WHAT'S THAT ON THE HORIZON?--I'm starting to feel a little jittery, even alarmed. Something ominous is looming. I mean, they keep mentioning me in the news, and not in a very good light at that.
Most people can agree that one naturally will feel nervous if one isn't used to that sort of thing.
But I must be clear on this. I do not mean they're talking about me specifically, or personally, or by name. No, that would be far-fetched. What I mean is, they're talking about me in a general way. Yet, it's still about me, and it's about a whole lot of other people, too, people like me, millions of 'em.
What they're doing in these news reports, and commentaries, is repeating continued harping by various forms of economic researchers, experts, "think" tanks, and officialdom on what seems to be a huge concern for them: The Greying of The Population.
For example: Last February the parliamentary budget watchdog in Ottawa, Kevin Page, bluntly warned that the fast growing numbers of the greying will soon put a big strain on our governmental finances, both federal and provincial. This theme wasn't especially new then, but it has been increasingly sung by quite a few others since. It seems to have become a popular tune, and I don't think it's a very pretty one.
For example: It took on greater import when it was mentioned last spring in the Speech from Throne opening parliament. This was direct from the government, not just a parliamentary officer, with the Harper government noting that this demographic shift--the greying population--would "challenge the sustainability of our social programs. . ."
For example: No end of columnists and editorialists have found it handy grist for their mills. One even went to the extent of pointing out that the problem was people were living longer and the country wasn't having enough babies. I guess.
And so it goes on and on, and on.
In fact, this "greying obsession" in the news looks to me to be so intense, so continuous, that one might think there's a subterranean public relations campaign being conducted with it--you know, to more or less condition the public mind, soften us up, for some sort of coming bad news for the grey and greying crowd.
IT JUST SO HAPPENS that I am one of the greying, so you can see my deep interest in the matter. (Other "greyers," and up-and-coming greyers, too, ought to have a similar interest. Not to mention worries.)
To be exact, I should say that I used to be grey. But I have graduated, in a sense, by turning white, in the areas of my head that still carry hair. This makes no difference, though, in my status. Once you join the big club of the greying, you're pretty well in it for the rest of your life.
Thus, every time I read one of these "greying" yarns, or hear them on the radio or see them on TV, I get a faintly startled feeling, and I think, gosh, what are they saying, that I'm becoming a burden on this great nation of ours, on its pension plans, on its health care insurance plans, and so on? How dare I get older? How dare I stay alive? How thoughtless of me! But, what to do, what to do. . .?
THEN I GET A BIT INDIGNANT, and I say to myself, By George, we grey and white-haired ones have got to do something about this. We've got to smoke out those researchers, those experts, the "think" tankers, officials and, yes, those politicians, and demand that they let us in on their plans for us. We have to tell them we need some definition here, get them to state precisely where they're going with this, open up on what they may be proposing in any of their non-public studies and discussions.
All of which is why I'm writing this entry to my blog.
The growing numbers of the aforementioned complainers-about-greying are concentrating their attention on the financial and economic impact of this accelerating population-greying. They see it now, in the near future, and well into the long-term future, as turning into an increasingly expensive crisis, overstraining budgets, even causing economic stagnation, if not collapse.
Horrors, what a scenario!
It's possible, I suppose, that some of these people might say to a person like me: "Why are you trying to make such a big deal of this now? We've known about this phenomenon for a long time, we've been thinking about it, studying it. What's so new? We'll meet the challenge, we assure you. We believe our present financial approach and planning will handle the problem well into the future. At least we think it will. Trust us."
MY ANSWER TO THAT IS: "Haven't you been listening to me? What is new is that we are hearing more and more about it. Near-panic about it is accelerating. So I think it's time you gave us Canadians the real goods on how you're thinking about dealing with the problem. Because, you see, our experience sometimes has been a trifle negative when placing too much trust in politicians."
One official body, the Public Health Agency of Canada, which advises the minister of health (the cabinet minister responsible for seniors), and is responsible for public health in Canada, has attached a qualifier to the prospects for keeping the present seniors programs' financing scheme going, saying it can be done "assuming continuation of existing economic and expenditure trends."
That, my friends, is one very big qualification. (I can't find a date for that statement, by the way, but I would think the website pages of that agency don't change a lot or swiftly, so possibly it was there before the financial crisis and recession that began in '08. If so, then. . . ?)
At the same time, we have a record of statements made by the federal finance minister warning, not so long ago, that the rapidly growing costs of health care coverage must be contained. I don't know that that suggests any very happy prospect for seniors.
THROUGH MY DILIGENT INQUIRIES into this subject, I have even seen one report in which a sociologist mentioned the word "euthanasia," suggesting it could come into vogue under the economic pressures of cutbacks in health care, heavily used by seniors.
So you can see it's easy to have misgivings about efforts to calm down anyone with concerns over policies that might arise from the "greying crisis."
