A college football coach.
An individual who leads their team into battle every week. An individual who runs the ship and make sure everything is running smooth and sound. And an individual who likes to compare his team to some of the most hated people of the 20th century.
Well at least this guy did.
Yesterday, University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley decided to compare his struggling team to the Germans in World War 2.
Probably not the best idea, coach.
Either he had just watched a documentary the night before and was fascinated with the WWII topic, or he attempted to be a clown but ended up sounding really weird.
The fact is that Tennessee football is in the news today for all the wrong reasons. Because the coach said what was on his mind.
And this happens far too often in sports. A coach gets fired up after a loss and says whatever comes to his head. It can make that coach look like an idiot, and it can also make that team look really bad as well.
Sure this stuff is gold for journalists around the world, but the reputation of your team should always come before trying to make an intriguing soundbite.
What's Tennessee's reputation now? "Hey, that's the team with that Nazi coach" will probably be a popular thought among many fans for the rest of the year. Sad but true.
I'm not shooting down press conferences at all. A coach getting angry or excited is great theatre. But they have to be extremely cautious of what they say and who they say it to in today's age. Just remember, the reputation of a team can change with a slip of the tongue.
But that won't stop me from following the the University of TenNazi----oops, I mean----Tennessee.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
A Fly on the wall
On Friday afternoon, I went over to the Winnipeg Free Press website to take a quick glance at the day’s events, but instead I ended up staying on the website for about 20 minutes. The Free Press website had me hooked.
And ironically, it had nothing to do with a piece of writing.
No, for 20 minutes on Friday, I went on the website of Winnipeg’s most popular newspaper and watched video.
Live video of a roundabout.
A camera was set up at the infamous roundabout located at Grosvenor Avenue and Waverley Street, just days after a collision at the spot sent people into a frenzy.
So the camera sat there, for nearly 10 hours, and people watched.
So where to begin?
Well, to start, this further proves that video is an integral part of the Winnipeg Free Press website as well as other media outlet websites. But we knew that already.
(By the way, my thoughts on roundabouts….I think they’re a great addition to Winnipeg roads. It’s just a matter of figuring them out, which can be a struggle for some people. Somebody has to teach these people how to properly drive through a roundabout. That’s up to you, Sam or Judy…)
Watching the roundabout brought me back in time a bit.
One example it reminded me of was the days of going to my Grandma’s apartment block on Tuxedo Avenue. There was a camera set up at the front of the building where everyone buzzes in. And it turns out, everyone who lived in the building had a channel on their television that showed 24/7 coverage of this camera, basically so they could see their guest coming in. So naturally, when we visited, I immediately turned the television to the “buzz-in” channel. Waiting for people to walk in and then finally watching somebody enter was fascinating to me.
This brings us to Friday where the Winnipeg Free Press website featured all-day video of the River Heights roundabout. And take a guess as to what I did?
I waited for cars to come. And when they came into view, my eyes perked up. Would we see a crash? Would I be watching breaking news unfold right before my eyes?
Trust me, I wasn’t the only one doing this.
And that’s why I think this was a great move by the Free Press. Why did they set up a camera at this roundabout? Why were there journalists live tweeting from the Russell Williams case for The Globe and Mail? Because people are interested. They want to be the fly on the wall.
And with the introduction in the last decade of live streaming video, tweeting, and live blogging, we are finally being able to realize our secret dreams of being a fly on the wall.
We can see them but they can’t see us. This is why we keep waiting for that next car to reach the roundabout, or waiting for that next detail in the Williams case. We just can’t turn away.
When we were asked in Grade 1 what animal or insect we wanted to be, how many people answered a fly?
Because the way media websites are operating nowadays, we’re buzzing around for the goods. And we can’t stop.
Here are the "highlights" from the roundabout coverage on Friday.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid35098648001?bclid=1485806145&bctid=644191056001
And ironically, it had nothing to do with a piece of writing.
No, for 20 minutes on Friday, I went on the website of Winnipeg’s most popular newspaper and watched video.
Live video of a roundabout.
A camera was set up at the infamous roundabout located at Grosvenor Avenue and Waverley Street, just days after a collision at the spot sent people into a frenzy.
