Ugh.

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: I'm an annoying Gen-Whyer, and so are you!

I really shouldn't read Leah McLaren's columns, but for some reason, I always do. Leah, you see, represents women of my generation. I know this because she keeps insisting that she does, even though there is absolutely no evidence of this.

Today, Leah informs us that, like me and the rest of the approximately one million Canadians who happen to be our age, she is a gypsy who takes a casual approach to international travel. We just show up in Zanzibar with our Blackberrys and hang around.

This is really helpful. It's like Leah is peering right into my soul. I'm thrilled that she represents me to the rest of Canada through the Paper of Record, because I've been waiting for someone to express my desire -- no, need -- to drop everything and leave the country on a moment's notice. This is really the way I live. It's too bad that it took until now for someone to be pioneering enough to point it out. Thank you, Leah!

It's really unfortunate that Leah apparently does not know anyone who isn't an annoying childless freelance writer from Toronto. She claims that this lifestyle is very common and depends on "portability of work (i.e. self-employment)". I see. What she really means is "(i.e. unemployed wanna-be writer)": I can tell you from experience that self-employed people can't live this way. Clients don't like it when you run off to Libya. Only tortured, misunderstood, artsy weirdos can do this. The rest of us have to earn a living.

I suspect that Leah's friends don't actually do this, either. They've shown poor judgment by talking to her about their lives, but they've got to make money somehow. Organic food, lofts and Converse All-Stars aren't cheap, and used-book stores don't pay their staff as well as Leah would like you to think.

I had to read her column several times to figure out what is actually happening here. Leah provides four examples of this supposedly common behaviour:

• Herself. She disappears to other countries without telling her family where she's going, because she is so hip and awesome. No indication of how often she actually does this. Also, she has a cell phone. People of the world: The 1980s are long gone. Cell phones are no longer a status symbol. Please stop telling us that you own them: We are not impressed.
  
  
• A friend who books flights at the very last minute because it is cheaper. No indication of how often he actually does this or where he is going. I suspect he is going to Winnipeg.
  
  
• A friend who likes to go to other countries without planning ahead. No indication of how often he actually does this. However, he has an iPhone, so you should be impressed.
  
  
• A friend who went to Kenya without telling Leah. No indication of how often she does this, whether she tells other people, or whether the trip was planned.

I don't really like "trendwatching" articles, but this doesn't even meet the lowest standards for trendwatching. Thanks, Paper of Record.

Baby, one more time

Reader-submitted question: why did britney spears want to be famous?

I give up.

What, there's no punch line? You actually expected me to know the answer?

Unfortunately (for you), I don't know very much about Britney Spears, and I don't write about her very often. I don't expect this to change soon.

What's in the cards you don't play?

Reader-submitted question: Do you think there should be a federal shield law for journalists?

No.

First, remember that I am not a lawyer or an expert on the policy implications of shield laws. If you want that sort of information, you are on the wrong blog.

I wrote about journalistic privilege a few months ago. The Cole's Notes version of that post is that the phrase refers to a reporter's decision to defy a court order that would otherwise force him or her to reveal information, usually the name of a source.

This is not a real privilege like the kind lawyers have. Your lawyer will keep your secret within certain limits and can't be forced to tell. Your friendly neighbourhood reporter, on the other hand, can be sent to jail or fined for contempt of court. This usually doesn't happen, though. Usually, one of two things will happen:

• The reporter will crack and give up the information. This sometimes happens when a judge refuses to consider a fine and insists that the reporter will sit in jail until he gives up the information. Although editors and producers are usually willing to pay a fine for the sake of preserving their journalistic integrity, they do not want their employees to go to jail. They may tell the reporter to reveal the information instead.
  
  
• Someone else will come forward and give up the information. The reporter is usually keeping a secret about the identity of a confidential source, but it's sometimes about original research. In any case, someone else has the information the court needs. That person will often come forward to keep the reporter out of jail.
  

Some people have suggested that there should be a federal shield law to define reporters' right to protect their sources. I've been told that some states have shield laws, too.

I don't know much about the implementation of shield laws, but I'm cautious about them. I do understand why reporters would want an honest-to-goodness privilege -- heck, I don't want to go to jail, either -- but I think it's dangerous.

The media are representatives of the public. They should get everything the public can get, but the flip side of that is that they should not get anything the public cannot get. We can't create a special class of people who have a different type of access or a different ability to defy court orders.

I would think the media would be concerned about this, too. A federal shield law could probably only work if reporters were regulated in some way. That's the sort of thing people talk about from time to time and realise is a bad idea. Journalism is not regulated in democratic societies, unless you count the libel laws and other laws that all citizens have to follow. The industry is informally self-policed using ethical guidelines that vary from one publication to another. A reporter who really screws up will not work again, but it's not because he lost his licence to work as a journalist. It's because no editor or producer who knows his history will hire him. There is no central organization that can certify or censure individual reporters. Who would take on this role? The federal Department of Propaganda?

