everyday life anymore. Usually, these trips help me re-focus my energies on what's truly important, and I'm looking forward to figuring it all out once this journey is over.

Meanwhile, I can't wait until all my broadcast buddies settle in Vancouver later this week. It's going to be nice to hang out and explore together and who knows? Maybe I'll even have a hot tub, hot dog, house party! Since we're in Vancouver, everyone will be super polite (I love that people here yell out "thank you" even when exiting the bus by the rear doors) and you'll all be wearing track suits (I heard that Vancouver was casual, but I was expecting lululemons and Pumas, not sweats and Converse), so it'll be a grand time! (That's right, I've picked up some Irish lingo from my Irish family).

And on that note... Slainte!

On sharing

As you may know, I'm a huge fan of Wil Wheaton. It's not just his work as an actor or his talent as a writer.

It's because he is honest about who he is, as an individual, a father, a husband, an artist, and a geek. He doesn't hide his true character the way that most of us do, and that takes a whole lot of courage and self-esteem. Sure, he keeps some things private, but that's vital to anyone's sanity and totally understandable.

In his latest blog post, Wil talks about what motivates him as a writer. He says,

All artists are compelled to do what we do, whether it's music or storytelling or painting or whatever. (...) I struggle sometimes to find a balance between just "being" somewhere and mentally recording what it's like to be there, but I don't really have a choice in the matter...

This is exactly how I feel about my craft, whether it's blogging, reporting, or working behind the scenes in TV. In fact, I was so much in agreement with his perspective that I was compelled to add my own in his comments. I said,

Yes. As a writer/journo/TV broadcaster/blogger/tweeter/sharer, I definitely think we're compelled. There's just no other way to explain it. We don't just do it because we like it or want to... we HAVE to.

When I don't write SOMETHING/ANYTHING for a while, I feel all bottled up and stressed and I just have to let it out in some form. Sometimes, I can avoid the actual creative process by doing something related, like singing or playing the guitar. But most of the time, that's just a temporary fix. Like craving chocolate but having hot chocolate instead.

As for the balance... It's really tough to just "be". At least for me. I find it hard to leave the observational, detail-oriented, analytical part of me behind and just enjoy experiences. I always have the need to record and to share, and it's only after much struggling that I can push that need aside.

I've found that going into a situation deciding NOT to report but just to enjoy sometimes helps achieve that "it's okay not to tell the whole world about this" feeling. But not always. Although it does become easier with practice!

Thanks for sharing! :)

And now you know.

The Things You Miss The Most

This week, for the first time in a long time, I sat down and tried to write a real article. It was hard!!

I was helped by the fact that my piece would feel more like a column rather than a hard news story , but even then, I was reminded of how much work it takes to write a concise, easy-to-read article that is not a blog post.

I will admit that when I first started writing, I was a little bit afraid of the 600-800 words order... but I ended up going over!

The thing is... I usually just write. Even when I was doing more hard news reporting, I familiarized myself with the story, figured out what I wanted to say while I was still in transition from location to desk, and just sat down and wrote. Sometimes, I would have to pause half way and re-assess my intentions for the piece. I would take this time to make a few edits and trim a few superfluous words.

Then, I would probably tweak my lead a bit and keep writing until I got stuck on the ending, which is always the hardest part for me to write.

Sometimes, it just works. You just know. And it writes itself. But other times - like this weekend - it didn't. I knew I should wrap it up with a reference to my lead because it was just that kind of piece, but I still didn't feel confident that I had a killer last sentence.

Then I'd do one last read-through for copy-editing purposes, or hold off until the next day in the case of a really long paper/essay/piece with a looser deadline, and that's about it.

Dust off your hands, we're done!

I blame my prose insecurities on all the job applications I've been writing. The composition style is different, to be sure, and there are certain rules that you more or less have to follow. Writing an article isn't like writing a blog either... Here, I really can just spew out a mumbo-jumbo of thoughts. Form and flow don't really matter... the words just fall into place naturally.

Perhaps the lack of facts made the piece harder to write and a press conference story would have been easy-peasy. In fact, I think I could probably jump back into press conference story writing in a jiffy - and will be for the Vancouver Olympics! - because it's something you just don't forget.

Lead. 5 W. Tell us why we should care. Tell us what we can do/how to follow up. Background info that the editors can cut for space.

That's right, the inverted pyramid is pinned to the corkboard in my mind. Thanks, J-school profs!

But it wasn't applicable in this case, was it?

So... How did I do? I'd really love your feedback, so without further ado, here it is, as published yesterday on The Concordian.com:

The Things You Miss The Most
Going away and not keeping score

By Naila Jinnah

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where your BlackBerry or iPhone doesn’t work? What if you can’t get an Internet connection either? And to top it all off, the TV gets nothing but static!

While this may seem like an ideal scenario for many a sports widow, it’s not so cool for the sports fan.

I recently went to Cuba for a week (boo-hoo, I know!) and while it was relieving to spend some time away from the constant buzz of technology, I did occasionally wonder how the Montreal Canadiens were faring on their annual holiday road trip. And if Team Canada was kicking butt at the World Junior Championship in Saskatchewan. Oh, and hoping that no additional Canadian medal hopefuls had gotten injured in competitions leading up to the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games.

It is indeed an exciting time for Canadian sports fans, but despite the high concentration of tourists from the True North Strong and Free, no one was talking hockey. There were lots of Habs shirts though, and I think I spotted a few Sens logos. And, in case you were wondering, no, I didn’t see a single Leafs’ fan.

