Wednesday, November 14, 2007
London Free Press B2
WORK WITH SPECIAL-NEEDS KIDS HONOURED
By Meghan Moloney
Special to The Free Press
David Gosset doesn't usually seek the limelight.
But last night, he stood in front of a crown applauding him for his work with special-needs students.
Gosset was honoured as educator of the year for Special Olympics at the Thames Valley District school board meeting.
An athletics program services officer with the board, Gosset also is chair of the region's Special Olympics organization committee. He's been involved with the event since 2002.
"It's very humbling to be recognized," Gosset said. "We are passionate about kids and that's why we're in this role."
Gosset works with special education teachers, parents, volunteers, and members of Special Olympics Ontario to co-ordinate the three-day track and field meet at TD Waterhouse Stadium.
Investing In Children is a London organization that has provided funding and support to Special Olympics Ontario for six years.
Anita Gilvesy, the executive director, praised Gosset's organizational skills. "(He) has done an amazing job," she said.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Lions for Lambs
Anyone who's ever had a passing interest in media and the ethical politics that come with it, should see this movie. I'm not sure I agree with all the decisions the director made for Meryl Streep's character, but it was extremely well written and very timely.
Even though I should know better by now, I still tend to fall back into that assumption that when a newspaper or TV newscast releases a story, it's a) true, and b) the whole story. I know that's naive, but even when I'm writing my own news stories, I never consciously think about the fact that someone else might look at my story and point out that I left out pertinent information that might have changed the shape of the story. Everyone leaves out details when they write up an article. You have to. How many times have our profs reminded us -- if your editor asks for 12 inches and you write 20, they won't read the rest of the story just to see what else was going on. They'll chop it off the end. So it's in your best interest to get all the important info into the first 12 inches, and being concise is just a skill you need to develop.
Clearly not one I excel at.
The point is, in the interest of saving space, all news stories are limited. The problem arises when individual humans make the decision to include or exclude particular details of each story. Every reporter would write the same story differently, based on the facts and viewpoints he or she thinks matter the most.
But what about when the decision isn't just which facts to include, but whether to run a story at all? This movie looked at the role the media played in "selling" the Iraq war to the American public. The director's argument, if I got it right, was that the media simply took any and all information the government gave them and published or broadcast it to the public -- and that a good chunk of that information was in fact propaganda. The argument was made that the media should have stepped back and been more critical of what they were hearing, and perhaps covered those stories in 2001 from a different angle.
But the argument was also made that in a time of war, or for that matter any important political situation, any information given out by the government must be made public. Even if a reporter (like Meryl Streep's character) thinks something is bull, without solid proof or a second opinion that reporter can't justify withholding the information. Yet how much more damage could be caused by publishing something that is almost certainly military propaganda?
I think one of the most valuable aspects of this movie was its 'moral', for lack of a better term: that there are often no right answers. It's great that Hollywood is addressing the issue of ethics and transparency in media coverage of the war, but at the same time, it scares me to realize I'll be dealing with this if I enter into this career.
Even though I should know better by now, I still tend to fall back into that assumption that when a newspaper or TV newscast releases a story, it's a) true, and b) the whole story. I know that's naive, but even when I'm writing my own news stories, I never consciously think about the fact that someone else might look at my story and point out that I left out pertinent information that might have changed the shape of the story. Everyone leaves out details when they write up an article. You have to. How many times have our profs reminded us -- if your editor asks for 12 inches and you write 20, they won't read the rest of the story just to see what else was going on. They'll chop it off the end. So it's in your best interest to get all the important info into the first 12 inches, and being concise is just a skill you need to develop.
Clearly not one I excel at.
The point is, in the interest of saving space, all news stories are limited. The problem arises when individual humans make the decision to include or exclude particular details of each story. Every reporter would write the same story differently, based on the facts and viewpoints he or she thinks matter the most.
But what about when the decision isn't just which facts to include, but whether to run a story at all? This movie looked at the role the media played in "selling" the Iraq war to the American public. The director's argument, if I got it right, was that the media simply took any and all information the government gave them and published or broadcast it to the public -- and that a good chunk of that information was in fact propaganda. The argument was made that the media should have stepped back and been more critical of what they were hearing, and perhaps covered those stories in 2001 from a different angle.
But the argument was also made that in a time of war, or for that matter any important political situation, any information given out by the government must be made public. Even if a reporter (like Meryl Streep's character) thinks something is bull, without solid proof or a second opinion that reporter can't justify withholding the information. Yet how much more damage could be caused by publishing something that is almost certainly military propaganda?