So the camera sat there, for nearly 10 hours, and people watched.
So where to begin?
Well, to start, this further proves that video is an integral part of the Winnipeg Free Press website as well as other media outlet websites. But we knew that already.
(By the way, my thoughts on roundabouts….I think they’re a great addition to Winnipeg roads. It’s just a matter of figuring them out, which can be a struggle for some people. Somebody has to teach these people how to properly drive through a roundabout. That’s up to you, Sam or Judy…)
Watching the roundabout brought me back in time a bit.
One example it reminded me of was the days of going to my Grandma’s apartment block on Tuxedo Avenue. There was a camera set up at the front of the building where everyone buzzes in. And it turns out, everyone who lived in the building had a channel on their television that showed 24/7 coverage of this camera, basically so they could see their guest coming in. So naturally, when we visited, I immediately turned the television to the “buzz-in” channel. Waiting for people to walk in and then finally watching somebody enter was fascinating to me.
This brings us to Friday where the Winnipeg Free Press website featured all-day video of the River Heights roundabout. And take a guess as to what I did?
I waited for cars to come. And when they came into view, my eyes perked up. Would we see a crash? Would I be watching breaking news unfold right before my eyes?
Trust me, I wasn’t the only one doing this.
And that’s why I think this was a great move by the Free Press. Why did they set up a camera at this roundabout? Why were there journalists live tweeting from the Russell Williams case for The Globe and Mail? Because people are interested. They want to be the fly on the wall.
And with the introduction in the last decade of live streaming video, tweeting, and live blogging, we are finally being able to realize our secret dreams of being a fly on the wall.
We can see them but they can’t see us. This is why we keep waiting for that next car to reach the roundabout, or waiting for that next detail in the Williams case. We just can’t turn away.
When we were asked in Grade 1 what animal or insect we wanted to be, how many people answered a fly?
Because the way media websites are operating nowadays, we’re buzzing around for the goods. And we can’t stop.
Here are the "highlights" from the roundabout coverage on Friday.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid35098648001?bclid=1485806145&bctid=644191056001
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Editing a Valedictorian
The aftermath of Erin Larson's valedictorian speech at the University of Winnipeg on Sunday has raised many questions.
Was she wrong in her decision to criticize Vic Toews during her speech?
Is it OK for students to voice their controversial opinions in a speech of such magnitude?
One of the questions that came to my mind is "Who viewed/edited this speech before it was read to the public?"
Did anybody?
Back in June 2009, I was named valedictorian of my 2009 Windsor Park Collegiate graduating class. I was given the task of writing an 8-10 minute speech that concluded the convocation ceremony.
I wrote the speech with help from my english teacher. And as it turned out, he was the only one that ended up viewing/editing it before I spoke in front of the crowd at convocation.
Honestly, at the time I was little surprised. I thought the speech would have to get the approval of many different staff members including teachers and principals.
But that wasn't the case. One teacher read it. And on to the stage I went. I could have talked about anything I wanted. But being the good boy I am, I stuck to the basics of a valedictorian speech.
Now Larson gave a warning prior to the convocation in an interview, saying that she was going to talk about Toews in her speech. But nobody attempted to stop her.
After Sunday's controversy, will valedictorian speeches be more heavily edited in the future? And should they be?
Was she wrong in her decision to criticize Vic Toews during her speech?
Is it OK for students to voice their controversial opinions in a speech of such magnitude?
One of the questions that came to my mind is "Who viewed/edited this speech before it was read to the public?"
Did anybody?
Back in June 2009, I was named valedictorian of my 2009 Windsor Park Collegiate graduating class. I was given the task of writing an 8-10 minute speech that concluded the convocation ceremony.
I wrote the speech with help from my english teacher. And as it turned out, he was the only one that ended up viewing/editing it before I spoke in front of the crowd at convocation.
Honestly, at the time I was little surprised. I thought the speech would have to get the approval of many different staff members including teachers and principals.
But that wasn't the case. One teacher read it. And on to the stage I went. I could have talked about anything I wanted. But being the good boy I am, I stuck to the basics of a valedictorian speech.