With so many potential breaking sports stories during my time away, it was with great urgency that I turned on my BlackBerry as soon as the plane landed at Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport. After about a gazillion incoming message notifications – thankfully, I remembered to turn off my ringer – I immediately went searching for sports news. In times away from the computer, I have found great comfort in receiving my TSN Morning Newsletter on my phone. This was no exception.

One might assume that the first thing I would want to check was the outcome of the Habs games.

Well, you’re right.

However, after scrolling through the NHL scores, I realized that I was most interested in the other stories. The ones that usually make me go “Hmm” in the morning but only click on if the headline really captures my attention. The ones that, most of the time, I don’t necessarily care about reading through to the end and therefore stop paying attention to not long after the lead paragraph. These are the stories that intrigued me.

As it turns out, they were all human interest stories. The torchbearer getting knocked down by protesters in Guelph. Prime Minister Stephen Harper suspending the Canadian Parliament until after the Olympics. Not just the announcement of Team Canada’s men’s hockey roster for the Olympics, but also the reactions of those selected and those left aside. The NHL and the NHLPA actually working together for once to write to the International Ice Hockey Federation about Team Russia’s potential last minute roster changes for the Games. Tiger Woods being voted best athlete of the decade, despite the ongoing controversy in his personal life.

The truth is, most of these stories could make the front page of a newspaper or lead a newscast. There was nothing especially sporty about them, save for the fact that they involved athletic events or personalities. The stories were about politics, business, and law - stories with excitement, betrayal and hope.

They were stories about our lives.

At the beginning of this piece, you probably pictured me as a hockey-obsessed fan that can’t take the risk of disconnecting and unwinding. You probably thought that I was a Leaf-hater, that I don’t watch any news other than Sports 30 and that I can’t stand being without my BlackBerry.

While that last part is probably more accurate than I’d like it to be, the point is that we are all multifaceted people. Sometimes, we forget that there is more to sports than victories and medals, and indeed, that there is more to life than sports. Or rather, sports are just another facet of life.

When I understood that it wasn’t finding out the scores that matters the most but rather reading the stories about people, I realized how much you miss when you take off for a week. Obviously, you don’t get all the live excitement, but most importantly, you miss out on the subtleties of sport, and of life. You miss Tomas Plekanec losing a tooth. You miss the horror of the Olympic flame potentially going out when the torch hits the ground – and it’s all your fault!

What else do you miss? You miss all the things that I can’t tell you about because I wasn’t there when it happened. Did Cindy Klassen grimace and stretch her legs after failing to qualify for the 1,000m speed skating race? I’ll never know.

These are the things you miss the most when your smartphone can’t find a network, you can’t get online, and you can’t find static-free TV.

You miss the moments that help shape peoples’ lives.

-30-

Local TV Matters vs. Stop the TV Tax

Can't decide whether to save local TV or stop the TV tax?

That might be because both sides are broadcasting ambiguous messages.

I think we can all agree that local TV matters. Local news is where we get information about the things, people and institutions that surround us. Local entertainment programming allows talented Canadian individuals to shine, whether it's in front of the camera or behind the scenes. Local TV gives us, the locals, a platform to express our thoughts and ideas about the things that matter to us.

And yet, we can't help but agree with some of the rebuttal from the Stop the TV tax campaign. With the Local TV Matters campaign constantly reminding us of the November 2 deadline to help save local TV, I thought now would be a perfect time to put the arguments from both sides head-to-head.

So here goes.


1. "Why don't cable and satellite providers already pay for local television signals?" & "What is 'Negotiation for Value'?" vs. "Cable companies steal local television signals, then sell them to customers" & "The big networks deserve to be paid for their television signals"

Yes, it's true. Cable and satellite providers don't pay for local TV signals. But this has always been the case, mostly because TV started as an over-the-air broadcast, meaning anyone who was able to capture the signal (Oh hello, bunny ears!) had access to the content. However, most of that content was created locally or at least, somewhere locally across that network. These days, local programming consists mostly of news and current affairs shows, and even that's put together with a national perspective. The rest of the content is purchased from distributors, whether it's documentary, reality TV or entertainment production company. And we've seen an increase in the American-based content being purchased to air on our local stations.

Yes, broadcasters deserve to receive some sort of payment for the content they provide, because it then provides added value to the cable companies that distribute said content. For example, the only channel in Canada where you can catch Dexter is The Movie Network. If Rogers were to have the exclusive carriage of The Movie Network, and Dexter was your favourite show (and assuming you're not one to download TV shows or stream online), you would probably opt for a Rogers cable package instead of the other cable companies' offering.

Cable companies pay for specialty TV stations. Obviously, they must see some value in their investment. Do they not believe that local TV is as valuable? They carry the channels, so clearly, they must think they have some value. And please, don't use the "over-the-air" excuse. Times have changed. All TV signals will be digital only by August 2011, so no one will be able to capture those old analogue signals.

Conclusion: Cable companies get free content from the broadcasters (who pay for theirs) and should pay up.
Cable distributors should have to purchase the rights to carry a station. This would then provide additional funding for local producers and talent to get paid by local stations for producing original content that's relevant to the local community.


2. "Why are Canada's television broadcasters concerned about the future of local television?" & "Why don't broadcasters just invest more in local programming?" vs. "Canada's big networks invest heavily in local programming" & "the new tax will prevent closure of local stations" & "Cable and satellite providers do not believe in local television"

This is a tough one. Both sides are right. Both sides are also wrong.

