Scott BestMy Personal Brand

In Advertising class, my fellow Creative Communications student and I were asked to produce a “Personal Brand.” This means that we were to portray ourselves as a product or a brand that could be marketed, based on a number of criteria.

I chose to do mine in audio form. To hear the result, go to:

http://soundcloud.com/scott-best/scott-best-personal-brand

Something Rotten in the State of American Media? Comments Welcome!

News junkies like me often keep a close eye on the media during newsworthy events like Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election, but I never thought my media consumption would bring to light something so striking.

American media is not as “objective” as some might think.

Last Tuesday afternoon, I tuned into CNN, mostly because they offer 24-7 news coverage and none of the other networks had begun their election coverage yet. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll tell you right off the bat that I wanted Barach Obama to be elected president. So I was interested in hearing that ‘all Obama or Romney has to do is carry the battle ground states like Ohio, and that candidate wins’.

When I tuned into CBS a little later in the evening, I began to notice a distinction between that network and CNN.

They were predicting, interpreting and reporting the results differently. The CBS anchor would say, ‘if Romney takes Ohio, then he wins’. They also seemed to be focusing on the states in which Romney was leading and what he had to do to achieve an overall lead to get to 270 electoral votes.

When I switched back to CNN, I noticed they were “interpreting” things the same way, but they seemed to be favouring the president. I was a little less annoyed by the Obama-favouring because of course that was what I wanted to hear.

However it got me thinking about the relationship between ethics and journalism and American versus American media.

As journalism students, we’re taught that complete objectivity is impossible. We’re also taught to be as fair and balanced in our reporting as possible and to always be conscious that we’re human beings with our own opinions and biases.

Perhaps the same kinds of overt bias I saw on U.S. Election Day exist in Canadian media at election time or just in general. But why haven’t I noticed these kinds of differences in Canadian news reporting? Have I not been paying enough attention? Or is American media actually that, for lack of a better phrase, corrupt?

Your comments are most welcome.

Who's Up for Some CreCommedy?

Get ready, your funny bone is in for some serious tickling!

This Sunday and Monday night, 32 comics-to-be who are also second year students in Creative Communications at Red River College will compete to see who’s the funniest.

But there’s a lot more to this exercise than just getting up on stage and telling jokes.

Since we’re all people who enjoy communicating, most of us can be funny in conversation every so often, but it’s a whole other matter to get up on stage and make an audience laugh.

These students are part of a Comedy Writing class, so they’ve had a chance to learn what it means to be funny, to develop their material, and practice it on family and friends. But when they’re up on that stage facing the crowd, a new kind of nervousness sets in.

Being able to face that nervousness head-on takes courage, and I’d say that’s something worth supporting.

This year’s CreCommedy nights will be held at Rumor’s Restaurant & Comedy Club. Tickets are $10 and can be purchased at the door or by calling 204-488-4520.

Who knows, we may see a comedy star in the making!

Shades of Romeo and Juliet

A couple of weeks ago in my Advertising class, we held our own version of the hit CBC show Dragons’ Den.

We, the students, had to develop our own fake products and pitch them to four students in the Advertising major of our program. The winner was a product called Shades.

Shades, from what I can tell, is a line of makeup stencils (eye liner, eye shadow, Etc.). It’s probably obvious now that I’m a guy, and as a result, I know very little about makeup.

My lack of makeup knowledge would present a slight problem, when, this past Thursday, our class was asked to write a short story about Shades in preparation for writing an ad in a future class.

We were told to come up with a historical figure and portray him or her using Shades. So I had two problems to solve: first, find out what Shades actually is and how a makeup stencil works, and second, come up with a historical figure.

I don’t know if I was ever successful at solving the first problem, but below is my attempt at solving the second one. I call it “Shades of Romeo and Juliet.”

***

Romeo and Marcutio stood alone in the corner of the ballroom surveying the female guests. A look of surprise came over Romeo's face as he noticed a devastatingly beautiful lady across the room.

"Who art yon beautiful lady," he said.

"I know not," answered marcutio.

"The makeup painted upon yon lady art perfectly even," he exclaimed.

Unable to contain his curiosity, he wandered over.