The grey (and white) ones must pay attention, because our politicians sometimes set great store in what they hear from the economist-statistician-researcher-bureaucrat-sociologist sets, and have been known to go along with them. Such diligent people are handy for providing justification for whatever politicians might decide to do. But I do believe our pensions, our health care, and probably other areas of seniors support, such as housing policy, can be directly affected by this.
SHADES OF JONATHAN SWIFT--As I have reflected on this whole business of "the greying problem" I, for some strange reason, have found myself recalling the brilliant essay by Jonathan Swift, some 280 years ago, with respect to Ireland's poverty, and the reluctance of the well-off to contribute to its relief. How could that be relevant to our subject? Well, just for fun, let's look at his satirical gem.
The clergyman and writer, who was born in Ireland of English parents, entitled his essay, "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to their Parents or Country."
Swift wrote: "I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout."
TEN SHILLINGS PER CHILD CARCASS--Dr. Swift, who was Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, also declared:
"I have already computed the charge of nursing a beggar's child (in which list I reckon all cottagers, laborers, and four-fifth of the farmers) to be about two shillings per annum, rags included, and I believe no gentleman would repine to give ten shillings for the carcass of a good fat child. . . "
Now if, just for the sake of devilment, we were to switch the dial from "children" to "senior citizens," well, there you might have a solution to the "greying problem" in Canada. Instead of babies, which the experts now seem to feel we'll need to produce in goodly numbers to bolster a future work force burdened by grey ones, well, maybe we could accomplish much by having nutritional servings of oldsters.
All, right, I know--Dean Swift's proposal was "only" a satire. But you have to remember that experts and bureaucrats can take some things awfully seriously and . . . well, perhaps I should say no more. Actually, no, I deny it, they'd never come up with anything like that, not even in jest.
Still, I think it will be very useful in the public interest for those hard-eyed, terribly serious economists-statisticians-bureaucrats-politicians-think tankers-et al to take warning:
We seniors will be no pushovers for whatever unpleasant plans you may plot to solve this perceived "greying burden."
NO, SIR, WE'LL BE ON WATCH, we'll man (and woman) the ramparts, we'll dig in, we'll give you the biggest battle of your misspent lives if you come up with the wrong policies!
And be further warned:
Although a few of us seniors definitely are a little on the plump side, lots of us are more on what might be called the husky and muscular side--and considerable numbers of us are much leaner. But whatever our girth, large or small, we all have especially tough hides and sinews. We would, in brief, make extremely difficult chewing, fricasseed or not.
At the end of the day, though, one thing I'm sure of is this: Any politician who tries to mess with senior voters and their well-established, their well-justified rights is going to come down with a severe case of electoral indigestion. You can bet on that.
Seniors--to the barricades!
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
ABOUT THE BLOGOSPHERE
BLOGGERS AND NEWSPAPERS--It seems to me that, as a new entrant to the Blogosphere, I should begin by showing where I'm coming from, how I'm motivated. For me, that means looking at the unusual relationship between blogging and the news media, particularly newspapers.
As most people know by now, the newspaper game has been severely shaken up by a communications free-for-all, powered by computer technology's advances.
I've watched the process with fascination since before my retirement 20 years ago, a fascination arising from my deeply ingrained interest in news, after having spent most of my working life as a newspaperman--in addition, I should add, to now having a newspaper pension as an important part of my income, which makes the future of newspapers of rather special interest to me.
Today we see that the World Wide Web is, among other things, a monster bugbear to newspapers, while being something of a help at the same time.
It has forced the print news business into vast, expensive, transformational change to meet the Web-carried competition in news and opinion, of which The Blog is no small part. The broadcast media has challenges of this kind, too, but has appeared more able and quicker to use and accommodate itself to the new technology. I'll leave the broadcast side of the story for discussion at another time--right now, I see the newspaper shake-up as the technology-revolution story of the day.
My chief motivations in joining the Blogosphere are the following:
1) I have personal views about my corner of the world, about my country, and about the world in general, and I as a citizen offer them here (along with other categories of material, as indicated in the above title logo) for the consideration of anyone who gives attention to this soapbox.
2) I've seen too much concentration of ownership and loss of competition within the newspaper business, and I want to add my voice to those of the competition--as a blogger with a news background; and
3) Very simply, I can be a blogger, which might be enough motivation in itself for one to, well, give birth to a blog.
While new and fast-moving technologies may have made things difficult for newspapers in recent years, past technological advances have indeed helped them, and I think it worthwhile to remember that. So, let's do a little reminiscing.
HOW FAR BACK SHOULD WE GO?--Well, I guess the first tech change that I witnessed as a rookie in news, in the late 1940s at The Vancouver Sun, was the electric typewriter. Not a huge change, to be sure, but it had its interesting side. The electric typewriter was something I, for one, hoped to be able to use, because it appeared to be so much more efficient. But there were few in the news departments, perhaps because of their expense, and so I did not, ever, get one of those sleek, quiet electrics for my own regular use.