I think one of the most valuable aspects of this movie was its 'moral', for lack of a better term: that there are often no right answers. It's great that Hollywood is addressing the issue of ethics and transparency in media coverage of the war, but at the same time, it scares me to realize I'll be dealing with this if I enter into this career.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
I used to be an academic
I recently had a paper published in an independent student journal, Anthropolitique. It's run by the Anthropological Issues Group (AIG) at Guelph. I originally wrote the paper for my final assignment in one of my anthropology courses, which I absolutely loved and gave me a much wider perspective on the world than I would have otherwise gotten from my undergrad. My prof, Renee Sylvain, told the students running the journal about my paper, so they asked me to submit it. I was so flattered at the time, but I have to give most of the credit to the prof, since a lot of the ideas either came from her lectures or were inspired by them.
Okay, enough mush -- if you're into global indigenous rights activism, or have an assignment to do and would really like to procrastinate instead, go to http://www.uoguelph.ca/~anthro/anthropolitique.htm and click on the Full Online Edition. My paper is first on the table of contents, after the introductory pages.
If you're too lazy to copy and paste the above URL into your browser window, you can also find it in the Links section on the right of this page.
Okay, enough mush -- if you're into global indigenous rights activism, or have an assignment to do and would really like to procrastinate instead, go to http://www.uoguelph.ca/~anthro/anthropolitique.htm and click on the Full Online Edition. My paper is first on the table of contents, after the introductory pages.
If you're too lazy to copy and paste the above URL into your browser window, you can also find it in the Links section on the right of this page.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Intriguing, this whole Inter-Web thing
I just realized the difference between writing for newspapers, writing on a personal blog that only friends or colleagues will see, and writing on a personal blog that is also career-related and "published" in a public sphere.
I'm not so self-centred that I think a million Canadians will be reading this blog. Nor do I think it likely that a potential employer of mine -- or potential high-profile colleague, as the case may be -- will stumble upon it anytime soon.
But I was three paragraphs into a satirical rant about a certain columnist whose piece I read in today's Globe (or rather, stopped reading halfway through because it was so freaking boring)... when I realized that it's probably not a good idea to post stuff like that on the internet.
Even if it's just my friends and family and maybe classmates who are reading this, so far. Even if perhaps 90 percent of Globe readers would agree with my assessment of said columnist. And even if I'm just a lowly j-school student with no current "real job" prospects.
Even so. As one of our recent online media lectures made so clear to me, the internet can be an amazing tool. It's no longer about the amount of information you can access online -- it's about the fact that you can make all kinds of information come to you, with very little effort. But that also means that anything I post on my small blog could end up in anyone's inbox, for no apparent reason other than that they have an RSS feed tagging anything with the label Journalism or Globe and Mail or Careless Ranting.
All those warnings our teachers gave us about not posting inappropriate pictures or comments on Facebook in case employers saw them are now making sense. But this time it's my own writing that made me think twice: not two days has this blog been up and running, and already I've had to stop and rethink the line between personal opinion and material that I'd feel comfortable publishing in a newspaper.
Interesting.
I'm not so self-centred that I think a million Canadians will be reading this blog. Nor do I think it likely that a potential employer of mine -- or potential high-profile colleague, as the case may be -- will stumble upon it anytime soon.
But I was three paragraphs into a satirical rant about a certain columnist whose piece I read in today's Globe (or rather, stopped reading halfway through because it was so freaking boring)... when I realized that it's probably not a good idea to post stuff like that on the internet.
Even if it's just my friends and family and maybe classmates who are reading this, so far. Even if perhaps 90 percent of Globe readers would agree with my assessment of said columnist. And even if I'm just a lowly j-school student with no current "real job" prospects.
Even so. As one of our recent online media lectures made so clear to me, the internet can be an amazing tool. It's no longer about the amount of information you can access online -- it's about the fact that you can make all kinds of information come to you, with very little effort. But that also means that anything I post on my small blog could end up in anyone's inbox, for no apparent reason other than that they have an RSS feed tagging anything with the label Journalism or Globe and Mail or Careless Ranting.
All those warnings our teachers gave us about not posting inappropriate pictures or comments on Facebook in case employers saw them are now making sense. But this time it's my own writing that made me think twice: not two days has this blog been up and running, and already I've had to stop and rethink the line between personal opinion and material that I'd feel comfortable publishing in a newspaper.
Interesting.
Friday, November 2, 2007
...What next?