"Pardon me, fair lady, I am Romeo. Who art thou?"

"I am Juliet, but why must thou knowist my identity?"

"I must knowist," answered Romeo, "because thou art so ravishing, and thi makeup art exquisite. What givith thou the ability to possess such magnificently even makeup?"

"I possess Shades, which I use to apply my makeup each dawn. Shades art a line of stencils to apply thein eye shadow, eyeliner, and shapest or fillest in thein eyebrows."

"Thou art lovely," said Romeo. “Shalt thou marry me?"

“Yes," answered Juliet, blushing all the while.

Bell and Astral: a Follow-up and a Sigh of Relief

Following up on an earlier post, I was pleased to hear today that the CRTC rejected BCE Inc.’s (Bell’s) proposed takeover of Astral Media, a deal which would have set Bell back $3.4 billion.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, a green light on the Bell-Astral deal would have put the broadcasting industry’s “diversity of voices” in jeopardy, allowed Bell to have an unfair competitive advantage, and would have brought US-style concentration to the Canadian broadcasting system.

According to the Canadian Press, newly appointed CRTC chair Jean-Pierre Blais felt the same way.

"BCE failed to persuade us that the deal would benefit Canadians," Blais said. "It would have placed significant market power in the hands of one of the country's largest media companies.

"We could not have ensured a robust Canadian broadcasting system without imposing extensive and intrusive safeguards, which would have been to the detriment of the entire industry."

The federal regulator says Bell already has 33.7 per cent of the English television viewing audience, something of which I was aware at the time of writing my last post. However, I did not know how far ahead Bell is of its nearest rival, Shaw Communications: Shaw has 21.9 per cent. That’s a pretty hefty difference!

Had the Bell-Astral deal gone through, according to the Canadian Press, Bell would have gained 42.7 per cent of the English viewing audience. The combination would also have given it 33.1 per cent of the French TV market.

"That convergence, integration and scale may lead to a point at which the size of an entity on a national level becomes so large that it hinders effective and healthy competition," the regulator said.

In spite of the backlash, BCE officials believed their acquisition would not stifle the broadcasting system’s “diversity of voices", and said they would add $200 million worth of funding for programs.

The Canadian Press did not specify, but I’m guessing this is Canadian programming. Of course, it’s always good when broadcasters are willing to fund home-grown programming, but Bell doesn’t have to be the funder. And yes, if the deal went through, we might have more Canadian programming available to us, but do we want it all produced by one single content provider?

Obviously the increased funding wasn’t a good enough strategy to convince the CRTC.

Bell said it needed to grow to compete with online competitors from outside Canada. It also pointed out that if the deal were killed, Astral's assets would be split up, allowing foreign web content providers to have the upper hand. Is that really a bad thing? That scenario would allow for increased “diversity of voices” in the industry, and as for dominance by foreign online content providers, I don’t think one company acquiring more assets is a way to compete. They, and the rest of Canada’s broadcasting conglomerates, can grow in other ways to make that happen. Perhaps that’s another topic for another post.

But I digress. At least us broadcasters-to-be and media watchers can breathe again.

Friday Fun with Bigbird: No Ruffling Feathers Today

Our old friend Big Bird has been receiving some unexpected publicity.

The media frenzy erupted after the last presidential debate, during which Mitt Romney said he loved Big Bird, but if elected, he would still cut government funding to PBS.

Big Bird made an appearance on Saturday Night Live, and stars in Obama’s new campaign ad in which Big Bird and Sesame Street are compared to Bernie Madoff and Wall Street.

Apparently the folks at PBS and Sesame Workshop aren’t too happy about the Obama ad. They prefer to remain nonpartisan, and I say hats off to them.

Big Bird is for small children and those of us who are children at heart and it’s probably best if we don’t mix politics with PBS Kids programs. We can let children learn their ABCs without them worrying who will be the next president. They’ll learn about that when they’re older.

Since it’s Friday, and I’m a child at heart myself, here’s Big Bird on Saturday Night Live having a little fun with his new-found stardom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJjn_2fFPx8

Music History: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

Thinking about pop music, the idea that “wow, has music changed” comes quickly to mind.

