On reaching the 100,000 tweets #milestone

Yes, you read that right. If all goes as planned, the link to this blog post will be my 100,000th tweet. One hundred THOUSAND! Now that's a milestone!

It's incredible. I don't know how I made it this far. Sure, it helps that I started tweeting on July 15, 2007. And that I used to live-tweet many sporting and breaking news events.

I'm also known for my high rate of retweets. If something is interesting, worth reading, or worth thinking about, whether or not I agree with it, I retweet it. It helps start a conversation that would not take place otherwise. And quite honestly, I've had some amazing discussions following innocent, innocuous retweets, and not always about easy topics.

But I think that most of my tweets came from my high volume of interaction, which, after all, is the whole point of Twitter. I routinely come back to my phone after spending time tweeting from the computer to see @NailaJ has 97+ mentions.

Clearly, I must be doing something right.

To me, it's not just about sharing with others but also responding to what others share with you. The basis of humanity is interaction, and since we're all so busy with our very individualistic work/fun/food/gym/sleep life routines, Twitter is a way to break through the isolation that has now become quite a normal affair.

When I first moved to Kingston, as I told Kingston Life Magazine in my first (of many?) cover story on social media, I found a community in Twitter. I learned all about my new home, and more than many native Kingstonians, through Twitter. I made friends that will last a lifetime. I helped build Kingston into a better community (I hope!) by contributing to the discussion about and in Kingston and promoting the #ygk hashtag with the Limestone New Media Group.

When I found out that I was moving to Hamilton, the first thing I did, even before looking up apartments - and y'all know how tough that would be for a house-obsessed person like me - is looking up active and influential Twitter accounts in the area. I started making a Steeltown list before I could officially announce my move. I started tracking the #HamOnt hashtag. And once the secret was out, I immediately started following local leaders on Twitter.

It's how I came to meet so many awesome local people and visit so many awesome local businesses in less than three months. It's how I learned more about the community that I am now actively attempting to connect with, and not just for work purposes. It's how I'm slowly starting to adapt to being a Hamiltonian. And it's how I will come to understand my place in this community.

I can't wait.

Meanwhile, I will keep tweeting and keep connecting through Twitter. And one day, I will make it to 200,000 tweets. Maybe. If you keep tweeting with me.

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 December

Wow. Has it really been that long?

December has been a bit of a whirlwind so far. I can't believe we're already less than a week away from Christmas! Soon, I'll be going home for the holidays. But it won't be a vacation!

Thankfully, I finally finished grading all of my assigned section of the final exam for the class I was TA-ing this semester. It was interesting, and I probably know all the right answers by heart now, but it was a rough ride as well. It broke my heart to deduct points from students who had nearly perfect answers, filled with more information than necessary - showing that they did understand the material - but, unfortunately, forgot to mention one crucial aspect of the answer. For example, that a diagnostic tool in determining drug and alcohol addiction focuses on both physical and psychological factors, or that a treatment addresses attitude and behaviour. I also had to give a few "0" but for those, it really wasn't my fault... I just couldn't justify giving any points!

These second year students also had serious grammatical, sentence structure, and subject-verb agreement issues. My biggest pet peeve for this round of grading? Affect vs. effect. It's really not that hard. I mean, there's even an Oatmeal poster about it! Print it out and hang it across from your desk! There were a few other glaring errors that popped up repeatedly - surprisingly not its/it's or there/their too often - but that one was surely the most annoying one, especially considering the subject matter: The effect of drugs and alcohol and how they affect our overall health.

This afternoon, once I had handed those exams back to the professor, I felt light as a feather and free as air! But unfortunately, it's not all fun and games from here! I've got my first graduate-level paper due... whenever. Sometime before I graduate. Preferably by the end of this academic year. Surprisingly (to me), paper deadlines seem to be pretty relaxed at this level. Still, I have a very busy semester this Winter (2.5 classes + TAing a tutorial + a conference), so I'm planning on getting mine done before next semester starts. I've already compiled a list of readings relating to Michel Foucault's interpretations of power - especially in the later years - and am planning on relating that concept to athletes who tweet. Who really holds the power in that situation, I ask?

I've already done a decent amount of reading, but there's still a lot left to explore. I've indexed it all, and I, in theory, know exactly how much work I have left to do. The trouble is getting through it all. After sitting on the couch for a full day reading heavy theory and its mostly political applications rather than the sports ones I'm looking for, you tend to have a hard time focusing. Your brain gets all mumbled and jumbled and you forget what you're actually thinking about and nothing makes sense anymore. Even after a few breaks, it still feels all confused. The trick is realising that it's really not that big a deal, or that important a concept, and letting it slide through you and hoping it'll absorb through osmosis. Once you hit that wall and remember to pull back from the subject matter you're examining, it actually does start to make some kind of sense, I find. Hopefully, the notes I'm taking aren't too much copy-pasting to be particularly relevant, and re-reading them at the end of my research process will give me a good recap of the situation.

My Christmas vacation, therefore, will not be much of a vacation at all. I'll take some time to relax, take in the joys of the season and spend time with my family. But mostly, I will be sitting on the couch, reading about Foucault and power, before coming home to write my paper and handing it in a good 5 days before the Winter semester starts.

Well, that's the plan, at least.

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 the Walks

This year, I was able to attend two World Partnership Walks. The first, of course, was Montreal.