I almost always had one of the clattering manual jobs, an Underwood, a Remington, a Royal. And I owned a Smith portable, which served me well for years in on-the-road assignments. Of all the major manuals, I liked the Underwood best, and I actually was still using one when the big change, the ultimate big change, came in the form of...The Computer!
But hold it a second. I've overlooked one technological gadget that I'd just as soon forget. That would be the pager. I never had one of those, either, but that was because it hadn't come into general use where, and when, I worked as a reporter. (The cell phone was still a long way off, as was the laptop--but I'll bet the young will find it hard to imagine that it could have been thus, in the innocent belief that cell phones and laptops have always been with us.)
How did we, in my day, live without a pager? Simple--the office would phone us, if it could reach us, or we would phone the office, through landlines of course, and we would do that in either direction at more or less pre-set times. Photographers also had radiophones in their cars, so that if a reporter went out on a job with a photographer the reporter's communication problem was usually nonexistent, barring bad signal interference.
Generally, reporters out on a job on their own just kept in touch with the office by phone, and dictated stories against deadline by phone to the Rewrite Desk. When on out-of-town assignment, we'd phone in stories, or send them by telegraph if there was time enough. (Young people are forgiven if they now ask: "Telegraph? What's that?")
As a matter of fact, when I worked for quite a few years as correspondent in Parliamentary Press Galleries, in Victoria and Ottawa, I relied on direct telegraph contact between those places and head office for sending copy. For breaking stories on deadline, of course, the good old telephone was necessary.
Telegraph people were there in those Press Galleries, or near them, full-time, to get our stories transmitted to Gallery members' papers. The telegraph folks were good, and we Gallery members felt privileged. Other technology equipment we had was the teletype machine, for me only when I was in Victoria, which gave instant texting ability back and forth with the office. These technologies had been around for many years, though, so I don't list them as new in my newspaper time. Does anyone use, or even make them any more? Oh, I think the Internet pretty well does it all.
It was quite a bit later in life, while I was on the News Desk, when I first noticed photographers and reporters going around with those little black devices called pagers. Poor devils, I thought, constantly at the beck and call of the office, not a free moment. Some progress. Ah, but it was probably cost-effective. It was, after all, Technology, and who could knock that?
WE MUSTN'T FORGET BROADCASTING--It has become so pervasive, and has been for so long, that we tend to forget radio and television's influence on newspapers. Radio remained weak in news for many years after its beginnings, but ultimately did eat into newspaper ad revenues when it smartened up on broadcast news, realizing the appeal of its immediacy. And the radio talk shows, especially the sensationalist ones (remember Pat Burns?), in the late 50s and early 60s caused further erosion to newspaper revenues.
But it was TV that struck the strongest broadcast blow. It was obviously huge, although it didn't seem so at first when, in the early 50s, it joined the party. Few channels were available when it arrived in my part of the universe, and cable didn't exist. Furthermore, early TV was quite feeble in news while concentrating chiefly on entertainment.
It took a while for TV to have a significant effect on the way newspapers did their thing. But when it did, developing color, finding news and commentary growing in popularity, with more and more channels coming into markets, and then cable--well, newspaper advertising and circulation departments had fits.
The papers' editorial departments found it hard to compete with swift, on-the-spot TV news. People didn't have to wait to read it in the paper the next day, they could see it happening, right there on their TV screens.
Print news manfully hung in there, but as we've seen, had to make huge adjustments, shifting to fewer editions, and concentrating more on "what-it's-all-about" analysis and backgrounders than on up-to-the-minute news. Newspapers still did more or less fill the role of supplying a detailed record, but they were no longer the principal rulers of the news roost. Irreversible change had taken place.
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE REALLY BIG CHANGES--The pager and the car-imprisoned radiophone and the landline phones today have morphed into the cell phone and the laptop. There's no more need of finding a pay phone or a hotel phone or a hastily borrowed phone in someone's office to get that news in.
Personally, I have to say I do rather like the idea of being on assignment, let's say covering a political convention, and right there on the scene knocking off your story on a laptop, and with one tap of a finger instantly transporting your report into the office. But, then, having been out of a newspaper office for years, what do I really know about all that? Was it --is it-- that simple? And is there now something even better than the laptop for getting out those instant stories? Like the texting-cellphone-video-computer-music-player that's now so wildly popular, with everything all there in one little handful? Think I'll have to talk to my grandchildren about that as a valid scenario.
I admit that I am sorry to have missed the laptop experience and whatever has or may replace it. It sounds a lot easier than having, in the age (my age) of landline phones and no computers--to get on a strange phone somewhere and dictate to a Rewrite person a story off-the-top-of-the-head from notes, extemporaneously. In those days we had to do that quite a lot.
_______________
BUT IF I DIDN'T HAVE THE LAPTOP reporting experience, I did witness the introduction of computers for newspaper production purposes, at a time when I worked in the 1970s as a reporter for The Vancouver Province division of what was then Pacific Press. I can't resist noting here that when the computers came, the office let me buy my old Underwood (it was no longer of use to the company) at a "cut rate" of $30. I used it at home for a few years. You know. . . I'm thinking the office got a good deal on that transaction.