Who would be considered a journalist, anyway? This is dangerous territory. Some bloggers are definitely journalists. Are all bloggers? I think you could argue that I am a columnist. Would this type of law allow me to refuse to testify about things I learned while researching blog posts? If there was a law that applied only to journalists, there would need to be some way to determine who is a journalist. Our current anything-goes system is not perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

To anticipate your next question: No, I don't like it when reporters go to jail or face heavy fines for refusing to give up what they consider confidential information. But I can't agree that they should have a different ability to conceal information than the rest of society.

Thanks for your question.

Hey!

Reader-submitted complaint: I didn't know that you have a blog!

Oh.

Yeah, I guess you didn't. It's not a secret, but I didn't exactly take out an ad in Name of Paper Withheld to get more readers, either. I'm glad you're here.

I'm going to tell you something I don't always tell new readers. I publish new content every day, so the newest post might not be representative of the rest of the blog. You have to read a number of posts to really get a good sense of what a blog is. Then you have to come back tomorrow to read more.

I love to read blogs, but it takes effort to find new ones. That sounds silly, because there are probably millions of blogs, but you never know what you are going to get. It takes time to find people who write about the things I'm interested in, and even more time to read through enough posts to decide that I want to go back and read more.

This blog is about all of the things that are important to me, so I'm glad you're here. Please be reassured that I do not write about you personally. (I'm always surprised at the number of people who, upon learning that I have a blog, wonder if I write about them.) Look around, and stay if you like what you see. If you scroll down, you'll see labels on the right side. They will take you to all of my posts about a particular topic.

Don't break the spell

Something about this song is oddly comforting, but I can't figure out why. Something about the bass and keyboards is more familiar than it really ought to be.

I feel like I must have heard it when I was a little girl, but that doesn't make sense. My dad was in a band 25 years ago, so I heard a lot of music at the time, but this wouldn't have been one of the ones they played. Or am I wrong, Dad?

UPDATED: My dad has disavowed participation in anything that resulted in my blog being named after a Stevie Nicks song. He has suggested that I heard it on the radio during the early '80s when Rumours was in heavy rotation. That's certainly possible. At the risk of committing 1970s blasphemy, I will say that the video above feels familiar like the one below:

Steve Gets Healthy

Blacklisted

I'm a huge fan of Danny Williams, but I was pretty disgusted to read at Townie Bastard's site that he has decided to "cut off" one of the local provincial-affairs reporters. No interviews or access to the premier for...well, goodness knows how long.

I definitely don't approve of any media strategy that ends with reporters being blacklisted. I worked with David Cochrane for a short time at CBC St. John's before I moved Up There, and I can't imagine that this will end well for Danny.

Reporters are paid to report the news. I've written a lot about responsible reporting, and I won't defend a journalist who's unethical, but David's a good reporter. He does some analysis, too, and this may be why Danny's upset with him. I honestly don't know what set him off: this little tiff over Andy Wells' stupid fundraiser seems like small potatoes. Maybe David really did screw up about something, but if so, I don't know what it was.

From time to time I will hear people talk about cutting one reporter or another off, usually in the context of national politics. I've never seen this done, so I admit I'm not clear on how it would work or how it could possibly benefit anyone. What, you just stop talking to the guy? How does that help? Do you do the same thing with non-journalists who criticise you, like advocacy groups and the opposition parties? Do you make all of the staff stop talking to the guy, too? How do you decide when it's a good time to start talking to him again? Do you just call him up and expect things to be hunky-dory all of a sudden?

This seems to be counter-productive. The only way to make sure a journalist understands your side of a story (whatever that might be) is to talk to him. Refusing to grant interviews only ensures that your critics will be the ones featured in the story. Not exactly the best plan for someone who feels like he's getting picked on.

Now, there are definitely times when it's a bad idea to talk to any reporter about a particular issue. This is not the same thing as shutting an individual journalist out, though. Those situations are usually time-limited and apply to all members of the public, not just reporters.

Do any readers have experience with this?

Man, oh, man...

Reader-submitted question: do people kill seals because people think its the best way to make their money?

No, they do it because they are sadistic sonsabitches who just love to hurt cute baby animals. Keep your kittens away from sealers. They actually don't care if they kill the seals at all. You can tell because sometimes after a thwack on the head, the animals will keep moving. Obviously, they are still alive, and the psychos just love it. They like nothing better than walking in pools of blood. It's like a murder fantasy, except that they actually get to live it out.

They say they do it for money, but really, it's because they are pure, unadulterated evil. Who else would kill baby seals?

OK, I'm not being fair. This was a sincere question, and I'm just making fun of it. My dear reader, I have written quite a lot about the seal hunt. You can find all of my posts on the topic here (this post will be at the top, so just scroll down). I remain convinced that if you really want to stop the seal hunt, you should pay sealers to sit at home and NOT kill seals. This would shut down the hunt without the need for consultants, publicity stunts or expensive ad buys. And that's exactly why PETA will never do it.