It’s hard to believe that ragtime piano dominated the musical landscape in 1900 and that by the start of the 21^st century awards were being handed out for the year’s best rap album. But listen closely and you realize that first impressions can be deceiving. A better assessment would be that “the more things change, the more they stay the same” – especially when you consider certain artists, their hit songs, and the kinds of music they’ve recorded.

Think for a start about Al Jolson, the man many called the world's greatest entertainer. He got his start as a black faced burlesque singer in the early 1900’s, and by the late 20’s, had scored more than 80 hit records in a period of 17 years. The depression saw Al’s popularity fade, but he was due for a comeback.

In 1946, The Jolson Story took the world by storm. Al Jolson, by then in his 60’s, provided the vocals and showed that he was still right up there with the new singers on the block (the likes of Perry Como and Doris Day). With that movie, Al had two top 10 hits – “April Showers” and “Swanee”, both of which had been big sellers more than two decades earlier. In using tunes that had already been successful, Al would blaze a trail for many musicians.

He hit number one with a brand new song in the summer of 1947: “The Anniversary Song”. Or was it brand new? The lyrics were, but the melody was based on an old Romanian waltz. "The Anniversary Song" again put Jolson in the top spot from December until March, and he stayed on the charts until the end of the year. It became the second biggest song of the ‘40s – a sure sign that familiar music was the way to go.

By the tenth anniversary of Jolson’s comeback, Rock and Roll was king; indeed a singer a few generations younger carried that very nickname: “The King.” Like Al, Elvis Presley was masterful in adapting music produced for black audiences and lifting it to popularity in white markets.

He did this with “Hound Dog” – a standard among Country and Rhythm and Blues artists (such as Big Mamma Thornton). But Presley’s version was the best selling single of his career and would be given a spot on Rolling Stone’s list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Elvis Presley was a young rock singer, but he knew pop music had continuity, and songs that had already won over Country or R and B fans would never fail.

His work had a profound affect on four lads from Liverpool – better known as the Beatles. John Lennon once said that: “if there hadn’t been Elvis, there would not have been the Beatles.” Around the same time, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, and Little Richard also shaped their sound, with songs like Holly’s “Words of Love”, Little Richard’s “Long Tall Sally”, and Berry’s “Roll over Beethoven.” The Fab Four stayed true to their roots, performing songs by these artists more than any others during their career. They just loved to play the tunes they grew up with, but they were actually setting a trend.

Rock musicians still swap songs, honour their forbearers, and learn from each other – giving pop music a foundation as the years go by.

That consistency is what makes the music great. Today, we are experiencing that in full force with artists like Michael Bublé, who sings standards written during Al Jolson’s era, rockers by Elvis or the Beatles, and other familiar fair – taking full advantage of a long standing trend in music.

It would seem that music built on musical memories is an important part of our culture; or perhaps it’s simply that great singers, songs, and genres never go out of style. I like to think both statements are true.

Crime Can Happen Anywhere But Let's Try to Live Our Lives

It’s been a busy night and day for the Winnipeg Police Service. One man died and another was injured after a shooting inside Salisbury House on Pembina Highway around 3 yesterday morning.

That neighborhood is not known for being riddled with crime, but the shooting is bound to make some Winnipeggers concerned for their safety and others simply wondering what is happening to our city. Police said they believe the shooting was not random and there is no threat to public safety.

Growing up in River Heights, I suppose I believe the stereotype that certain parts of Winnipeg are more dangerous than others, Fort Richmond not being one of the areas on my “dangerous list.”

This shooting does concern me, but I take solace in a few things that you may also have considered. It happened at 3 in the morning in the middle of the week. Certainly not all, but a good many crimes happen at night when there are less people around. This doesn’t make the shooting any less tragic, but it should put people’s minds at ease who are worried about being targeted by gunmen in broad daylight.

Speaking of being targeted, that was exactly the circumstances of the Sals shooting: police said the two men shot were targeted. Again, that fact doesn’t make this any less of a tragedy, but it lets us know that our neighborhood restaurants are still fairly safe.

It also teaches me an important lesson: crime can happen anywhere. Perhaps there is more of it in my so-called “dangerous neighborhoods”, but there is no crime-free part of Winnipeg.