I wrote many stories on those primitive, no-color, limited-function first computers, and after becoming a sub-editor on the News Desk edited thousands of stories and wrote bushels of headlines on them. Those early computers were prone to crashing, so there were a few messy production nights. If you had written a story of which you were quite proud, and which might actually have been good, and it was on one of those crash nights, well, you had to start all over again. That was a very bad thing, and could lead one to pull out the hair.
HARD ON THE PRINTING TRADE--Those first computers pushed reporters and copy editors into the added role of virtual type compositors, without them needing to apply much extra effort. This was because the working of the computer keyboard in the writing and editing of stories was just about the equivalent of setting type. That is, those in the Composing Room found themselves not setting type on Linotype machines, but instead, cutting and pasting text in the preparation of newspaper pages, text printed out from Newsroom computers.
This was serious upheaval for the hot-type-setting trade, for it as much as ended the occupation of newspaper typographer, which had engaged thousands of highly skilled and intelligent men and women all over the world for many decades. They were known as the knights of labor, and enjoyed the respect of other working people, as well as of many employers. They are still respected but their work was immensely changed, and has been diminished.
The computer continued to develop and develop, gaining quickly in sophistication and function. For newspapers it meant wonders in versatility for newspaper production and, we were told, significant efficiencies and big cost saving.
For the world in general, of course, further major computer advances brought us the World Wide Web, the Internet and its "byproducts," like Facebook and Twitter--and, oh, yes, blogging.
All of which adds up to a downer for the newspaper industry, with newspaper companies and other conventional media as well, constantly casting about for ways to check their relative decline by getting in on the more popular computer communication rages, and exploiting them for their own needs.
THE PAPERS GO INTERNET--A good many newspapers seem to be making a success of converting to meet the challenge. They've grabbed the internet with a vengeance, producing online versions of their print products. A few, we've seen, have dropped print production entirely and shifted to the Web, and apparently are making a go of that.
They also have taken to blogging, bigtime. Newspaper readers are reminded daily that their favorite reporters, commentators, analysts and columnists these days don't just write for their print editions, they also put versions of their stuff into blogs. Well, the Blogosphere is a terribly competititve place. How could it be otherwise, there being well over one hundred million blogs. But professional newspaper bloggers (or bloggists?) feel superior about their chances of beating out the "amateurs" of blogging.
In fact, I've seen examples of newspaper people pretty much looking down their noses at the "ordinary," or "citizen," or "personal" blogger. People like you, and like me--because I do consider myself, as of today, a personal blogger, independent and free to say what I want to say (short of libel). Sure, I earned my daily bread from the news game, but I'm under no writing obligation to any newspaper and have no interest at all in going along with those who so easily downgrade the views, expressions and interests of regular folks who blog.
WHAT I AIMED AT IN REPORTING--In my reporting years, I tried to think of the interests of the average person, to take complex subjects and translate them from expert to non-expert language. The aim was to put things into everyday language while still doing justice to the facts involved. That sometimes led to charges by politicians of "over-simplification." But one can counter such charges by pointing out you can almost take it for granted that more than a few politicians tend to prefer obfuscation over clarity.
In my work I tried to imagine what kind of questions the reader would want to ask a prime minister, a premier, a cabinet minister, a party leader, or any other politician or relevant person, on any issue of the day. And then I'd put those questions. The politicians' answers to the "people's questions" often produced quite arresting news results.
What is the public interest in the matter at hand? That was my concern. So I was a public-interest person then, it was my job. It may not be my job now, but I'm still a public-interest person. And I can tell you that my soapbox, whether it's high and loud, or of medium elevation and subdued, definitely will not be a lofty one, will not, I emphasize, be of the peering-down-the-nose kind.
Those high-toned critics want to make a big deal out of spelling, grammatical and structural errors, and errors in facts and logic that find their way into personal blogs, and believe this is because the common blogger is not in their profession, lacks the necessary professional skills for the blogging task and thus serves up more unsupported opinion than useful or reliable commentary.
I'm amused by this, because the notion that ordinary people somehow aren't qualified to be professional writers or fact-checkers or editors is really beside the point. People do have opinions, and if they want to use the Web Log to express them they will, factually based or not. If they have something to say and are convincing, it'll work for them--otherwise their readers will say, "Next." And, take it as a given, if bloggers are careless and libel someone, it will cost them.
LOOK TO YOURSELVES, PROS--I think it fair to point out that that what forms and informs the opinions of bloggers, certainly in political, economic and social matters, is to a large degree what they see, hear and read in the news. Thus, if lofty commentators fault the "uninformed opinions" voiced by personal bloggers, then perhaps they ought to look to themselves.
They should ask themselves whether they're doing an adequate job of communicating with the public. Are they giving the public what it needs, in news and commentary on politics, on social and cultural and economic life, so that the public can be more aware of the vital facts necessary for forming sound opinions? Do they actually give all sides in controversial matters?
