On working in #sportsbiz

The hardest thing about working in the sports industry is breaking in. There are a ton of blogs that tell that tale, so I will skip over that part of my experience. All you need to know is that I worked hard in multiple internships and contracts in the media industry, from newspapers to live sports broadcast production to earning my communications stripes through volunteer non-profit positions. The only internship I didn't do was one with a sports team, which would've been an asset, but as my other jobs put me in direct contact with team executives, I learned a fair bit about the inner workings of a sport organization through observation and interaction.

When I landed the Director of Media Relations position with the AHL's Hamilton Bulldogs, I was both surprised and relieved. I was surprised not because I wasn't confident about my skills, but because I had interviewed for several sport communications positions in the past few years and never gotten that call. This position was a more senior role than those I had previously applied for, and though I knew I had rocked the interview, I still was apprehensive at my chances. But my hard work and persistence paid off, and I was hired.

Whether it was a case of "right place, right time" or simply because it was my time does not matter. I got in. Finally.

That's when I discovered the second hardest thing about working in the sports industry. The chaos and fatigue of working long days (and nights). I had known that this was the reality in this type of work - and in all media work, actually - but living it in this scenario felt different. Plus, if you're a perfectionist like me, that also means a lot of sleepless nights worrying about how to get things better organized so that you can do the best job you are able to do.

Needless to say, when I was let go in June after a tough season jam-packed with major events and new promotions, I was shocked. I felt like I was still recovering from the past season, and well on my way to setting up the next season so that it would be far less chaotic. I was also hurt and confused. I felt like I had sacrificed so much to finally get my shot at rocking the sports media world and was cut short from doing truly awesome things with the team.

I later discovered that my dismissal was but one element of a major summer restructuring plan, and that I hadn't done anything "wrong". But as anyone who has been laid off can tell you, that doesn't make you feel any better.

My world was a mess. I didn't know what I was doing and where I was going. Eventually, I found out that the remaining executives still thought I was awesome and that my work was brilliant. My work ethic was exemplary, my ideas were awesome, and my strategies and execution were innovative and exceptional. That helped to lessen the blow. But I still felt like I had been stranded on a deserted island, with food and escape routes dangling just out of my reach.

I did what any smart young adult would do. I cut my losses - and my expenses - and went back into student mode. After all, I still had a Master's thesis to write. And as anyone who has worked full-time in sport communications can tell you, I didn't really have any spare time while I was with the Bulldogs. I therefore wasn't able to meet my lofty goal of finishing my thesis while I worked.

And now, I feel like I am back at square one, struggling to get a chance to prove my worth in the sports industry. No experience is ever wasted, to be sure, and holding a senior position in a professional sport organization, however brief that experience was, will certainly help me in my next endeavor. 

But frankly, I thought we'd done this already. I thought we were finally past this point. 

But in my passion and excitement, I had forgotten that the sports industry is volatile and so much of its stability depends on the attitudes of owners, commissioners, and yes, even fans. It is unfortunate that after all these years of pro sports development, its employees are still the ones with the most to lose, especially since having a well-rounded, experienced, passionate and dedicated team of staffers is key to ensuring a team's success in failing markets. After all, you can have the best players in the league, but if no one knows they're there, who's going to buy tickets? Ads? Merchandise?

It may be true that without athletes, there is no professional sports industry. But it takes a committed core group of employees to make it successful.

And so, it's a shame that breaking in to the sports industry remains the hardest thing about working in the sports industry, even for experienced professionals. Whether you've got one year under your belt or 20 years of experience in various positions and markets, this experience has taught me that you are never safe. 

But maybe this is the hardest thing about working in the sports industry. You never can never truly be comforted that your investment is safe and will yield high returns, or any returns at all. And that's why so many of us sail our boats away from the isolated island that is pro sports, searching for more stable waters. A long, fruitful career in the sports industry - in any industry these days, really - is no longer a given, once you've proven your worth. 

And I'm starting to wonder if perhaps it's time for me to sail away as well.

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!

30-second movie reviews

These past few weeks have been full of movie-watching, for some reason. The first time, it was intentionally, with the first ever (soon to be monthly) Retro movie night. The movies won't always be retro, but they will always be flicks you've been dying to see but for some reason, haven't.