Canada's television broadcasters already invest heavily in local programming, including Rogers, also a distributor. The problem is that local programming is so much more expensive than ready-made, produced-elsewhere (or nationally) programming: no HR, no production assistants, no insurance fees or crew salaries... The production expenses add up quickly. As for local news? It takes staff to put together the stories you want to hear. All the recent cuts mostly affect local stations, who see their workload remain the same (or sometimes increase!), while having less resources to reach the targets set by their networks. Something's gotta give.

Yet, there is no assurance than any additional fees given to broadcasters will be distributed to local stations. I'm sure it will trickle down in the long run, but on a day-to-day level, nothing's going to change for the hard-working staff in your local newsrooms. There won't be any innovative new programmes. No additional young doc-makers will see their footage to air.

Local broadcasters say they will negotiate with the CRTC exactly how much should be spent where. But if the goal of this fee is to save local TV, shouldn't local TV get all the money? Ah, bureaucracy!

Meanwhile, cable and satellite providers will simply pass on the additional costs to me and to you, the customers. And don't forget the taxes. At least the providers are being honest... They have no intention of actually paying for the local programming, if they're ordered to pay up by the CRTC. They will simply charge us again, which means we will be paying for the same content twice. And they say they truly care about offering us local programming. How underhanded!

Rogers is the only cable provider that is also a broadcaster. Yes, they care about local TV and air regional programming, which makes all of this even more odd, as they might actually save from not having to pay themselves for local TV programming, while all the other providers will pay them for the programming they say they produce anyway. They have nothing to lose! Even after paying for other local stations. If anything, they'd simply break even.

Conclusion: The CRTC must order the fee to be payed directly by the cable and satellite distributors and minutely monitor how the networks invest it in local TV. Do your job and regulate already!
The CRTC should not only order cable and satellite distributors to pay up for local content, they should make it illegal for them to pass this fee along to their customers or hike up their fees without valid reason in order to weasel out of paying for the product they provide. Also, the networks should be forced to spend this new income on local programming and should have to prove it by an annual audit of their financial records, showing that each and every cent collected was actually spent on producing local TV, whether it's on additional crew salaries, purchasing a locally-made documentary, or buying new cameras for the newsroom.


3. "I've noticed in the news that some people have referred to the issue as broadcasters wanting a bailout. Is this true?" & "Why can't broadcasters use the profits from their specialty stations to support local conventional stations?" vs. "Cable and satellite distributors earn billions in profits, but broadcasters are going broke" & "Cable and satellite providers pocket 70% of your bill" & "This is a 'one-time' fee to support local television to help them cope with lower advertising revenues"

First of all, the networks aren't claiming that this is a one-time fee, so you can take that one off your myth list. Nice try, though.

Guess what? Some broadcasters do want a bailout! (ahem, Canwest?). But this has nothing to do with the current discussion, which was a long time coming. Broadcasters are going broke, it's true, and that's a whole other discussion and a complicated one at that. You can't compare public and private broadcasters, for one. CBC's issue is that it doesn't get enough funding and isn't allowed to take advantage of all the advertising opportunities that other networks have. Of course, advertising is not working out so well for the private broadcasters either. Still, a business is a business and as much as media and journalism is important to the proper functioning of a society, you've got to take your responsibilities and own up to your failures. If you can't balance the books, you shouldn't be running a business.

However, the fees paid by the cable and satellite companies would contribute to turning the reds into blacks, and it's only fair to get paid for your work. Advertising alone no longer supports the costs of running a media company, and the free online content customers demand also comes at a cost to the broadcasters. Similarly, specialty stations make enough profit to be self-sustainable and more, but not enough to sustain sister conventional stations. And as always, you've got to consider the administrative costs too.

The cable and satellite companies claim that they're not as rich as the networks would make it seem and make most of their money from other ventures, namely as internet providers. And they charge us, the customers, disproportionately large sums of money for those services too. Sure, less than 6% goes to profits, but they're still taking that claimed 70% off our bills to pay for their expenses. Oh, and that "tiny 1%" profit they make is based on millions of dollars and ends up being not so tiny. They're not the victims here. Neither side is.

Conclusion: Suck it up and stop playing dead. Both of you.
The fact is that the cable television industry is reinventing itself and there will be tough times, especially in a harsh economical climate. The cable and satellite companies are trying to shy away from a change that should have been imposed ages ago, but because of the CRTC's poor understanding of the new face of the industry, they've managed to escape unscathed until now.

This so-called tax isn't a magical solution. It won't fix anything, but it might patch things up enough for local TV to re-invent itself successfully.... if the networks actually commit to it and listen to what the local community wants from its local stations.

Throughout this campaign, Local TV Matters and Stop the TV Tax have acted like rivaling siblings who will pick a fight about anything and everything just because. They're running to mom (aka the CRTC) at every twist and turn, wanting to be proclaimed the winner.

Well, guess what? No one's right, and no one's wrong. Stop bickering and whining and start getting along. The real issue here is mom, who is in serious need of parenting classes.

The CRTC needs to emerge from the dark ages, look around, and realize that the world is different, but that's okay. It needs to come to terms with the past and understand the present so it can properly plan for the future. Hip hop might not be its favourite musical styling, but that's what the kids are into these days. Like a good parent, it needs to accept its children's differences and that their modern world is different from its own experience. The CRTC needs to force the television broadcasters and the cable and satellite providers to work together and create a broadcasting environment that is truly the best for all Canadians.

So let's all agree that local TV matters, and stop the TV tax from being another completely irrelevant and mostly ineffective CRTC decision.

Stay tuned...