Having said that, I’ve always been a firm believer that we should not live in fear. If we are too scared of being gunned down to walk down the street, visit a neighborhood restaurant, or go out at night, I don’t really think that’s living. Is it?

So, as good citizens, let’s be concerned as we should be. Let’s express our condolences to the families of those who were shot and the staff members who had to go through this ordeal. Let’s hope that our municipal, provincial, and federal leaders are getting ever-closer to addressing the route causes of crime and therefore preventing crimes from being committed. And most of all, let’s try and live our lives as best we can, being concerned citizens, but not living in fear.

Real Pros, on and Off the Air

It’s been an exciting time in Winnipeg radio this week. CITI-FM hired away Winnipeg’s highest rated rock morning show to boost ratings, which led to some job losses, and I was pleasantly surprised at the way the guys getting the axe handled the situation.

Dave Wheeler, Phil Aubrey and Rena Jae were the hosts of ‘Wheeler in The Morning’ on Power 97—that is until a week ago last Wednesday when contract negotiations broke down and CITI officially hired them a day later.

Wheeler and company’s new gig saw the cancelation of ‘Tom and Joe in The Morning’ (hosted by Tom McGouran and Joe Aiello), an institution at CITI FM for the last 18 years. Rogers Media, who owns CITI, opted to move Aiello to sister station 102.3 Clear FM to join co-host Kerri Salki.

McGouran and Clear FM’s Jay Oliver have both been let go.

Of course this story was all over the media, but the Winnipeg Sun’s coverage specifically caught my eye. Why? Well even though I would expect a certain amount of diplomacy and face-saving on the part of Tom and Joe, I was particularly impressed at their attitudes and their professionalism when they were interviewed by the Sun’s Ross Romaniuk. Here are a few examples:

“It’s actually not unfortunate. At the end of the day, it’s business. So now, I look for a gig and re-emerge somewhere else,” McGouran, 55, said after being told of the moves following his show on Thursday.

“I understand how business works. They’re trying to cut costs, so they bring in a younger crew who are cheaper,” he said of Rogers. “That’s the way it goes. We live on contracts, year to year. That’s the business we’re in, because we’re working in the greatest business in the world. I love it. Every day I do my gig, it’s not like ever working. That’s the risk you always take.”

Aiello called it “kind of a goofy day” that he hadn’t seen coming after 18 years on CITI’s morning airwaves with McGouran, a 30-year veteran of Winnipeg FM radio.

“The old line for us is that you’re hired to be fired. As entertainers, we know that. And the show has to go on, as they say. But it’s been a tough day, because in anybody’s line of work you never want to see people lose their jobs,” said Aiello, 46.

McGouran said he’s taking the shakeup in stride.

“I love the business. I love Winnipeg. It will work out,” he said. “I’ve had a fantastic time, and I’m looking forward to a fantastic time at the next place I’m working at. Just tell Winnipeg it will hear from me soon.”

As a young broadcaster, Tom and Joe’s attitudes are pretty inspiring.

We hear all the time about the radio business being cut-throat and that “nice guys finish last”, it’s nice to see that McGouran and Aiello are being truthful but respectful.

They could bad mouth Rogers all they want and even display some bitterness about what went on. Of course, you could argue that they’re responding the way they are because they know what good PR is and they don’t want to burn any bridges.

That may be true, but I had the opportunity to meet them once and they seemed like great guys. They’re also pros on the air, and I think it’s a wonderful example to see that they’re pros off the air as well, whether they’re just being nice guys or smart business men.

Good luck Tom and Joe in your new ventures!

Bell Buying Astral: What Are We in For?

This week, CRTC hearings are taking place concerning BCE’s (owner of Bell Media) proposed $3.38 billion purchase of Montreal-based Astral Media, and as was the case in March when the deal was announced, media concentration in Canada is top of mind for consumers and industry professionals. Put more simply, this could be a little scary.

 

Bell Media Radio currently owns 35 radio stations. Astral owns 84. Those numbers alone represent a large chunk of the media pie in Canada.

Because the CRTC says a radio company cannot own more than two (English) FM and two AM radio stations in a given market, Bell will have to sell off 10 stations if the takeover is approved. Even so, that doesn’t put much of a dent in their acquisition.