Now Larson gave a warning prior to the convocation in an interview, saying that she was going to talk about Toews in her speech. But nobody attempted to stop her.
After Sunday's controversy, will valedictorian speeches be more heavily edited in the future? And should they be?
Monday, October 18, 2010
When it's OK to lie as a journalist
I've mentioned in the past on this blog how I was once a wrestling aficionado and followed it religiously until it got pretty brutal.
But, secretly, I've always wanted a career in the WWE.
No, not as a wrestler. If that was the case, I would have started pumping the 'roids years ago.
But a career as a wrestling journalist or play-by-play announcer.
Let me start by saying, as hard as it is to believe, professional wrestling is fake. Scripted. Phony. Whatever word you want to use.
But do journalists cover it even though it's fake? As Stone Cold Steve Austin would say, "Hell yeah!!"
So what does being a wrestling journalist consist of? Well, there's writers on the official website and for the official magazine.
Some of the features in the magazine include profiles of different superstars. A profile of Randy Orton and his amazing quest to win the WWE Championship. Well, actually, it was a bunch of scriptwriters that determined that he would win the title.
Writers on the website will cover a match and use quotes like "John Cena knocked down Edge and hurt him badly." Actually, Edge was acting and he's not hurt at all.
I find the whole thing very intriguing. Covering a scripted event but portraying it as a real event.
As a journalist, it's the only time you'll get away with "lying".
Being an announcer has to be another difficult job. The announcers know what's going to happen before they go and do the show that night. Their job is to provide the information to the audience but act like they didn't know it was coming.
And again, the ability is needed to make a scripted event sound real.
(This clip below is a great example)
These are jobs that are probably a lot harder than they actually seem.
Journalists with a tad bit of acting skills.
But, secretly, I've always wanted a career in the WWE.
No, not as a wrestler. If that was the case, I would have started pumping the 'roids years ago.
But a career as a wrestling journalist or play-by-play announcer.
Let me start by saying, as hard as it is to believe, professional wrestling is fake. Scripted. Phony. Whatever word you want to use.
But do journalists cover it even though it's fake? As Stone Cold Steve Austin would say, "Hell yeah!!"
So what does being a wrestling journalist consist of? Well, there's writers on the official website and for the official magazine.
Some of the features in the magazine include profiles of different superstars. A profile of Randy Orton and his amazing quest to win the WWE Championship. Well, actually, it was a bunch of scriptwriters that determined that he would win the title.
Writers on the website will cover a match and use quotes like "John Cena knocked down Edge and hurt him badly." Actually, Edge was acting and he's not hurt at all.
I find the whole thing very intriguing. Covering a scripted event but portraying it as a real event.
As a journalist, it's the only time you'll get away with "lying".
Being an announcer has to be another difficult job. The announcers know what's going to happen before they go and do the show that night. Their job is to provide the information to the audience but act like they didn't know it was coming.
And again, the ability is needed to make a scripted event sound real.
(This clip below is a great example)
These are jobs that are probably a lot harder than they actually seem.
Journalists with a tad bit of acting skills.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Editing a Legend
The wrong pronunciation or misspelling of a name is a no-no when it comes to journalism.
It's a mistake that can possibly stay with the journalist for a long time.
For Canadian television personality Don Cherry, these "mistakes" are just a part of his character. Cherry is widely known for his disapproval of European and French hockey players. And one of the ways he shows his "love" towards these players is by absolutely botching their names. Whether it's on purpose, or whether he just can't get the hang of those names, it's rare that Don will go through one episode of his "Coach's Corner" intermission show without getting tongue-tied over a name.
In fact, if our instructor Duncan McMonagle gave us a transcript of a Coach's Corner episode to view for our "Spot the Screw-up" assignment that we occasionally get, the paper would be filled with scribbles and marks from our editing.
Here are some of Don's finest examples:
Roberto Luongo "La-longo played good tonight"
J.S. Giguere (jig-AIR) "Gig-air made some great saves"
Jaroslav Halak "Havlak played poorly tonight"
Alexei Ponikarovsky "Pokahonsky was horrible"
And the suits at CBC really have no idea what Cherry is going to say before he comes in, and they can't really control or edit his opinions.