Update on the #H1N1 (aka swine flu) vaccine

Since blogging about the H1N1 vaccine, I have come across several other sources making strong arguments against getting the swine flu vaccine, as well as additional sources debunking those arguments. All this research has made me seriusly re-think my willingness to get inoculated. With all the mixed messages out there, no wonder we're so confused!

Here are some links that you MUST read, no matter which side of the fence you're on (with thanks to my friends who pointed them out):

• "What's the Danger of Swine Flu Vaccinations?" - Written by Dr. Anders Bruun Laursen for the Centre for Research for Globalization, based in Montreal, QC. The article is dated August 20, 2009, and though I hadn't heard of this centre before, it seems pretty credible, especially when you consider the next article.
  

• "Ingredients Found in Spermicides, Cleaners, and Cosmetics along with Thimerosal, and Squalene Present in Experimental H1N1 Vaccine" (Waaaaaah!?) - Written by Jeffry John Aufderheide for VacTRUTH, a source I would be less confident to trust if it weren't for all the well-referenced research. Dated September 11, 2009.

Both these articles were written a while ago, so one would hope that changes have been made. However, I don't recall anything about these concerns being addressed by the media (who are supposed to be a trusted source of information for us, asking the questions we cannot ask). At least, not in Canada.

CBCnews.ca has at least tried to address the issue most Canadians are dealing with in this next article:

• "The vaccination debate: To be jabbed or not", dated October 28, 2009. It looks at both sides of the story, featuring interviews with two doctors who have varying opinions and is a must read for a clear and concise understanding of the main issues in this debate.

Except, of course, it doesn't directly address all of the issues raised in the previously posted two articles. It does, however, point us to the following article:

• "Swine flu myth: The vaccine isn't safe - it has been rushed through tests and the last time there was a swine flu scare the vaccine hurt people. Why take the risk to prevent mild flu?", written by Deborah MacKenzie and published on October 21, 2009 in New Scientist Magazine and on their website.

If you scroll down to the comments, you'll notice people complaining about the squalene in the vaccines. Another commentator then points out that squalene is in olive oil and a bunch of other ingredients we ingest on a daily basis, and produced by our bodies, as explained in this US-based resource on the anthrax vaccine.

Some very smart people read New Scientist... and now I'm more confused than ever. What I would like is an in-depth interview by the CBC (or another similarly trusted broadcaster - seeing how officials react to tough questions is definitely a bonus here) with Canada's chief public health doctor, Dr. David Butler-Jones, should directly address the concerns of Canadians. Namely,

• What exactly is squalene and in what dosage is it harmful?
• How is Canada planning to follow-up on the effectiveness of the vaccine (trials, etc)?
• What about these other toxic substances said to be included in the vaccine?

Who's with me?!

On the new #CBC News Network

So, what do you think?

Personally, I like the new CBC News Network, overall. I like the fonts, I like the colours, I like the feel... but.

There is a "but".

I don't like the casual feel of CBC NN.

Let me explain.

I know Jennifer McGuire says that's what Canadians want from CBC. The new jingles? Yes, they're catchy. In a Euro pop kinda way. But some of them dismiss the seriousness of the headlines. They make me feel like I'm watching CNN. And I have many a bone to pick with CNN.

I'm not sure what the point is to having a "news now" block graph in your lower third... Or the CBC logo, for that matter. I miss my transparent bug: it's a much less cluttered look and still does the job branding-wise. There's a reason I'm watching CBC instead of CTV's Canada AM or CP24 (if it were available in Quebec!)

And the scrolling headlines? They no longer scroll! It took a while, but I've gotten used to it. Unfortunately, I find that the information contained in the scrolls is not as complete as it used to be.

The weather lower third is useful, sure, but all day long? At least give us a more relevant forecast like Now, Later, Tonight. Or something along those lines. Not Now, Tuesday and Wednesday. I can get that information online or on the Weather Network.

Speaking of the weather... Pointing to a giant screen (how much did those cost, by the way?) seems ineffective so far. I miss my swirling weather maps, and I bet the meteorologists feel insecure at no longer being in control of the switching. I'm glad they're alternating with the green screen instead of making it all big screen.

I do love the set. I like the clean lines and open space: it matches the crisp fonts and bold wipes. I think some anchors are really embracing the standing up news-telling and it fits them well - especially Carol MacNeil. I'm also glad to hear, via a tweet by Hill reporter Rosemary Barton, that they don't really have to stand if they don't want to. Plus, the anchors are seated when interviewing in-studio guests.

More on the set: I love that Entertainment and Business and all that stuff is now in studio. I like the hits from across the newsroom, but I really do wish the camera was on a tripod instead of handheld. It looks amateur, not trendy.

I don't like seeing a reporter on the big screen behind the anchor. It diminishes the anchor (literally and otherwise!) and is way too CNN for my liking.

I know CBC will be working out the kinks for the next few days -like segment wipes with audio timing - and I hope they take our feedback and truly make it a network for Canadians.

Again, there's a but. I have a big problem with all these changes. As much as I like them (see below for more on that), it puts extra pressure on the already strained local workforce. The local crews not only have to deal with extended 1.5h newscasts, it now also has to put on a nightly newscast. And those will be live, not pre-taped.

And although the extended local newscasts are very repetitive with 3 nearly identical blocks at 5pm, 5:30pm and 6pm, the producers and reporters are still overworked, trying to make the content seem original or putting together multiple versions of the same package. With all the added workload and the smaller workforce, it's no wonder the reporters trip on their words during their live fronts. And yet, there's no added value for the viewers. In fact, we don't even notice. As one of my CBC friends puts it, "It's more work for less people, with a shiny cover put over it to make us all feel better."