But acquiring radio properties is not a big concern in this deal for Bell. CTV — which Bell owns — operates more than 25 TV stations across the country and 30 specialty channels including sports networks TSN and RDS. Astral is Canada's largest pay and specialty TV broadcaster, with 24 TV services, including specialty channels. If the sale is approved, Bell would also have to get rid of some television stations because the CRTC ownership policy for TV is the same as radio.

As a young broadcaster and journalist, the fact that Bell stands to gain as much of the Canadian media landscape as it does is concerning, especially when we think about Bell (or C TV) as a news outlet in Canada.

In theory, journalism is supposed to be as fair and balanced as possible—free of corporate and government influence.

Whether you’re a consumer of news, a journalist yourself, or both, you know that isn’t always the reality in the Canadian broadcasting industry. However, one of the objectives that minimizes concentration and corporate or government interference is what the CRTC calls “diversity of voices.”

Basically, their aim (sometimes more on paper than in practice) is to license radio and television broadcasters so there are as many players as possible in the industry. With a variety of players comes a variety of editorial voices and increased competition.

All good things, right? Things that give consumers multiple perspectives and allow broadcasters and writers to express differing points of view? And those are some of the many reasons communicators like myself are attracted to the media industry, right? I think so.

However, those aspirations may be pipe dreams for us young upstarts. According to the Montreal Gazette, The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada told the CRTC Wednesday that media concentration in Canada has had troubling consequences.

“Apart from chilling diversity and neutering competition, concentrated media ownership has reduced employment opportunities in content creation,” said union vice-president Peter Murdoch.

“This is why CEP opposes this application.”

If the CRTC does approve the deal, it should ensure that Bell strengthens original, local broadcast news, Murdoch added.

Bell says that if it acquires Astral, it will own 33.5 per cent of the English language market and 24.4 per cent of the French-language market. That’s under the 35-per-cent threshold set by the CRTC for approval, but Bell’s competitors dispute that figure and say it’s actually higher.

Here’s hoping the CRTC does not take concerns over unfair monopolies and a possible lack of jobs in the industry lightly. They’ve certainly got their work cut out for them.

CRTC Says We Still Love Traditional Media, but Is Change On The Way

This post is the first in what you might call a rejuvenation of this blog. Up to this point, Scott’s Best has been a place for me to showcase my work as a Creative Communications student. While it will still continue to serve that purpose, Scott’s Best will now be a place for you and I to discuss media news and issues, as well as other events in the news. I hope to offer my perspective as a media industry observer and as someone who is entering that field.

As luck would have it, I came across the perfect topic to begin this rejuvenation with.

In a report released this past week, The CRTC says we (Canadians) spent more time watching TV or listening to radio in 2011 than the previous year, despite our frequent use of digital media.

The commission says on a weekly basis, we watched an average of 28.5 hours of television, up from 28 hours in 2010, and we listened to an average of 17.7 hours of radio, up from 17.6 hours the previous year.

That is interesting news. As a traditional media junky and communications student, I often hear how radio and TV as we’ve come to know them over the last 50 years are dead. Broadcasters say they’re losing listeners, viewers, and money because of “new media”; they try to cut costs wherever they can, which often means eliminating or reducing local programming, if they have any in the first place.

These cuts sometimes result in lower ratings, but more often, just discontented listeners and viewers.

Having said all of that, it appears as if we’re not ready to abandon traditional media just yet and it still seems to be somewhat profitable.

Yes, most radio stations stream their signals online or provide access via mobile devices and a large number of TV programs are available online, but not enough consumers are able to listen and watch their favourite programs through digital platforms while they travel, perhaps because mobile technology hasn’t been around long enough for mass media consumers to take full advantage of it. But … that will come.

There is still popular audio and video content that is not available on a mobile device. So maybe we’re still enjoying our familiar old radios and televisions, but also texting or surfing the net on our smartphones at the same time.

As for the money, the CRTC says broadcast revenues climbed 5.5 per cent to $16.6 billion last year from 2010, but revenues from telecommunications services also increased by 2.5 per cent to $42.7 billion.