A famous quote from former Hockey Night in Canada producer Ralph Mellanby goes like this:
"Canada has two official languages (French and English) and Cherry doesn't speak either one of them."
Amazing that a guy can become one of the most iconic television personalities in Canadian history with his english skills.
An example of this language can be found in his book titled "Don Cherry's Hockey Stories and Stuff". All the stories in this book are written in a "Don Cherry conversational manner", as if he was telling you the stories face to face over a beer.
Here's the intro to his book:
"I’d like this book to be just like we’re sittin’ down tellin’ stories in my own language. I know I’ll be criticized because for some reason people are not too thrilled with the way I speak.
In fact, CBC wanted to fire me my first month on Hockey Night in Canada. The brass told my boss, Ralph Mellanby, “This guy is awful. Get him off the air. We owe it to the English-speaking children of Canada.” I stayed because Ralph, who had just won an Emmy or somethin’ for the Olympics, said, “If he goes, I go.” But Ralph stayed and said, “I have to admit, Canada is a land of two official languages and Cherry speaks neither.” It kinda hurt my feelings.
So don’t blame Random House or Al Strachan for the way the book is presented, I wanted the book to be like a couple of guys sittin’ down with a few pops tellin’ hockey stories.
I hope you enjoy it."
(P.S. The "Emmy or Somethin' comment" makes me laugh)
Despite alot of questioning by CBC brass when he first started, Cherry was kept on and now 30 years later, look what has happened. And we all know Cherry is there for one reason. To speak his mind and therefore boost the ratings of Hockey Night in Canada.
The fact of the matter, though, is he has been botching names for the last 20 years and has made no attempt to get better at it.
If any other television personality was doing this, they would be ripped in the media until they were eventually removed. And sure, some of the media love Cherry as much as cats like mice. But he somehow gets away with it every single time without any sort of punishment, other than a 7-second delay he recieved back in 2003.
I guess there's no point in trying to edit a legend.
It's a mistake that can possibly stay with the journalist for a long time.
For Canadian television personality Don Cherry, these "mistakes" are just a part of his character. Cherry is widely known for his disapproval of European and French hockey players. And one of the ways he shows his "love" towards these players is by absolutely botching their names. Whether it's on purpose, or whether he just can't get the hang of those names, it's rare that Don will go through one episode of his "Coach's Corner" intermission show without getting tongue-tied over a name.
In fact, if our instructor Duncan McMonagle gave us a transcript of a Coach's Corner episode to view for our "Spot the Screw-up" assignment that we occasionally get, the paper would be filled with scribbles and marks from our editing.
Here are some of Don's finest examples:
Roberto Luongo "La-longo played good tonight"
J.S. Giguere (jig-AIR) "Gig-air made some great saves"
Jaroslav Halak "Havlak played poorly tonight"
Alexei Ponikarovsky "Pokahonsky was horrible"
And the suits at CBC really have no idea what Cherry is going to say before he comes in, and they can't really control or edit his opinions.
A famous quote from former Hockey Night in Canada producer Ralph Mellanby goes like this:
"Canada has two official languages (French and English) and Cherry doesn't speak either one of them."
Amazing that a guy can become one of the most iconic television personalities in Canadian history with his english skills.
An example of this language can be found in his book titled "Don Cherry's Hockey Stories and Stuff". All the stories in this book are written in a "Don Cherry conversational manner", as if he was telling you the stories face to face over a beer.
Here's the intro to his book:
"I’d like this book to be just like we’re sittin’ down tellin’ stories in my own language. I know I’ll be criticized because for some reason people are not too thrilled with the way I speak.
In fact, CBC wanted to fire me my first month on Hockey Night in Canada. The brass told my boss, Ralph Mellanby, “This guy is awful. Get him off the air. We owe it to the English-speaking children of Canada.” I stayed because Ralph, who had just won an Emmy or somethin’ for the Olympics, said, “If he goes, I go.” But Ralph stayed and said, “I have to admit, Canada is a land of two official languages and Cherry speaks neither.” It kinda hurt my feelings.