But there are some positives:

I like that new stories are introduced on the 2pm newscast. Who needs to hear the same packs all day?
I like repeat in-depth interviews with guests like CBC's Defence specialist Bill Gillespie. Give me more extracts from that and less of this morning's pack.
I like variations on the same story, ie the H1N1 virus/vaccine. Not just the clinics opening and the US story, but also the pregnant couple who needs to find a new pre-natal class.
I like Carol asking a Toronto hospital official if they've over-hyped the pandemic. That's CBC bringing us into the news-making process.
I like Anne-Marie Mediwake as my mid-morning anchor. She looks right at home on the set.
I like the breaking news reporter, even though she's stuck in the newsroom. It adds a different voice to the mix.
I like that Your View or Your Voice or whatever it used to be called is now simply POV. Much easier to remember.
I like the new accompanying websites for The National, Connect with Mark Kelley, World Report, and Politics & Power. They've got great cross-platform integration features.

I love that the anchors now throw to each other between shows. No more awkward "hey, where'd she go?"
I'm in love with the yellow in the fonts. Bright! Happy! A bit of positivity in an often negative news cycle.
I love Colleen Jones' style on the story of the day... She makes it personable and shows us how it relates to us.
I love how well Carol fits in to the redesign. It's like it was made for her.

I still wish CBC would make it easier to find News Network stories online, and put them up there quicker. I can't wait for their "make your own lineup" feature. I hope it's easy to share and doesn't apply exclusively to The National.

I also wish they would cut to developing stories even without tape, especially if they have that breaking news reporter on air instead of one on the scene. If not, make mention of it, and say you're going to follow up on it. A good example? Today's House of Commons climate change flash protest. It was tweeted by a CBC reporter 20 minutes before CBC NN made any mention of it at all. The information wasn't right, but you can safely report the fact that the protest is happening.

And I wish there were more sports... Apart from Jeff Marek's new morning show sports segment, there is barely any sports content throughout the day. I understand that it's not developing news, but neither is entertainment, and at least it would mix it up a bit. It wouldn't be that difficult to put together a template for moving from a recap kind of pack to a preview pack as the day progresses, and hey! Maybe even add in some sports business news, like today's NHL/bankruptcy court action in Phoenix.

And so while I like the new CBC News Network overall, all of these changes haven't really improved news content, have they?

PS: Follow my tweets on this and other topics at http://twitter.com/nailaj.

It's all coming back to me now

I had been meaning to blog more about Africa earlier, but working Rogers Cup tennis for 7 straight days basically took up all my time. It was eat, work, sleep, and lots of transit. But, I did manage to make some professional gains. It was my first gig as a bug operator for CBC, which means I was responsible for putting the scoreboard and stats in... and updating it too! This means I really needed to understand tennis, and after 4 days of actively watching it, I managed to figure it out :)

But back to the topic of the day: Africa.


I've already given you an overview of the trip, and I do plan on going into more details about some of our visits, but I think it's also important to understand how different the worldview is, or, as it turns out, how similar life in Kenya is to life in Canada.


Things that are the same... but not

* Slowpoke! *

Ya know how when you're driving, and the car in front of you is driving at a snail's pace and you just wish they'd change lanes and let you pass? You're gonna flash your high beams, aren't you? Well, in Kenya, they do that too! It's not a big realization, but it definitely showed me that some things we believe apply only to our culture are actually more universal than we think! And in East Africa, you don't get deer or moose crossings, but cow crossings. One time, our matatu nearly hit a cow to try to get it to cross faster. It wasn't impressed. It moo-ed at us and hit back!

* The stars *

Well, they're not the same because we're in different hemispheres, but they are just as beautiful. The difference is that in North America, you see stars lower on the horizon, while in Kenya, you really have to look straight up. I had a blast hanging out at the outdoor lounge at the Serena Mombasa, lying back and watch these natural gems sparkle. One night, three of us even saw a shooting star! My first confirmed sighting, and what a sight it was!

* Media *

During our visit of the Nation Media Group facilities, I came to a startling realization. The more I listened and looked around, the more I was certain that while the media values, facilities and equipment are the same in Kenya as in North America, the East African newsrooms are evolving at a quicker pace. I believe that's because they're learning from our mistakes and successes. Basically, they're skipping the middle step, the trials and errors we made trying to achieve better quality and smoother content. Kenya is going digital this year. They're not in HD yet, but that's the next step. While here in Canada, we're struggling with upgrading from analog to digital because of the cost of the equipment, East Africans are at a natural equipment-replacement point and are able to purchase high end HD equipment as part of the renewal process. We tried to do it all too fast... We're in HD, but not true HD: True HD means that shooting equipment is HD, Audio is 5.1, transmission is HD, cables/transmitters are HD-capable, receivers and watching equipment are HD... If even one element is in standard definition, it's not HD. In Africa, they love gadgets. It won't be a problem to get people to buy HD TV sets, especially given that most people would probably be getting them as their first sets.

*Gender balance*

Most of the Frigoken factory workers in Nairobi were female. However, this was done by choice, not because of gender bias. Sure, women are detail-oriented and good with veggies, but does that mean they should be the ones assigned to snap the tips off green beans? The reason Frigoken employs mostly women is because this job allows them to provide a secondary income to their families. In some cases, it is the only decent job a woman with relatively little education can get in the city. And they make it easy too... The plant offers a drop-off daycare service in one of the adjoining buildings, and if I understood correctly, it's free! How many North American plants can boast the same? Also, many of the farmers in the village were women, although their husbands may own the plots.


