We report, you decide

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: No, you're NOT gonna pin this on us! We have no obligation to actually verify the information we broadcast! It's enough that someone TOLD us it was true!

In 1995, one of my journalism professors told our class something that I will never forget: Journalists look for facts; courts look for truth. Sounds pretty deep, eh?

It's true, to a certain point. Journalists do look for facts. But I'm reluctant to think that morose Eugene Meese meant that the current state of journalism is something to aspire to. I'm sure he didn't mean that journalists have no obligation to check their "facts".

Journalists usually fall back on their traditional defense. This won't work in a court of law during a libel case, but it often placates the court of public opinion: This is Joe's fault. He said it was true, and we didn't report that it was true, we just reported that Joe said it. Our hands are clean.

You see, journalists, particularly bad ones, don't think it's up to them to weigh competing accounts of how something happened. This is how the "intelligent design" morons got into the news in the first place: they are mavericks (see previous LMK-i-A entry) with an alternative version of the story, so that's good enough for most reporters.

I was watching the Daily Show one evening when one of their "reporters" pointed this out. Rob Corddry (I think) was expounding on something ridiculous as usual, and had quoted two competing versions of the story. Jon Stewart asked which was true. Corddry gave a condescending laugh: "Jon, I'm a reporter! My job is to tell you exactly what one person said and exactly what the other person said! I don't pick between them! That's for the viewer to decide!"

Yes, it's for the viewer to decide. It's funny, because there are very few viewers who understand that reporters think this. For what my opinion's worth, this shows that journalists pay very little attention to their own industry. You would think that by now, they would have figured out that people don't think that they are supposed to make up their own minds about who is telling the truth. People think that because something's on the news, it must be true.

When you really probe, you'll discover that reporters do understand this, but you have to ask the right questions. When you're talking about the news, they'll tell you it's up to the viewer to decide who's telling the truth. But just ask them about advertorials, and the mask cracks. Most reporters hate advertorials (ads that are designed to look like news stories). Why, I wonder, when news consumers are making up their own minds? It definitely wouldn't be because they read these advertorials and believe they're true because they're in the paper, right? That would imply that people unquestioningly believe advertorials but use critical thinking on the rest of the paper. So that can't be it.

Dear Britney Spears,

What...the hell...is wrong with you?

I am pretty sure that Glen is going to have something to say about this, but please let Ms. Prudence McPrude take a whack at you before Mr. Prudential Prudie starts in. (Unlike Glen, I actually enjoy innuendo.) (Hehehehehe...I said "innuendo".)

Fishnets are not so expensive that you should continue to wear them after large holes form in them. You can get them at department stores for $12. Heck, I would have given you mine if you'd asked. They're still in the original packaging, although I can't quite remember why. Oh wait: I do remember. It's because they make women look like skanks, even when we are running for President or in charge of the Supreme Court. There is no way to look dignified while wearing them. It is like wearing a flashing sign that says MAKE ME AN OFFER QUICKLY, I'M OUT OF CRACK.

Maybe I am being too harsh. Maybe it IS possible to look dignified while wearing fishnet stockings. Perhaps it's all about the total look. For example, having your butt hanging out of your hot pants is super classy. It's definitely an option for the modern office. I could wear those with my SLUT T-shirt the next time I go to the jail.

I don't know what the hell that thing on your torso is, but it appears to be Fonzie's jacket, shrunk in the wash and set upon by rabid wolves. And honey, we all know that you went nuts and shaved your head. I suggest that you try one of the following:

1. Get a short haircut that will be easy to take care of.
2. Find someone who isn't blind to fix your weave.

And the crowning glory: the stripper pole. I was already a bit annoyed about stripper poles today because Canada's Newspaper Of Record printed a giant picture of Lindsay Lohan rubbing her butt on one to illustrate a story about the horrible movie industry that is profiting from the objectification of fragile young women. (Seriously. It is like they think we are all idiots who can't see right through this.) The latest talk is that stripping is empowering. Riiiiight. I can follow this logic to a certain point: the men in a strip club are definitely being taken advantage of, but not by the women on the pole. The dirty old club owner's having the last laugh; the strippers are just there to line his pockets and the men are so dumb they don't know the difference. What a GREAT thing for Ms. Spears to be photographed humping! This is going to do wonders for her career.