That night, we watched "It's A Wonderful Life" and "The Sound of Music". Two classics I had never seen. Then, I saw "Brothers", "Up in the Air", "The Blind Side" and "Avatar" in theatres. Wow. I'm kinda movie'd out, but I really want to see "Fantastic Mr. Fox" this holiday season, as well as "Nine". And I wouldn't say no to "Sherlock Holmes".

So with all that creative buzz flowing in my mind - and in case you're on the fence about seeing some of these films - here are my 30 second movie reviews.

Avatar
Avatar was an incredible tale of hope, full of vivid colours and synaptic beings. Or it would be, if it weren't a sad reflection of our so-called humanity. These kinds of senseless wars and destruction take place around the world, and for what? We haven't learned from our mistakes, even in 2145. We are all inter-connected, whether we feel it daily or not. My heart weeps for all the unnecessary losses of souls.

The Blind Side
The Blind Side filled me with hope for a better world, and it wasn't presented in a cheesy way either. If only we all actually paid attention to the environment around us, the people we live with and their livelihoods, perhaps the world would be a better place. Perhaps we would all be happier. But instead, we choose to turn a blind eye and be selfish, only taking care of ourselves and our own, and even then, we barely do that. There needs to be more people like Leigh Anne Touhy in the world. I wish I could honestly say I was one of them.

Up in the Air
I keep thinking about this movie and the more I do, the more I understand how sad it truly is. I'm an avid traveler and I totally get the airport buzz... And I really enjoyed the ambiguous ending! Up in the Air is a story about humanity and how deep personal connections truly are essential to our happiness, no matter how individualistic we are. It's a story about finding love but not about looking for it. And it's a story about finding your place in the world, figuring out where you belong in all aspects of your life.

Brothers
Wow. What a powerful movie! I cried a bunch of times and I don't usually tear up at movies. What really got to me was how real it was, but with no pretensions or exaggerations. You believe in it, like you would a documentary, but it has all the major elements of a movie too. It's like a really good book... it gives you enough material to become involved in their lives but leaves enough to the imagination as well, so you can fill in the blanks with your own thoughts and experience. A must see!

It's A Wonderful Life
I only loved "It's a Wonderful Life" at the end of the movie. The rest of the time, I simply followed the quest for figuring out what's important in life, and understanding how deeply each individual's actions affect the people around us and the environment we live in. We are all interconnected and we need to keep this in mind when we take actions. Lesson learned: People come first, and when you care about people, truly care, they care about you too.

The Sound of Music
Wow. After finally seeing this, I get why people love it so much. The songs are haunting, as are the sights, and though it's a little bit cheesy, you can truly dream along with the characters... each and every one of them. This is storytelling at its best: it had a little bit of everything: love, hope, passion, faith, fate, hate, action, battle... and an ambiguous resolution that says that these kinds of wars always live on.

Lots of stirring images and thoughts on humanity. What is our purpose in life? And will creative works like movies be what helps us figure it out? Only time will tell...

Stay tuned!

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...

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.

Taking care of business

A few short business items...

As you may have noticed, I've changed the URL to this blog to better reflect my online brand. I started the transition from starshine_diva to NailaJ a few months ago when I switched my Twitter account name. Now, all my public accounts can be found by searching for "nailaj". The sole exception in the URL game is Flickr, where my display name is now "NailaJ" but my URL remains unchanged at http://www.flickr.com/photos/starshine_diva.

So please, do update your feeds and take note. My blog is now located at http://nailaj.blogspot.com.

I've started the process of uploading my 2009 AKFC Awareness Trip pictures to Flickr for easy public viewing. Hopefully, you'll see why I enjoyed Africa so much. Next step, the videos...

... "real" blog posts to follow, I promise! Stay tuned...

Follow-ups and promos

Let me preface this post by saying that if you follow me on Twitter or Facebook, you probably didn't miss me much. Or maybe you aren't satisfied with 140 character updates. Either way, here's the deal:

That first Dome gig for Showtime boxing? It was awesome!! It was great to work with a crew full of people I already mostly knew and meet some new people. I learned a lot about different aspects of technical producing and it was fun to see how the setup is different for Bell Centre activities that aren't hockey or concerts.

That second Dome gig? Never happened. Though that had nothing to do with me but everything to do with union issues. Oh well.

Union issues have been the bane of my existence lately. Well, maybe that's a little bit harsh. But with CBC cuts, job postings that are only posted to meet union needs or those that are either already filled or non-existent, well... you can probably deduce that I haven't been successful in my job search yet. Many positions have been applied for. Some have received letters of rejection, which, honestly, is better than no letter at all and leads me to believe that I at least got somewhere in the recruitment process. I am also still waiting on a couple of potential interviews that are taking forever to come to fruition. It might not work out so I'm not holding my breath. But it's nice to think about every now and then.