(The only picture I took of the 2010 World Partnership Walk in Montreal.)

What a cold, wet, dreary day it was! Still, our team put together a stellar event and over 1K people attended despite the rain - including some people I didn't expect to show due to the weather, like the Social Woman team! In terms of media, we had a pretty decent Walk Day turnout, considering, including an early morning in-studio interview by yours truly at LCN, a live noon news report on SRC and a live hit and day-after report on Radio-Canada Première Chaîne. Our local media sponsor, CTV Montreal, also had us on the evening news. Coverage leading up to the Walk included this piece I wrote for Stock the Warehouse, and a couple of articles for some community papers by media team member Tabish Bhimani.

We also live tweeted the event, which was loads of fun! I helped out with the stage stuff when things got confusing and congested and had a great time hanging out with my media assistant, Karen Fournier, our MC, Paul Karwatsky from CTV, and Eric Bindman, who, with his team from Fatherly Films, provided fantastic live LED screen coverage. Our lineup was great and it's just so unfortunate that all the excellent planning from a core team of nearly all newcomers to the Montreal Walk couldn't be properly executed due to the weather. Still, I think they had a great time, and I hope that they know that we're all really proud of their efforts - we can see that they did/would have paid off.

One week later, I made the trek to Ottawa, even though my bum knee never quite recovered from the Montreal Walk. (It still hasn't, which is very depressing.)

Ottawa had a large Walk site at Major's Hill Park, alongside the scenic Rideau Canal, with the Byward Market steps away, and with Parliament as a backdrop. It was, in one word: nice. Also, they had a beautiful, sunny, nearly scorching day! I will admit I was more than a little bit jealous. Plus, my friend's band, Three Times Lucky, was the main entertainment act, and boy did they rock it out! Or, should I say, blues it out? Either way, it was a fantastic Sunday day trip, and I'm very glad I went, even though I wasn't able to walk the Walk(s).

On a personal note, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the cause, or supported me in my efforts for the World Partnership Walk. I not only reached my 1K fundraising goal, but you all rose to the challenge of doubling the amount in two weeks. That's right! I met my 2K fundraising goal! :D

I can't even begin to explain how great that makes me feel, and I've got all of you to thank for it. So... Thanks for putting a smile on my face and helping me put smiles on the faces of some of the poorest people in the world. Thanks to you, we're changing the world, one step at a time. Pat yourselves on the back!! You are now a poverty-fighting hero! :)

(Nursing my knee at the 2010 World Partnership Walk in Ottawa.)

On the Queen's University

To whom it may concern,

In September 2010, I will be embarking on a new journey. One that starts in Kingston, ON at the Queen's University. For the next two years, I will be a Master's candidate in the Socio-Cultural Studies of Sport programme at Queen's U.

And I am stoked!!!

While this may seem to be a diversion from my current course of career choice, it is not. For my thesis, I will be examining the use of social media by the NHL and its teams and players as a marketing and communications tool. Without spilling too many details, I believe I can find a model that will be applicable not only to NHL teams in general or to professional sports leagues, but also to amateur sports leagues, sporting events, not-for-profit organizations and events and perhaps even to media organizations.

My programme offers the possibility of submitting a thesis by manuscript, which is what I intend to do. Two birds: one stone!

Of course, this decision comes with a bunch of changes, from the content of my closet to my reading materials and my bedroom, not to mention my eating and spending habits. And while I wait for classes to start, I will be keeping busy with my World Partnership Walk Media Relations planning and activities, apartment hunting, and of course, the actual move.

Wish me luck... and link me up with any contacts that you think could help my research!

PS: Did I mention that I'm the new President of the Journalism Chapter of the Concordia University Alumni Association? Our first event is Thursday... I can't wait!

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 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.

On Indexing

When I decided to change my blog URL, I thought I had it made. I was finally ready to go from the unsophisticated, now defunct http://starshinediva.blogspot.com to the more professional http://nailaj.blogspot.com.

"NailaJ" also fit in with my "new" personal online branding as it matched my Twitter and Flickr handles. When I realized that I couldn't change my Flickr URL, I was disappointed, but I didn't think it was that big of a deal.

That's when I discovered the intricacies of search engine indexing.

Though I was always more or less aware of how sites got added to search engines, I forgot to take the lack of indexing into consideration when I switched URLs. I went from having having a respectable minimum amount of incoming traffic daily to almost no blog hits. For the longest time (give or take a week), I couldn't figure out why. (Not that I particularly value accidental 30-second clicks!)

That's when I noticed my keyword stats. Google and Yahoo! were no longer sending users my way (except for a couple of hits from Google.fi). Why? Well, even though I worked hard to establish my blog and presence online, indexing is still a primitive technology and couldn't see that I was still me, just... under another name and in a different place.

All my pride at my blog being the first search result for "Naila Jinnah"? Gone. Now, I've resorted to hoping that people will click on my Twitter feed, look under the bio, and stumble upon my blog, or find me through LinkedIn. It's no longer easy for employers to simply look me up. My social media/online branding credibility? Also greatly reduced.

Hopefully, my online involvement and activities will help boost my worth in Google's eyes and I'll return to my former blog glory... name recognition included.

Stay tuned...

PS: Maisonneuve re-posted my blog "On Hand Washing". How cool is that?

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.