As far as faulty spelling and grammar may be concerned, the point is whether the views of the writer can be understood. Take a look at usage in e-mail and Facebook and Twitter. It's a fright if you insist on perfect spelling and grammar. But that, as I see it, is mainly because the people, especially the younger generations, who use those avenues of expression are in a hurry, they have little time for worrying about typos and grammatical niceties, and they comfortably use multitudes of abbreviations and graphic symbols. So cut them a little slack. But even if you don't give bloggers with these flaws some slack, many of them probably will say to you, "Language, shmangmage," and do what they want anyway. If opinions and ideas are debated, isn't that the main thing?
A NOTEWORTHY OTHER CRITIC--Newspapers haven't been the only source of criticism about blogs. No less a personage than the occupier of the largest "bully pulpit" in the world, Mr. Obama himself, has expressed views similar to those one has heard from the press, though he has been less lofty in tone.
According to the excellent Wikipedia, which carries a good short history of blogging, the U.S. president has complained that much opinion voiced in the Blogosphere neglects "serious fact-checking" and shows "no serious attempts to put stories in context." Consequently, Mr. Obama said, we get "shouting across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding." Well, maybe he was talking about blogs produced by his political opponents.
Here again, perhaps there's a need for politicians, as well as newspapers, to question whether they are doing the right job of communicating with citizens, a need even of politicians as intelligent and clever and personable as Mr. Obama.
My own view on blogging is, first, to realize that it is a fantastic medium in which scores of millions of people participate, with the number expanding by thousands daily (says Wikipedia, reliably). I would point out to any critics of blogging that large numbers of the bloggers of the world are not, in any event, political, or economic, and do not or state much that's controversial. What they're about is cooking, hobbies, family life, homes, gardens, clubs, and cars and music and poetry and other arts, and just about anything else you can name.
On personal blogs generally, I don't know that we should expect to see a great many using highly polished or fancy language. We're more likely to see plain language, from generally sincere people who want their families and friends and neighbors to know something of their interests and views. Flaws cannot help but appear, it's not a perfect medium. People do know that lots of newspapers and other sections of the news media are good, but they also know that they're not perfect either.
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE--Surely personal blogging has the great value of being an immense part of the voice of the people. And many times it has been said that, right or wrong, the voice of the people must be allowed to be heard. I'd say the Blogosphere, although it's something like 17 or 18 years old, is still a developing phenomenon. If it competes with the conventional news media, and it most certainly
does, that's a good thing, because the whole concept of a democratic and just and thinking society depends on expression of opinion, without censorship or other curbs--and on lots of competition.
I would think people will be bound to learn from it. It will advance literacy, as will its allied Web participants, like Facebook and Twitter. I say "advance literacy" because not many people are going to engage in writing even roughly-worded material, for consumption by families, friends and neighbors and, yes, potentially the world, without once in a while having to look up a word in the dictionary, including especially the young ones among us, because the young have built-in and naturally inquiring minds.
DO WE LIKE THE BLOGOSPHERE?--So, yes, absolutely yes, I'm in favor of blogging. I will, however, confess to feeling a touch of trepidation about getting into it: it takes time, it's work if you want to do it right (especially when you don't know what "right" is for blogging), and it is a schedule changer. Really, though, if one is going to do it, one simply has to accept the need to take the time, do the work, and make adjustments in the settled routines of retirement. You know, there are worse things.
I don't doubt that personal blogging is something of an experiment for anyone starting it, and one never knows how experiments will turn out. But I'm an optimist and I do believe it will be worthwhile.
On that note, then, I will end this blog dispatch. We now step off our soapbox for a break (my morning paper has just arrived)--but the break won't last more than a few days, because there's material to be readied for my next entry.
Future posts will come in what might be called a regularly irregular way, more or less as the spirit moves--but every couple of weeks at least.
Young's Soapbox & Journal now Blogs Off.
As most people know by now, the newspaper game has been severely shaken up by a communications free-for-all, powered by computer technology's advances.
I've watched the process with fascination since before my retirement 20 years ago, a fascination arising from my deeply ingrained interest in news, after having spent most of my working life as a newspaperman--in addition, I should add, to now having a newspaper pension as an important part of my income, which makes the future of newspapers of rather special interest to me.
Today we see that the World Wide Web is, among other things, a monster bugbear to newspapers, while being something of a help at the same time.
It has forced the print news business into vast, expensive, transformational change to meet the Web-carried competition in news and opinion, of which The Blog is no small part. The broadcast media has challenges of this kind, too, but has appeared more able and quicker to use and accommodate itself to the new technology. I'll leave the broadcast side of the story for discussion at another time--right now, I see the newspaper shake-up as the technology-revolution story of the day.
My chief motivations in joining the Blogosphere are the following:
1) I have personal views about my corner of the world, about my country, and about the world in general, and I as a citizen offer them here (along with other categories of material, as indicated in the above title logo) for the consideration of anyone who gives attention to this soapbox.