Things that really are different

*The buses*

You've already heard the stories... The matatus run on a completely different system than our North American transit. It's more of a taxi-like system, regulated by the government to some extent in that drivers have to register their vehicles and pay some sort of fee. It's also like taxis because the drivers are absolutely insane. That's where the similarities end, though. Matatus are little white Toyota minivans/SUVs, often covered in all kinds of slogans and celebrity names. The most popular ones? Tupac and Obama buses. The slogans sometimes don't make sense... Why would an East African matatu driver decorate his bus to the theme of the Minnesota Wolverines? (No, not Michigan) Or "The Game"? Matatus decide to patrol specific routes, but pick people up and drop them off anywhere along that road or in that neighbourhood... And at the rate that these buses pass, you can probably get anywhere on time! Sometimes, you could see multiple matatus pulled over alongside the highway, trying to get people on board for the 2 Kenyan Shillings fair, which more or less converts to 2 cents.

*What time is it?*

In Kenya, you really can set your clock to the sun. Every day, without fail, the sun rises between 6:30 and 6:45 and sets between 6:30 and 6:45. It's absolutely amazing! You figure that's how villagers go by their day... So very impressive.

Nairobi vs. Mombasa

*Nairobi*

Nairobi is like any other metropolis: busy, constantly moving, full of people crowding the streets. In fact, it reminded me a bit of NYC. The only difference, of course, is the predominant skin colour on the downtown streets. But they're all in suits and briefcases, going about their day.

*Mombasa*

Mombasa, on the other hand, is totally a beach resort... Until you get to the main part of the town. There, you can definitely see the different levels of poverty, which are much more obvious than in the Nairobi outskirts. It's not just the shantytowns... From the moment you leave the Mombasa airport and until you reach the touristy beach resort, you can see the true face of East African poverty.


Those are just some general observations about my trip to Kenya. Next post? Coming home, and realizing how different life truly is from one end to the world to another.

Stay tuned...

Courtesy of a friend

One of my friends shared an interesting theory with me this morning.

First, he informed me that he'd finally found a counter-argument to, and I quote, "all the people who are like "this world is fucked, I don't want to bring any children into it so no kids for me" argument."

Naturally, I was intrigued.

Basically, he says it's a lame excuse, because most of the people who say that are, simply put, smart people. And since smart people tend to end up with smart people, we also end up with couples that are made up of two not-so-smart people.

Think about it.

To be blunt... if two dumb people procreate, chances are we'll end up with a pretty dumb kid. (No offense intended - just explaining the theory). Sure, statistically, we could also end up with a super smart kid, but that's not the usual case.

Similarly, if two smart people breed, we will most likely end up with a smart kid. Perhaps a super smart kid. Also, there's a small chance of them having a super dumb kid, but once again, those chances are slim.

However, if the smart people don't believe in raising children in a messed up world, they won't breed. The "dumb" people, however, will continue to have kids, thereby increasing the number of "dumb" people in the world, and therefore probably contributing to making the world an even more messed up place, since the proportion of smart to dumb people will decrease dramatically.

Therefore, my friend argues that smart people who say they believe that their kids should have a better life should in fact have kids so that they can change the world with all their smart ideas... Darwin style.

And eventually, we'd end up with a better world that people might actually want to raise kids in, more often than not.

That's a pretty smart theory there buddy... Wanna breed?

The Obama Factor

So the United States presidential race has finally come to an end, and not a moment too soon, as Quebec is going to be electing a new Premier on December 8th.

I know. Enough with the elections, already!

First, there were provincial elections in Quebec. Then I had a municipal election. Then the federal campaign, and of course, the crux of the USA election. And now Quebec elections again. Oh, and of course, the primaries about 2 years ago.

Yeah. I've got a headache too.

I'm to really into US politics. However, when Primary season started, I was curious. It was my first time exploring the American electoral system because it was the first time I was actually really aware it was happening, and so, intrigued.

Luckily, one of my friends, Alex Leduc, is a pro at American politics. (In fact, if you really care for the stuff, you should check out his blog. He's quickly becoming Montreal's next major US political analyst, with TV appearances to boot!)

Alex explained the basics of US elections to me, and though I can't remember most of it, it really helped me understand what was going on. Honestly though? I really didn't want to spend that much time on it. In fact, I can probably say that I didn't care what happened day-to-day, as long as I got the big lines. I do care in the sense that American politics affect what happens in Canada and around the world, but really, I don't need to know what each candidate was doing every moment of the day.

Unsurprisingly then, I don't tune in to CNN too often. I actually really dislike CNN and their coverage. Mostly because it's biased, often unconfirmed and poorly researched. I'm not talking about all their segments. But their style leaves a lot to be desired. I mean, since when is every story either breaking news or developing news?

Perhaps I should specify that I'm referring to CNN Headline News here.

What bugs me the most is that so many American citizens watch CNN (or worse, FOX News), and take everything they see and hear for fact, unquestioningly. Yes, this is a generalization, and probably encourages a stereotype or two. But you know what I mean.

Anyway. I'm not stupid, and knew that CNN would have the best election coverage on November 4th. And so I tuned in.

Boy, what a treat.

First off, the holographic interviews were way cool. Probably super expensive and uncomfortable for the anchor, but still an awesome piece of technology that I can't wait to explore.

Second, wow! Biased coverage or what?