So don’t blame Random House or Al Strachan for the way the book is presented, I wanted the book to be like a couple of guys sittin’ down with a few pops tellin’ hockey stories.
I hope you enjoy it."
(P.S. The "Emmy or Somethin' comment" makes me laugh)
Despite alot of questioning by CBC brass when he first started, Cherry was kept on and now 30 years later, look what has happened. And we all know Cherry is there for one reason. To speak his mind and therefore boost the ratings of Hockey Night in Canada.
The fact of the matter, though, is he has been botching names for the last 20 years and has made no attempt to get better at it.
If any other television personality was doing this, they would be ripped in the media until they were eventually removed. And sure, some of the media love Cherry as much as cats like mice. But he somehow gets away with it every single time without any sort of punishment, other than a 7-second delay he recieved back in 2003.
I guess there's no point in trying to edit a legend.
The reason why I write like this..
For those of you who check out my blog, I try to write it in more of a fun and humorous tone.
And the reason is because of this goofy-looking guy down below.
And the reason is because of this goofy-looking guy down below.
Bill Simmons of ESPN.COM
His columns are some of the funniest I've ever read.
The big thing with Simmons' style is that he writes from the viewpoint of a passionate sports fan. He writes what we all think.
And he does it by using humour, creating bizarre theories, using pop-culture references, creating a column that is unique from anything out there.
Throw in the fact that this guy records 2-3 podcasts a week and is the executive producer of the highly praised "30 for 30" documentaries. He's a machine.
Here are some of his finest examples:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1193711
http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1273732
And if you think my writing is a little bizarre at times, you can blame ol' Bill for that.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Horrible "Sites" of 2010
After our experiences in EDPOM last week viewing websites (yes, this is the acronym/abbreviation that I use for editing class), I decided to venture further and look at more web pages that just aren't friendly to a reader's eye.
And bingo...
I found a page that narrows down the worst websites of 2010.
Whether it is brutal design, terrible writing, or just plain old boring, this list is gold and really shows just how little thought is put into some sites.
And this aptly-named website (webpagesthatsuck.com) has no problem saying what they really think about these sites.
So here they are, the worst sites of the year.
(Note: My personal favourite is No.3 on the list.)
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/worst-websites-of-2010-contenders.html
And bingo...
I found a page that narrows down the worst websites of 2010.
Whether it is brutal design, terrible writing, or just plain old boring, this list is gold and really shows just how little thought is put into some sites.
And this aptly-named website (webpagesthatsuck.com) has no problem saying what they really think about these sites.
So here they are, the worst sites of the year.
(Note: My personal favourite is No.3 on the list.)
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/worst-websites-of-2010-contenders.html
Monday, October 4, 2010
The teleprompter: An anchor's best friend...or worst nightmare
Last Thursday, journalism and media production majors were given the chance to read off a television anchor's best friend, the teleprompter.
We stared awkwardly into the camera with our furrowed eyebrows as we tried to hammer out the pronunciation of Richer, Recchi and Ricci in order.
But more importantly, we gained the respect of television anchors who have to rely on these things every single weeknight. And when difficulties with the teleprompter occur, the professionalism that these anchors show to keep things flowing well is off the charts impressive.
And as Steve Vogelsang pointed out, we should understand the importance of solid straight forward writing on the teleprompter.
Which brings me to my all-time favourite moment involving a teleprompter...
The great Bill O'Reilly.
Enjoy.
(Warning: BAD LANGUAGE)
We stared awkwardly into the camera with our furrowed eyebrows as we tried to hammer out the pronunciation of Richer, Recchi and Ricci in order.
But more importantly, we gained the respect of television anchors who have to rely on these things every single weeknight. And when difficulties with the teleprompter occur, the professionalism that these anchors show to keep things flowing well is off the charts impressive.
And as Steve Vogelsang pointed out, we should understand the importance of solid straight forward writing on the teleprompter.
Which brings me to my all-time favourite moment involving a teleprompter...
The great Bill O'Reilly.
Enjoy.
(Warning: BAD LANGUAGE)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)