So I'm starting another blog. I figure since I've recently become an officially published journalist, I should keep up with the trends and create a "presence" for myself online. (I'm sorry, Wayne MacPhail... from now on, I'll try not to be such a technologically-incompetent 20-something.)
Unlike whatever daily drivel you may see me writing on Facebook, this is going to be where I post any articles or stories I get published in the real world. I'll post the ONE newspaper story that's out there so far -- and just so that one doesn't get lonely, I'll also post my old articles from my undergraduate student paper. This will also have the purpose of allowing me to feel better about myself by seeing the progress I've made in the last two years.
So without further ado... here are the very beginnings of my career.
The London Free Press
Tue, October 30, 2007
Witches favoured over princesses:
Costume choices this year lean toward the dark side.
By MEGHAN MOLONEY, SPECIAL TO SUN MEDIA
Cute is out. Scary and sleazy are in.
The preferences are clear for this year's hottest-selling Halloween
costumes -- and you might be surprised by what girls are wearing.
Or maybe not.
Disney and kittens aren't faring too well at cash registers this year,
say clerks at costume-specialty stores.
More popular -- and likely coming tomorrow to trick-or-treat at your
door -- are the darker, more adult costumes.
At the new Party Packagers store on Southdale Road, manager Michelle
Nemeth says girls' choices have leaned toward the dark side this year.
"The cutesy stuff is not popular. It's more witchy, goth stuff -- the
monster bride, the goth maiden witch."
For adults, she said, "skimpiest sells."
Even costumes for very young girls are more risque. Nemeth points to
Bratz brand cheerleader outfits.
For boys, a big seller has been Optimus Prime of the Transformers
movie -- Nemeth has sold out of them twice -- as well as the classic,
red-outfitted Spiderman.
Men favour the black-suited, bad-guy Spiderman, she said.
Tastes run to the more traditional at Value Village and McCulloch's,
with princess and fairy costumes still favourites for girls.
Crystal Sheridan at McCulloch's said teen girls are still keen on
fairy tales, only they're considerably sexier than the ones you'll see
in the Disney movies.
Boys, influenced by recent movies, have been going for army outfits
and comic-book superheroes.
Tiny pirates also will be sailing the trick-or-treat seas.
Jen Lee, an employee at the Wellington Road Value Village, said these
boys and girls "have probably been inspired by Pirates of the
Caribbean."
Unlike whatever daily drivel you may see me writing on Facebook, this is going to be where I post any articles or stories I get published in the real world. I'll post the ONE newspaper story that's out there so far -- and just so that one doesn't get lonely, I'll also post my old articles from my undergraduate student paper. This will also have the purpose of allowing me to feel better about myself by seeing the progress I've made in the last two years.
So without further ado... here are the very beginnings of my career.
The London Free Press
Tue, October 30, 2007
Witches favoured over princesses:
Costume choices this year lean toward the dark side.
By MEGHAN MOLONEY, SPECIAL TO SUN MEDIA
Cute is out. Scary and sleazy are in.
The preferences are clear for this year's hottest-selling Halloween
costumes -- and you might be surprised by what girls are wearing.
Or maybe not.
Disney and kittens aren't faring too well at cash registers this year,
say clerks at costume-specialty stores.
More popular -- and likely coming tomorrow to trick-or-treat at your
door -- are the darker, more adult costumes.
At the new Party Packagers store on Southdale Road, manager Michelle
Nemeth says girls' choices have leaned toward the dark side this year.
"The cutesy stuff is not popular. It's more witchy, goth stuff -- the
monster bride, the goth maiden witch."
For adults, she said, "skimpiest sells."
Even costumes for very young girls are more risque. Nemeth points to
Bratz brand cheerleader outfits.
For boys, a big seller has been Optimus Prime of the Transformers
movie -- Nemeth has sold out of them twice -- as well as the classic,
red-outfitted Spiderman.
Men favour the black-suited, bad-guy Spiderman, she said.
Tastes run to the more traditional at Value Village and McCulloch's,
with princess and fairy costumes still favourites for girls.
Crystal Sheridan at McCulloch's said teen girls are still keen on
fairy tales, only they're considerably sexier than the ones you'll see
in the Disney movies.
Boys, influenced by recent movies, have been going for army outfits
and comic-book superheroes.
Tiny pirates also will be sailing the trick-or-treat seas.
Jen Lee, an employee at the Wellington Road Value Village, said these
boys and girls "have probably been inspired by Pirates of the
Caribbean."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)