Third, I realized that I'm extra picky about live TV productions, now that I've seen how some of it goes. And I should probably be a little less critical and remember how stressed out everyone is in the control room. Especially the audio techs. I complain about them a lot.

Want proof? Check out my Twitter stream below:

MUST know more about how the holographic interviews are done. Green Screen? 3D motion capture? 10:48 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox

--

A friend suggests green screen and 360 camera coverage. But how is it "projected"? On air graphics or actually in studio? Thoughts? 10:51 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox

--
I guess the USA doesn't have issues with revealing projections for closed States while others are still voting... ie like in Canada 10:55 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
How it's done: http://www.tvtechnology.com... 10:58 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
OMG Enough with the screaming. At least they're mixing it down... But seriously. I shouldn't have to turn down the volume. 11:03 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Also, #cnn enough with the "random black people in the crowd" shots. Do you know you're promoting racist stereotypes? 11:04 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
More dets on the holographic interview technology: http://tinyurl.com/57quvw 11:11 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
McCain admits defeat? I can go to bed now. Just one more holographic interview, plz! 11:19 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Why must we still differentiate by race? Why is Obama's victory a big deal for African Americans, as says McCain? It's a big deal for all! 11:21 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
I wonder what happens if a candidate admits defeat on a projected result - which then turns out to be wrong. Can he still claim presidency? 11:23 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
As much as I don't want to hear crowds screaming too loud, please mix in some bg audio when showing crowd shots. 11:30 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
I can't really blame the audio mixer(s). It's a tough situation, diff. mixes coming into HQ, and prob. a whole lot of control room yelling. 11:47 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Loving the sky shots. Wonder if it's a track or a jib... Does that make me a geek? 11:49 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Wonder if the mixers have time to adjust incoming audio for optimal broadcasting before putting it on air. 11:53 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox

--
@ #cnn This interview is totally ineffective. 11:54 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox in reply to cnn
--
omg! CNN showed old white people! They can't support Obama, can they? I thought it was all black ppl and youth! 11:55 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Me? Jaded? Naaaahhh 11:56 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--

I wonder who wrote @BarackObama 's speech. And how long he's been memorizing it. 12:00 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
HA! Alabama Senate race: Sessions vs. Figures 12:02 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
That 106y old must feel so justified to have Obama mention her in his acceptance speech. Maybe a bit used, but it's for a good cause, right? 12:14 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
If I were producing or mixing, I'd add crowd noise to CNN's Chicago feed 12:18 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
And as if on cue, I think I hear some clapping... though it sounds like it's coming through the stage mic. 12:18 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
Quick! Spot the cameraman in the crowd! It's like Where's Waldo, but tougher! 12:19 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
Wonder how much they spent on getting Obama's kids' hair done... 12:20 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
It's 12C in Chicago. 13km/h winds, 67% humidity. They must be freezing out there. Thank God for all those warm stage lights! 12:22 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
LOVE! The behind the stage shot featuring the USA-lit building. And the Barack/Michelle snuggle as they walk off the stage. Cute! 12:23 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
WOW. Just felt the weight of this moment. Historical. I wonder what happens next... 12:24 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--

It's quite funny, isn't it? Partway through, I realize I'm hyper critical and start to feel bad.

Anyway. Hope you laughed, because I did.

Also, if you could answer any of my gazillion questions, that would be awesome.

Thanks, and stay tuned...

Sex, Life, Love and the Pursuit of Happiness

Let me just preface this by saying that my views on love are very different from most people's. I'm not suggesting that my opinions are correct and that everyone should think like me. I understand that love is a very personal subject, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, whatever that may be. There is no right and wrong on love, just different perceptions of it. Again, I'm not judging, just thinking.

This is the fourth and final post in an exploration on love in the world of today. The first part can be found here, part 2 is here, and part 3, here.

Is sex only meant to be shared between two partners who are very much in love? That's what all our social and ethical guides seem to tell us. And yet, there is so much more to sex than intercourse between one man and one woman.

Lets just quickly take a look at some options. Picture yourself in grade school - math class. You're working on groups and trying to find how many combinations are possible.

Man and woman vs woman and woman vs man and man, vs man and woman and woman or man and man and woman... and the list goes on...

Then there's all the different acts, settings, actions, positions...

I think we can all agree that sex is more than a man and a woman in the missionary position on their bed in their master bedroom at night with the lights off trying to have a kid.

Then why is it so hard for us to accept that there can be more than one interpretation of sex? Of course, you've got the extreme views that sex should not be pleasurable if you're doing right. Or that anything sexual is demeaning to females. Or that only men are allowed to be in control.

Yeah, right.

Society's views on sex stem from a religious background. As mentioned previously, religious and social guidelines, though perhaps influenced by revelations from a higher power, are deeply rooted in the social settings of the time when they were created.

Monogamy was a solution to recklessness, disease, and the lack of self-control.
Sex for copulative purposes only was a solution to over-population, and recklessness.

But in our time, in our world, where (hopefully) the use of contraceptives is widespread, do we really need such restrictions?

In many cases, these ingrained values force us to shut down, close up, and hide from the world. We try to protect ourselves from the potential hurt that we've been told exists all around us because of sex. We see sexual acts as a form higher than regular everyday actions like washing your face - as it should be - but then put sex on a pedestal, high above other forms of pleasure.

Our understanding of sex makes us reluctant to let go and give in to the positive feelings that sexual play can bring. Our social environment doesn't accept that the purpose of sex can be purely a physical and often emotional release. That it's a perfectly acceptable, normal response to the hormones flowing in our bodies. That it is a form of pleasure that should not only be tolerated but encouraged. That the high that comes during and after sex can stem from more than just a sense of duty.

