Raise the Hammer

Hey Ryan,

I know this is a favourite topic of yours :) I read through Nicole McIntyre's article and I thought it was excellently done. Very 'balanced'. It's nice to see an environmental story which isn't slanted against 'environmentalists' (as if you could even label environmentally concious people this way anymore - aren't we all environmentalists...?)

I don't quite follow your comments wrt 'Balance vs Analysis' though. I assume you are suggesting that the journalist should have a good understand of the complexity of his/her subject matter and should explore the issue in depth, accordingly? This would have to be done by citing independant sources/ref material in the usual journalistic fashion then? My concern here would be related to how much expertise and interest the journalist really has on the subject. In my experience as a Spec reader, Hamilton can be something of an intellectual vacuum at times - especially if City Councilors are getting the lion share of the quotes and only selective sources are dug up to 'balance' or corroborate their often uninformed 'facts' How can I trust a journalist to look beyond the easy quotes and truly represent the complexities of the story? I know of at least one Spec reporter who was given a bureau in which they had very little interest and knowledge. Do I want them to conduct this analysis on my behalf?

After years of reading the Spec the one thing that I tired of was the 'lazy' reporting. Complex arguments would boiled down to tabloid rag black and white articles with good and bad, right and wrong. Complex issues were often ignored altogether.

I remember the first time I spoke to you was after reading one of your sprawl peices in the OpEd section. I thought 'at last! Someone who understand this stuff!' Why had no Spec reorters covered this issue before then?

I don't blame the journalists, having gotten to know a few I know that they are more than engaged and intelligent enough to provide the right balance and analysis on a variety of Hamilton related subjects, I can only assume the direction/article selection wasn't there.

How many 'in-depth' articles does the Spec produce these days? (I don't read it anymore). I remember one particularly dry period when Hamilton suffered through the Aerotropolis 'debates' and several other key issues (including the on-going sprawl which has barely been 'intelligently addressed' by the paper). After months of shallow trite on downtown crimes and car crashes we were finally treated to an in-depth report on...car fires!

Holy crap, the car-fire series was very well done but for crying out loud the whole city was on fire and all the local paper could address was this!

Same applies to Red-Hill. I moved to the Hammer at the tail end of this debacle but from what I saw there was very little intelligent analysis in the paper about this.

I now read the Toronto Star and although it is not without it's short-comings we are very lucky here in Toronto to get a frequent smattering of sprawl related stories and urban planning discussions covered by journalists who are very clearly knowledgable, interested in their subject matter, and supported by their editors (ie given the right profile and column space).

I feel much more informed as a result.

I understand your complimentary tone in relation to Nicole McIntyre's peice, but overall I think you need to ask yourself just how much the Spec has improved. While it's readers may be drawn to it out of loyalty and it's historical connections to the town, and while it is, IMO, a funamentally honest and better class of paper, it still has significant short-comings when it comes to addressing Hamilton's critical issues in a timely, in-depth and intelligent manner.

Cheers

Ben