And now for a friendly public service announcement. As you know, I have been working on the World Partnership Walk. All my hard work culminates this Sunday, May 31st, when 2,000 people will gather at Mount Royal Park near Beaver Lake from 10am onwards. It's hard to tell at this point, but so far, I think our awareness-raising media and marketing efforts have been pretty successful!

You might have seen our street-level ads via Pattison outdoor advertising if you've parked your car in a parking lot along Ste-Antoine street in downtown Montreal or drive alongside the Bonaventure highway.

We've managed to get our PSAs on Global Montreal and CTV Montreal - I caught one on the latter earlier today and I got so very excited!! And, although CBC Montreal would have aired them, we had a few tape delays, which is most unfortunate. We were also able to get a web banner on KahnawakeNews.com. Plus, I made it on the Kevin and Trudie Show on CJAD 800 News last Friday for a quick segment on the World Partnership Walk. It was so great to speak with Trudie again... even if it was just over the air!

In terms of Walk Day activities, I volunteered myself as Stage Manager, which means that I get to do a lineup and script for our MCs, David Gutnick from CBC Montreal and Kimberley Sullivan from Virgin Radio 96. We have some dance items and music performances, and a great local DJ. Plus, we're gonna have a giant LED screen - think Bell Centre Jumbotron - with a live feed, which gets me excited in so many ways... I'm such a TV geek!!

Of course, the Walk itself is for an amazing cause: raising funds and awareness on global poverty. I'm so glad that we'll be able to celebrate our 25th anniversary in style!! As you all know, 100% of the funds go directly to projects and programmes organized by Aga Khan Foundation Canada that help people help themselves by increasing their quality of life and livelihoods. And to end my little pitch: it's not too late to get involved or raise funds: Simply log on to www.WorldPartnershipWalk.com and register as an Ambassador or with a Team. Of course, the easy way to contribute is to make a donation sponsoring me for the Walk, which you can do super easily by clicking here!

In other news, I've joined the Journalism chapter of the Concordia University Alumni Association and attended my first meeting as an official member last night... I can't wait to help organize our great events next year!

Still waiting on Olympics opportunities for the 2010 Winter Games, whether it's via employment or volunteer involvement, through the host broadcaster or VANOC.

You can be sure that I'll keep you posted - even if it's with a delay - so stay tuned...

Good news, everyone!

Yes, it's a Futurama reference.

But there is, indeed good news! Some bad news too... let's hit that first.

I applied for the 2009 Foreign Correspondents Programme organized by the government of Finland. It looks like a great, all (mostly) expense paid trip to the country I long to visit: an amazing experience with (probably) amazing people discovering the amazing sights, sounds, and corporations that are so inbred in Finnish culture. The annual program takes place in August, which is great, because Finland is kinda like Montreal in terms of weather (minus the humidity).

However, I wasn't selected for this opportunity.

No hard feelings, though, because there are so many sporting events happening in Montreal in August that it would have been a shame to have to refuse potential work and not be able to build contacts for more potential work because I was on the trip of a lifetime.

Hey, there's always next year, right?

Meanwhile, the job scene seems to be opening up for me. Just as I was posting one of many Facebook surveys I've filled over the years - stating that my wish for 2009 was to establish a better flow of work - I get a call from Dome about a work opportunity.

And here comes the good news, folks!

I've got my first Dome gig! I'm booked to work boxing at the Bell Centre in Montreal this weekend... and I can't wait!! It'll definitely be different than the usual hockey, which has become pretty straight forward after 3 years of doing the job. Boxing, however, is a whole different world. And it'll be interesting to work for a broadcaster other than CBC.

Just when I thought I was done being thankful for this chance to prove my worth on the TV tech production scene - ie, a day later, I get asked, booked, and confirmed to work the UFC event in Montreal in mid-April.

Two days, two gigs. Pretty awesome track record, huh?

I'm not expecting any calls tomorrow, but you never know ;)

I'm honestly really glad that things are kinda starting to fall into place. I love this industry and the people who work in it, and as much as I feel that I'm intellectual enough to do something more journalistic, this is where I want to be right now. Things change, though, and I'm keeping all my options open because I am interested in journalism and current affairs and documentaries and new media and social media and so much more...