2) I've seen too much concentration of ownership and loss of competition within the newspaper business, and I want to add my voice to those of the competition--as a blogger with a news background; and
3) Very simply, I can be a blogger, which might be enough motivation in itself for one to, well, give birth to a blog.
While new and fast-moving technologies may have made things difficult for newspapers in recent years, past technological advances have indeed helped them, and I think it worthwhile to remember that. So, let's do a little reminiscing.
HOW FAR BACK SHOULD WE GO?--Well, I guess the first tech change that I witnessed as a rookie in news, in the late 1940s at The Vancouver Sun, was the electric typewriter. Not a huge change, to be sure, but it had its interesting side. The electric typewriter was something I, for one, hoped to be able to use, because it appeared to be so much more efficient. But there were few in the news departments, perhaps because of their expense, and so I did not, ever, get one of those sleek, quiet electrics for my own regular use.
I almost always had one of the clattering manual jobs, an Underwood, a Remington, a Royal. And I owned a Smith portable, which served me well for years in on-the-road assignments. Of all the major manuals, I liked the Underwood best, and I actually was still using one when the big change, the ultimate big change, came in the form of...The Computer!
But hold it a second. I've overlooked one technological gadget that I'd just as soon forget. That would be the pager. I never had one of those, either, but that was because it hadn't come into general use where, and when, I worked as a reporter. (The cell phone was still a long way off, as was the laptop--but I'll bet the young will find it hard to imagine that it could have been thus, in the innocent belief that cell phones and laptops have always been with us.)
How did we, in my day, live without a pager? Simple--the office would phone us, if it could reach us, or we would phone the office, through landlines of course, and we would do that in either direction at more or less pre-set times. Photographers also had radiophones in their cars, so that if a reporter went out on a job with a photographer the reporter's communication problem was usually nonexistent, barring bad signal interference.
Generally, reporters out on a job on their own just kept in touch with the office by phone, and dictated stories against deadline by phone to the Rewrite Desk. When on out-of-town assignment, we'd phone in stories, or send them by telegraph if there was time enough. (Young people are forgiven if they now ask: "Telegraph? What's that?")
As a matter of fact, when I worked for quite a few years as correspondent in Parliamentary Press Galleries, in Victoria and Ottawa, I relied on direct telegraph contact between those places and head office for sending copy. For breaking stories on deadline, of course, the good old telephone was necessary.
Telegraph people were there in those Press Galleries, or near them, full-time, to get our stories transmitted to Gallery members' papers. The telegraph folks were good, and we Gallery members felt privileged. Other technology equipment we had was the teletype machine, for me only when I was in Victoria, which gave instant texting ability back and forth with the office. These technologies had been around for many years, though, so I don't list them as new in my newspaper time. Does anyone use, or even make them any more? Oh, I think the Internet pretty well does it all.
It was quite a bit later in life, while I was on the News Desk, when I first noticed photographers and reporters going around with those little black devices called pagers. Poor devils, I thought, constantly at the beck and call of the office, not a free moment. Some progress. Ah, but it was probably cost-effective. It was, after all, Technology, and who could knock that?
WE MUSTN'T FORGET BROADCASTING--It has become so pervasive, and has been for so long, that we tend to forget radio and television's influence on newspapers. Radio remained weak in news for many years after its beginnings, but ultimately did eat into newspaper ad revenues when it smartened up on broadcast news, realizing the appeal of its immediacy. And the radio talk shows, especially the sensationalist ones (remember Pat Burns?), in the late 50s and early 60s caused further erosion to newspaper revenues.
But it was TV that struck the strongest broadcast blow. It was obviously huge, although it didn't seem so at first when, in the early 50s, it joined the party. Few channels were available when it arrived in my part of the universe, and cable didn't exist. Furthermore, early TV was quite feeble in news while concentrating chiefly on entertainment.
It took a while for TV to have a significant effect on the way newspapers did their thing. But when it did, developing color, finding news and commentary growing in popularity, with more and more channels coming into markets, and then cable--well, newspaper advertising and circulation departments had fits.
The papers' editorial departments found it hard to compete with swift, on-the-spot TV news. People didn't have to wait to read it in the paper the next day, they could see it happening, right there on their TV screens.
Print news manfully hung in there, but as we've seen, had to make huge adjustments, shifting to fewer editions, and concentrating more on "what-it's-all-about" analysis and backgrounders than on up-to-the-minute news. Newspapers still did more or less fill the role of supplying a detailed record, but they were no longer the principal rulers of the news roost. Irreversible change had taken place.
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE REALLY BIG CHANGES--The pager and the car-imprisoned radiophone and the landline phones today have morphed into the cell phone and the laptop. There's no more need of finding a pay phone or a hotel phone or a hastily borrowed phone in someone's office to get that news in.