Perhaps broadcasters aren’t hurting financially as much as they say … yet. However, the commission also points out that 78 per cent of Canadian households had Internet service in 2011, and the number of subscribers of wireless services grew by six per cent, with newer competitors doubling their market share to four per cent.

As part of their 2012 technology predictions, Deloitte said that five per cent of full-screen smartphone owners and one in ten tablet owners would use their devices at least once a month to catch up on TV viewing while commuting. Globally, they say this could represent an additional five billion hours of TV viewing for the year. Deloitte also tells us that five billion tablets could be in consumers’ hands by the end of the year.

They point out that catch-up commuters will represent a golden opportunity for content producers and advertisers.

So what can we take away from all these numbers and predictions? I’d say we still love to curl up on the couch and watch TV or listen to our favourite morning radio show in the car.

But as the song says “change is gonna come.” It won’t be long before both of those things will be done through digital platforms. As media professionals, we don’t have to go into crisis mode, but we do have to think about the content we provide for our audiences and how it’s delivered. We don’t have to abandon traditional platforms, but we can’t ignore digital ones. If we do, we’ll be left in the dust.

Sources:

http://www.canada.com/entertainment/Canadians+spent+more+time+watching+listening+radio+2011+than+2010/7187982/story.html

http://insights.deloitte.ca/predictions/?utm_campaign=green%20dot%202012%20tmt&utm_term=deloitte&utm_medium=friendly%20url&utm_source=%2Fpredictions

Food For Thought (Dionysus in Stony Mountain)

Last Wednesday evening, I had the pleasure of seeing Theatre Projects Manitoba’s presentation of Dionysus in Stony Mountain at the Rachel Brown Theatre in Winnipeg, though the pleasure was not without a little pain.

If I’m seeing a play described as “unabashedly intellectual”, it helps to have a bit of a theoretical background. Luckily, I did (now I can definitely say the U of W Rhetoric degree was well worth the money). I came in with what you might call a “postmodern perspective”, meaning that I do not necessarily need to understand or make sense of everything that goes on, and that there is no right or wrong answer to a question. Along the same line as this perspective is the idea that something is not “high art” unless it is intellectually stimulating, and once again, not completely understood. Steven Ratzlaff’s Dionysus in Stony Mountain deals with some rather weighty issues, and we seem to live in a society where black and white perspectives on issues are sometimes favoured, so my postmodern perspective came in handy.

James Hiebert (Ross McMillan) is an inmate at Stony Mountain Penitentiary who has stopped taking his antipsychotic medication, and Heidi Prober (Sarah Constible) is his psychiatrist, who engages in a philosophical debate with Hiebert, attempts to get him back on his medication, but ultimately agrees with his point of view.

I found the first and second act of the play both left me with more questions than answers, hence the “pain” I refer to (albeit mental rather than physical). In act 1, we learn that Hiebert is fascinated with the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, a philosopher who wrote about something called slave morality. According to Hiebert, slave morality can explain why we often set criminals free after they have served their time or give them lighter sentences, even when they reoffend; many of them have also been victims of abuse at some point in their lives, and because of this, we forgive them to some degree.

The question of “what constitutes a victim?” is one I often think about when I watch the news or read books such as Mike McEntyre’s Journey For Justice, and I agree that criminals can also be considered victims

However, Hiebert argues that this attitude is a mistake because it accounts for why our prisons are so crowded with Aboriginal people. He says that we are only stifling the Aboriginal population, and not allowing them to progress or better themselves by housing many of them in prisons, and we’ve been doing this for hundreds of years. Another good point in my opinion. So what do we do about this? Is the answer a complete reform or abolishment of the prison system? Perhaps, but the play doesn’t address that; after all, it was only two hours.

Hiebert also touches on the topic of Aboriginal assimilation. We often think of residential schools as vehicles for assimilation, but Hiebert argues that this was not the case. He says that government officials took Aboriginal children away from their families, FORCED them to speak English and adopt Christianity; he portrays the schools as vehicles of separation and isolation, rather than assimilation. He points out that Pierre Trudeaux is the only person who actually came up with a vehicle for assimilation, and that was to abolish the Indian Act. Unfortunately, he had to back down because of political pressure from Aboriginal chiefs. Hiebert argues, and I agree, that Trudeaux had the right idea, but does not address how to avoid the pressure that would come about if any assimilation tried to bring about Aboriginal assimilation.