Sex, really, is the highest, purest form of physical pleasure a human being can enjoy. That being said, religion teaches us that the highest, purest spiritual pleasure we can experience is finding God and bathing in the understanding of life, the universe and everything. Then why is it so hard to believe that the orgasm that comes from sex is the material equivalent to the spiritual orgasm of being one with God?

I'm not suggesting you go on a sexual rampage with the purpose of finding God. That's definitely not going to work. Because just like in your quest for spiritual upliftment, you can only reach your zenith when everything works. The emotional longing, the intellectual stimulation and the physical attraction are all essential elements of a phenomenal sexual experience, aka orgasm. Without one of them, it might still be good - just not as good. Something will be missing. Something, perhaps, that will keep you from completely letting go and embracing the orgasm. Embracing that moment when everything stops, when the world waits for you, when light surrounds you and you just get it.

Back to society's interpretation of sex. Understandably, we can't go around screwing everything that moves. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong to want someone... many people, whether or not you're in a committed relationship. No matter what society says, sex should not be on a pedestal. It is not sacred to that extent. It's definitely something to be thoughtful about and careful with, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be explored to the fullest - no many how many different combinations or experiences you need in order to be fulfilled sexually.

Sex does not have to be tied to a relationship. It doesn't have to be done exclusively with someone you love. Or even just like, for that matter. Take, for example, rape. Just because it's not wanted by both parties doesn't make it not "sex".

Our perception of sex is muddled by our wants and needs for a relationship. Rarely do we examine sex alone, free from pretenses. And when some brave souls try to do so, they get shot down with prejudices and stereotypes. They're called whores and sluts, players and pervs. They're not good for you, your family will say. They only care about one thing, your friends will say. But no one will dare say that they're exploring ways to release the sexual tension that's building up inside of them. Because that's just wrong.

It's wrong to want to be happy on a sexual level. It's wrong to love someone yet long to feel another's body next to yours. It's wrong not to be fully committed, sexually, to one person alone.

Uhm, sure.

Do I need to bring up trust and honesty and feelings of insecurity once more?

What about love? Remember those different kinds of love? One of them is definitely sexual love. Pure physical attraction, the matching of your body with his or hers - or his and hers!

Sex should not be a taboo. It should not feel uncomfortable to talk about sex, at least, not much more uncomfortable than it is to discuss other natural need-fulfilling acts. Eating or sleeping, for example. Or going to the washroom, for that matter, which is only weird because we associate the body parts that take care of those natural releases with sex. Circular logic, perhaps, but none of those subjects should be taboo.

That's not to say that what happens between the bedsheets - or on the kitchen counter, in the movie theatre or on the backseat of a car - should be freely shared with everyone. There is such a thing as privacy, and I'd like to hope that people engaging in sexual acts together have spoken about what's fair game and what isn't. Again, it's all about the trust.

Just like having sex is all about trusting your partner(s), and therefore being comfortable enough to tell them how you feel and what you want, honest enough to tell them what you like and don't like. The concepts blend harmoniously well together, from the emotional and intellectual aspects of sex to the act itself.

And when I mean sex, I'm not talking simply about intercourse. I mean all forms of sexual play, from oral to anal to masturbation, multiple partners, same-sex or transgendered partners, role playing, fetishes and BDSM. None of this should be taboo. All of it is completely natural, no matter how many props you use or holes you choose to fill.

For one thing, sexual activity and the release of associated hormones does seem to have positive effects on one's health - from reducing the chances of senility to keeping your heart strong and your muscles active.

The observations I am making here also apply to sexualized situations. I mean being topless - male or female - or dressing seductively. I mean talking about your period, an itch in your crotch, or that porn you caught on TV last night. I mean walking around in your underwear. If you can stroll public beaches in a tiny bikini, why isn't it acceptable to wear your more covering undergarments in a semi-private location? As long as you're respectful about it and not doing it just to spite someone who is clearly uncomfortable with the subject, then why can't you be overt with your sexuality?

By not investing in sex as necessarily a physical extension of your feelings, you bring the concept and acts down to a more reasonable level. One where it can thrive and help you thrive without all the emotional attachments and heartbreaks that society suggests are inevitable. The feeling of intimacy is there, there's no doubt about that, but you can be physical for the sole purpose of feeling good and releasing sexual tension. No strings attached.

Again - I'm not implying that sleeping around just to be sexually satisfied is optimal. In fact, you'll probably be less satisfied overall. You'll probably feel like something is missing. That final piece of the puzzle that you just can't find even though you've looked inside the box, across the floor, and all over the room.

But sex can and should exist outside of relationships, not only to keep your body healthy, but also to keep you sane. As long as it is a safe connection, that you have the same understanding as all parties involved, and that you're not hurting anyone, betraying or helping to betray anyone's trust, then engaging in sexual activity is a-ok, no matter what society says.

I think that pretty much wraps up this exploration on love. I had a lot of fun - thoughtful fun - writing these, and it feels good to get my impressions out in the open. I hope that sharing them with you has caused you to think or rethink your perspectives, and perhaps this series can spark a discussion on the place and perception of love and all associated concepts in today's society.

Thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned for more similarly enlightening (hopefully) posts and explorations...

Please feel free to leave comments, as long as they promote the exploration of the topic rather than bash my thoughts and opinions. I'm looking for constructive criticism, not hate mail. If you have nothing helpful to say, please don't bother saying it.