Personally, I have to say I do rather like the idea of being on assignment, let's say covering a political convention, and right there on the scene knocking off your story on a laptop, and with one tap of a finger instantly transporting your report into the office. But, then, having been out of a newspaper office for years, what do I really know about all that? Was it --is it-- that simple? And is there now something even better than the laptop for getting out those instant stories? Like the texting-cellphone-video-computer-music-player that's now so wildly popular, with everything all there in one little handful? Think I'll have to talk to my grandchildren about that as a valid scenario.
I admit that I am sorry to have missed the laptop experience and whatever has or may replace it. It sounds a lot easier than having, in the age (my age) of landline phones and no computers--to get on a strange phone somewhere and dictate to a Rewrite person a story off-the-top-of-the-head from notes, extemporaneously. In those days we had to do that quite a lot.
_______________
BUT IF I DIDN'T HAVE THE LAPTOP reporting experience, I did witness the introduction of computers for newspaper production purposes, at a time when I worked in the 1970s as a reporter for The Vancouver Province division of what was then Pacific Press. I can't resist noting here that when the computers came, the office let me buy my old Underwood (it was no longer of use to the company) at a "cut rate" of $30. I used it at home for a few years. You know. . . I'm thinking the office got a good deal on that transaction.
I wrote many stories on those primitive, no-color, limited-function first computers, and after becoming a sub-editor on the News Desk edited thousands of stories and wrote bushels of headlines on them. Those early computers were prone to crashing, so there were a few messy production nights. If you had written a story of which you were quite proud, and which might actually have been good, and it was on one of those crash nights, well, you had to start all over again. That was a very bad thing, and could lead one to pull out the hair.
HARD ON THE PRINTING TRADE--Those first computers pushed reporters and copy editors into the added role of virtual type compositors, without them needing to apply much extra effort. This was because the working of the computer keyboard in the writing and editing of stories was just about the equivalent of setting type. That is, those in the Composing Room found themselves not setting type on Linotype machines, but instead, cutting and pasting text in the preparation of newspaper pages, text printed out from Newsroom computers.
This was serious upheaval for the hot-type-setting trade, for it as much as ended the occupation of newspaper typographer, which had engaged thousands of highly skilled and intelligent men and women all over the world for many decades. They were known as the knights of labor, and enjoyed the respect of other working people, as well as of many employers. They are still respected but their work was immensely changed, and has been diminished.
The computer continued to develop and develop, gaining quickly in sophistication and function. For newspapers it meant wonders in versatility for newspaper production and, we were told, significant efficiencies and big cost saving.
For the world in general, of course, further major computer advances brought us the World Wide Web, the Internet and its "byproducts," like Facebook and Twitter--and, oh, yes, blogging.
All of which adds up to a downer for the newspaper industry, with newspaper companies and other conventional media as well, constantly casting about for ways to check their relative decline by getting in on the more popular computer communication rages, and exploiting them for their own needs.
THE PAPERS GO INTERNET--A good many newspapers seem to be making a success of converting to meet the challenge. They've grabbed the internet with a vengeance, producing online versions of their print products. A few, we've seen, have dropped print production entirely and shifted to the Web, and apparently are making a go of that.
They also have taken to blogging, bigtime. Newspaper readers are reminded daily that their favorite reporters, commentators, analysts and columnists these days don't just write for their print editions, they also put versions of their stuff into blogs. Well, the Blogosphere is a terribly competititve place. How could it be otherwise, there being well over one hundred million blogs. But professional newspaper bloggers (or bloggists?) feel superior about their chances of beating out the "amateurs" of blogging.
In fact, I've seen examples of newspaper people pretty much looking down their noses at the "ordinary," or "citizen," or "personal" blogger. People like you, and like me--because I do consider myself, as of today, a personal blogger, independent and free to say what I want to say (short of libel). Sure, I earned my daily bread from the news game, but I'm under no writing obligation to any newspaper and have no interest at all in going along with those who so easily downgrade the views, expressions and interests of regular folks who blog.
WHAT I AIMED AT IN REPORTING--In my reporting years, I tried to think of the interests of the average person, to take complex subjects and translate them from expert to non-expert language. The aim was to put things into everyday language while still doing justice to the facts involved. That sometimes led to charges by politicians of "over-simplification." But one can counter such charges by pointing out you can almost take it for granted that more than a few politicians tend to prefer obfuscation over clarity.
In my work I tried to imagine what kind of questions the reader would want to ask a prime minister, a premier, a cabinet minister, a party leader, or any other politician or relevant person, on any issue of the day. And then I'd put those questions. The politicians' answers to the "people's questions" often produced quite arresting news results.
What is the public interest in the matter at hand? That was my concern. So I was a public-interest person then, it was my job. It may not be my job now, but I'm still a public-interest person. And I can tell you that my soapbox, whether it's high and loud, or of medium elevation and subdued, definitely will not be a lofty one, will not, I emphasize, be of the peering-down-the-nose kind.