In the second act, we find that Heidi has quit her job because she agrees with Hiebert’s way of thinking. Her Uncle visits from Toronto to check on her, and together they grapple with a number of issues, including “manufactured love.” Heidi says that she had to quit her job because she had to manufacture love and concern for her patients; she admits she did feel the real emotions, but she had to do her job while following a lot of regulations, and had a very minimal amount of freedom to do what she felt was best. Now, Heidi’s only vocation is “friend.” So does this mean prison psychiatrists serve no purpose?

Heidi’s issues in the second act aren’t resolved either, but that is less important. The play provided some food for thought, and entertained me at the same time. I’d say that’s the mark of a fulfilling cultural experience.

Journey For Justice: a Good Read On Many Levels

Not being alive in 1984, I knew very little about the Candace Derksen case. I knew Candace was a young girl from Winnipeg who had been murdered. And I only knew that because a family friend owns the business where Candace’s body was found. But after reading Mike McIntyre’s book “Journey for Justice: How ‘Project Angel’ Cracked the Candace Derksen Case”, I got a sense of the profound affect Candace’s abduction had on our community and so many others. The story was tragic, but very moving because I can relate, as we all can, to the idea of wanting to feel safe and believing that something tragic like this won’t happen to us or our families. There was of course no reason for this to happen to the Derksens, but I think we can all learn from the strength and the ability to forgive that the Derksens showed throughout this entire ordeal. I know I found it very inspiring.

In the book, McIntyre and Wilma Derksen emphasize that community support was what helped the Derksens to continue on with their lives, and Wilma believes faith gave her family and friends strength in the years before Candace’s killer was found. Some of my classmates found the book’s supposed preoccupation with religion off-putting, but I thought it painted an accurate picture of the Derksens; “Journey for Justice” focused on the positive aspects of religion without being preachy.

Aside from religion, what struck me about this book and its author is that Mike McIntyre is an excellent story teller and journalist. Yes, he did rely heavily on Wilma Derksen’s book “Have You Seen Candace?” for details about the first 15 years or so after Candace’s murder, but I thought he wove the pieces together very well; none of the transitions seemed jarring or out of place. I also noticed that whatever the source of Mike’s stories were, they were quite vivid and included a lot of detail. Attention to detail is a practice that is taught and reinforced all the time in my journalism class, but “Journey for Justice” gave me my first opportunity to see how adeptly a professional journalist can employ story telling techniques and the use of specific details. In his presentation to Creative Communications students on March 22nd, McIntyre said he made sure that every quote he included came from a source, whether it was first or second hand. He also tried to access as many documents (such as court documents and news articles) as he could to ensure that he wasn’t taking any artistic license or imagining things. He wanted his book to be factual. As a future journalist, I admire all of those aspects of his approach and I think I can take a lot from it.

If I compare “Journey for Justice” to a March 24 Free Press story written by Mike McIntyre, I notice a few similarities, which in my opinion prove successful again. The story, which describes how Winnipeg police arrested 11 members and associates of the Hells Angels, is, like “Journey for Justice” very factual. All of the details included are relevant and the descriptions are vivid. So far, I see this as a winning formula.

Having said all of that, there are some things I would change about the book and there are still a few things I’m curious about. It would have been nice if, in his presentation, Mike had spoken a bit more about trying to maintain a good relationship with police while still giving a true account of the Derksen case or any criminal case. I liked the fact that he verified all quotes, but what about people misremembering what was said or what happened on a particular day?

As a reader, I also saw McIntyre’s story telling techniques as being successful because I just couldn’t put the book down. Granted, I only gave myself three days to read it, but there are few books I’ve read as quickly as I did Journey for Justice. Yes, the typos were a little annoying, but I managed to overlook them; some found the writing a little repetitive, but I found Mike’s summaries helped me to keep all of the facts and events straight in my head. That’s a favourable quality for any book and any type of literary situation.

I would certainly recommend “Journey Ffor Justice” to any nonfiction reader.