... and one day, I'll probably switch gears and settle down with a nice full-time permanent job. Meanwhile, I'm going to keep playing the freelance game and hope work continues to pile up.

To TPTB: Thank you.

On #IN09

Wow.

What a whirlwind couple of days IN09 was! I really should have blogged about it earlier, but when I came home to Montreal, I also came home to a pile of work. Not that I'm complaining...

But I digress.

Last week, I flew to Toronto for The Interactive Exchange, formerly known as ICE, which took place from March 17 to 19, 2009.

It was amazing. I met so many interesting people with so many interesting thoughts, working on so many interesting projects. These people are truly innovative. They have experience being successful in our tumultuous times. They have great ideas about where the industry should be headed.

Sure most of the creative ideas came from social media types while traditional media emphasized that they wouldn't work as a business model... (Check out #IN09 on Twitter for all the fun.)

Still, an amalgamation of points from both sides might lead to sustainable platforms, both in terms of business and content. Don't ask me which points though... I'm not that smart!

Some highlights?

• The huge use of Twitter. Including the Twitter wall and panelist David Crow tweeting while on stage for "Future of the Medium (2): The New Rules".
• Meeting people I only knew online and making new contact who have become online friends.
• Discovering the variety of opportunities in interactive media, from news to gaming to social networking.
  
• Seeing what everyone else is planning, implementing, raving about, working on...
  
• Realizing that ethnography, aka the socio-anthropological impact of anything online is what really interests me.

And most importantly...

Finding out that there IS hope for the industry. Even though a lot of the news-related panels were a bit defeatists, I'm actually more optimistic now than before because I know the depth of creativity and the willpower of all those involved in helping the industry survive... no matter how different it will look and feel once it emerges from the turmoil.

Every panel I attended, whether I was there by choice or because I was assigned to it - via my super sneaky plan to get into IN09 by volunteering - gave me a wealth of knowledge and helped me grow as an online media content producer and enthusiast. Some filled me with wonder and others with so much information that I'll probably take another couple of weeks to finish processing it all.

And so, while this post was meant to be super insightful and full of goodies you may have missed if you didn't attend IN09, I'm just gonna leave it at this. And maybe I'll revisit the topic in a few weeks.

Meanwhile, check out the Twitter stream. It's worth it.

On job searching

So today I spent the day applying for a job. The whole day. One job.

It's often been said that job searching is a full-time job in itself, and never have I felt the full weight of that statement until this week.

Earlier this week, I spent a whole day trolling through various media job sites looking for open (and interesting) postings. I found 7. Now, it's not that I'm picky or anything - in fact, I even put far away jobs that I am borderline qualified for on my "must apply" list. And often, I start the process and stop it promptly, when I realize I have no clue what the acronyms in the qualification questionnaire stand for.

Of course, I don't just apply for anything. I don't apply for jobs I am under-qualified for, unless I really really really want it. Even then, I don't expect to get called for an interview. It's also a waste of time to apply for too many jobs, since writing cover letters can get to be a tedious task. However, I do still apply for jobs I know I can do but am over-qualified for - like the ones requiring a high school diploma and good people skills.

Yeah, somehow, I don't get called for those interviews either.

Job searching in journalism is not easy right now. Not only is the economy in recession - and therefore everyone's cutting back - the media industry has been in its own recession of sorts for a few years now. That means newspapers are cutting local staff (like at the Montreal Gazette, for example - sign the petition here!) and consolidating resources by producing less content and operating from one central location. Some broadcasters are under hiring freezes which means that although they have a number of open positions, they can't actually hire you in the end... This is also the cause of vanishing job listings - the ones that mysteriously disappear although the application deadline is still ways off.

In other words, it's a tough life, and you've got to spring on anything that comes your way, no matter how under or over qualified you are. It's also a very depressing situation.

The solution, or so I've heard, is to reach out to your network of contacts, and ask, push and even beg for a job - paid or unpaid - so you can learn, build more contacts, and hopefully eventually get a real position. Just don't fall into the endless internship scenario - I've known a few smart people who have - where you work hard for free and never have an honest chance of getting hired simply because there are no jobs (because there's no money) whether or not an extra hand is needed.

All in all, there's nothing to do but try everything. Again, over and over, and hope it produces results. Until then, try to balance the job search with the voluntary work... and perhaps a bit of a personal life.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to write a cover letter for this kick ass job I'm applying for.

Stay tuned!