Those high-toned critics want to make a big deal out of spelling, grammatical and structural errors, and errors in facts and logic that find their way into personal blogs, and believe this is because the common blogger is not in their profession, lacks the necessary professional skills for the blogging task and thus serves up more unsupported opinion than useful or reliable commentary.
I'm amused by this, because the notion that ordinary people somehow aren't qualified to be professional writers or fact-checkers or editors is really beside the point. People do have opinions, and if they want to use the Web Log to express them they will, factually based or not. If they have something to say and are convincing, it'll work for them--otherwise their readers will say, "Next." And, take it as a given, if bloggers are careless and libel someone, it will cost them.
LOOK TO YOURSELVES, PROS--I think it fair to point out that that what forms and informs the opinions of bloggers, certainly in political, economic and social matters, is to a large degree what they see, hear and read in the news. Thus, if lofty commentators fault the "uninformed opinions" voiced by personal bloggers, then perhaps they ought to look to themselves.
They should ask themselves whether they're doing an adequate job of communicating with the public. Are they giving the public what it needs, in news and commentary on politics, on social and cultural and economic life, so that the public can be more aware of the vital facts necessary for forming sound opinions? Do they actually give all sides in controversial matters?
As far as faulty spelling and grammar may be concerned, the point is whether the views of the writer can be understood. Take a look at usage in e-mail and Facebook and Twitter. It's a fright if you insist on perfect spelling and grammar. But that, as I see it, is mainly because the people, especially the younger generations, who use those avenues of expression are in a hurry, they have little time for worrying about typos and grammatical niceties, and they comfortably use multitudes of abbreviations and graphic symbols. So cut them a little slack. But even if you don't give bloggers with these flaws some slack, many of them probably will say to you, "Language, shmangmage," and do what they want anyway. If opinions and ideas are debated, isn't that the main thing?
A NOTEWORTHY OTHER CRITIC--Newspapers haven't been the only source of criticism about blogs. No less a personage than the occupier of the largest "bully pulpit" in the world, Mr. Obama himself, has expressed views similar to those one has heard from the press, though he has been less lofty in tone.
According to the excellent Wikipedia, which carries a good short history of blogging, the U.S. president has complained that much opinion voiced in the Blogosphere neglects "serious fact-checking" and shows "no serious attempts to put stories in context." Consequently, Mr. Obama said, we get "shouting across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding." Well, maybe he was talking about blogs produced by his political opponents.
Here again, perhaps there's a need for politicians, as well as newspapers, to question whether they are doing the right job of communicating with citizens, a need even of politicians as intelligent and clever and personable as Mr. Obama.
My own view on blogging is, first, to realize that it is a fantastic medium in which scores of millions of people participate, with the number expanding by thousands daily (says Wikipedia, reliably). I would point out to any critics of blogging that large numbers of the bloggers of the world are not, in any event, political, or economic, and do not or state much that's controversial. What they're about is cooking, hobbies, family life, homes, gardens, clubs, and cars and music and poetry and other arts, and just about anything else you can name.
On personal blogs generally, I don't know that we should expect to see a great many using highly polished or fancy language. We're more likely to see plain language, from generally sincere people who want their families and friends and neighbors to know something of their interests and views. Flaws cannot help but appear, it's not a perfect medium. People do know that lots of newspapers and other sections of the news media are good, but they also know that they're not perfect either.
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE--Surely personal blogging has the great value of being an immense part of the voice of the people. And many times it has been said that, right or wrong, the voice of the people must be allowed to be heard. I'd say the Blogosphere, although it's something like 17 or 18 years old, is still a developing phenomenon. If it competes with the conventional news media, and it most certainly
does, that's a good thing, because the whole concept of a democratic and just and thinking society depends on expression of opinion, without censorship or other curbs--and on lots of competition.
I would think people will be bound to learn from it. It will advance literacy, as will its allied Web participants, like Facebook and Twitter. I say "advance literacy" because not many people are going to engage in writing even roughly-worded material, for consumption by families, friends and neighbors and, yes, potentially the world, without once in a while having to look up a word in the dictionary, including especially the young ones among us, because the young have built-in and naturally inquiring minds.
DO WE LIKE THE BLOGOSPHERE?--So, yes, absolutely yes, I'm in favor of blogging. I will, however, confess to feeling a touch of trepidation about getting into it: it takes time, it's work if you want to do it right (especially when you don't know what "right" is for blogging), and it is a schedule changer. Really, though, if one is going to do it, one simply has to accept the need to take the time, do the work, and make adjustments in the settled routines of retirement. You know, there are worse things.
I don't doubt that personal blogging is something of an experiment for anyone starting it, and one never knows how experiments will turn out. But I'm an optimist and I do believe it will be worthwhile.
On that note, then, I will end this blog dispatch. We now step off our soapbox for a break (my morning paper has just arrived)--but the break won't last more than a few days, because there's material to be readied for my next entry.
Future posts will come in what might be called a regularly irregular way, more or less as the spirit moves--but every couple of weeks at least.
Young's Soapbox & Journal now Blogs Off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)