So, how’d we do this time?
October 14, 2008
- Posted by Regan Ray
Part 1 - So, how'd we do this time?
Part 2 - The year of the blog
Part 3 - Enter the truth squads
Part 4 - Interactive journalism? Not so much, yet
Part 5 - Style 2.0, substance 1.0
Take Our Poll - Who had the best coverage?
Interactive journalism? Not so much, yet
Unsurprisingly, this was the year for launching unprecedented multimedia online election sites, especially at the major national papers and networks. All the national majors put serious work into their web campaign homes. The CBC’s self-styled “vlog,” Ormiston Online, deserves a special mention for originality, as do the Globe’s substantive “interactives” such as open editorial-board discussions and a daily update on platform costs. If little of the vast potential of web journalism is so far trickling down to the underresourced layers of local publications, J-Source contributing editor Rob Washburn identified some impressive examples at the community level, including Metroland Media’s Inside Toronto Votes site.
Amid this concerted (and needed) shift to online, the "2.0” approach to journalism gives pride of place to interactive approaches centred on user-generated content (UGC). In the United States, for instance, reporters at papers like the Raleigh, NC, News and Observer and the Fort Myers News Press team up with citizen volunteers to watch and even dig into local events, multiplying the papers’ newsroom resources. In like fashion, follow-the-campaign reports in Canadian cities could have been shifted onto the shoulders of happy volunteers from former “audience” members, while reporters used the release time to pursue more investigative paths.
UCG did rise markedly in this campaign, with questions posed directly to political leaders on The National and you-write-the-caption opportunities and all manner of other fun stuff at thestar.com. CTV’s “My Vote” page provided video space to help fringe parties gain air time on the web and for voters to identify underreported issues. Some city dailies, too, dipped toes in this water, with the Winnipeg Free Press offering a Daily Voter space that was essentially a collection of webbified “streeter”quotes.
But as UBC’s Alfred Hermida pointed out, it’s still early days for this type of thing, and journalists, rather than citizens, retain firm control as “gate-keepers” of the news agenda. Everywhere, the chief stream of user contributions continues to take the form of comments on staff-written stories.
As for alternative media, The Tyee’s Geoff Dembicki used the platform well by turning a non-story into a story-behind-the-story, blogging when denied entry to a Stephen Harper campaign event. On the other hand, citizen journalism site NowPublic proved content with providing yet another outlet for opinion and aggregation of mainstream-media stories, as J-Source contributor Joe Rayment pointed in his review of the site's election section. In fact, the entire blogosphere had surprisingly little substantial impact on how the campaign went, with the highly notable exception of Michel Rivard’s ground-altering cultural-politics video in Quebec. ROC-wise, the closest thing to a standout moment was Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor’s posting of Elizabeth May reference to “stupid” voters - though the, um, stupid comment itself first aired on plain old television.
|
For those interested, here's a link to "Incremental Man":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081004.whapercover04/BNStory/politics/
I would like to nominate the huge Harper profile by Jeffrey Simpson and Brian Laghi that ran in the weekend Globe and Mail's Focus section. It was called Incremental Man and for sheer breadth and depth of reporting, I think it was one of the best stories I read throughout the election period. This kind of story, with many, many sources and careful, solid writing offers voters a chance to stop and think about candidates and issues, rather than simply jumping from news bite to news bite, gobbling up information, but with little time for reflection and synthesis.
Kudos to the reporters and to the Globe.
Paul Benedetti
Perhaps it's just me and this happens every election, but I thought this campaign was especially focused on coverage of the leaders. Tracking their movements and repeating their speeches were sometimes the only campaign news of the day, and precious little space was devoted to other candidates.
Also, I remain astonished that issues such as the war in Afghanistan received so little play. Given how polarizing it can be and how much analysis has been devoted to it since the last election, I thought it would be a major issue. Not even the NDP or Greens tried to make hay of it in a significant way.