Family

I figured that it was time to change the image of our family over there on the right side of the screen, considering that it now bears only a passing resemblance to us. However, this was easier said than done.

I got a reasonable Michael:
and a reasonable me:


but was unable to do one for Steve. You see, Steve's hair does not seem to correspond to anything in the South Park universe. So I stuck one of the Skipper's hats on him:

As you can see, he does not look happy about this. Steve never wears hats.

I am forced to conclude that he should get a haircut. It is the only solution to this problem.

You ask, I answer

Reader-Submitted Question: Did you go to journalism school with Rebecca Eckler? What's with the intense hatred?

OMG like that is so not true and I am gonna sue you for spreding leis about me. Like I siad before I do not hate her I am just super-jelous of her becasue of her amazing stardom and the fact that she gets tons of book deals wehn I am just as good of a writer and i still donot have a single book deal.

It is ok though I am probably not going to sue you because I am SUPER SPIRITUAL now and I was takling to my preist and he said I should let go and let God. I totlaly thoughtt that should be ona sign somewhere because it is so freaking deep. Like YEAH HATERS I have a preist now to give me spiritul advice and not one of those guys who hurts little kids either -- gross!

So yeah I am just gonna let go and let GOd and that is gonna be my new like moto because it will keeep me from beign jelous all the time. It was like eating me up insdie, you know? So now I can just forget aobout al of that stuff that was bothering me and just be super-spirital without having to pary all the time becasue that is really not good for my knees when i spend so much time at the spa getting them pummised.

Thanks for asking but I really dont know her at all I am just a writer in Canada and she is like ALSO a writer in Canada and people were like saying that she spoak for young women in my genration and I was like OMG i so wish that was true because then I woud be just like her! If I could just get a boost from a celibaty like her that wouldbe exactly what my patehtic writing career would need!

You better take care if I find you've been creeping 'round my back stairs

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: THAT'S A LIE!!! I KNOW YOU DID IT!!11!!!

There are two things I cling to:

1. Journalism is a noble profession.
2. Smoking pot for years will not turn you into a paranoid freak.

Okay, so I don't actually "cling" to the second one, but it is relevant to today's discussion. Actually, I have lost my grip on both of these things over the past few weeks.

One of the editors of Name of Paper Withheld is leaving his job and going to work for a local diamond mine. This has brought about a flurry of talk about the "dark side", and I think I've had just about enough of it.

Perhaps someone could explain to me which of these jobs is closer to the dark side:

1. Providing factual information to the public.
2. Writing stories that mix facts with misunderstanding, speculation and rumour, passing all four off as facts and ignoring any facts that don't fit with what you think the story must be.
   

I mean it. Please tell me which is closer to the dark side, because I'm very interested in your answer. TELL ME RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT!!!

Hmmm. Maybe I am coming a bit unglued myself.

I understand the pressures journalists work under. First, they need a story. Never underestimate this. Journalism is a tough business, and reporters are expected to file stories every day, whether there is anything happening or not. That old joke about the slow news day is real: a desperate reporter will start asking questions about the weirdest things if there is no actual news. (What? When it's smoky outside, people should stay inside if the smoke bothers them? Hold the front page, we've got a scoop!)

Second, they need a story. Yes, this sounds like the same thing as the last paragraph, but I promise that I have not completely lost my mind. A true story is not just something to fill a hole at the top of the hour. A true story has a beginning, middle, and end. It has characters and some type of action. CBC is totally on the "story" bandwagon, and their reporters will tell you that they tell stories for a living. (This is very important to them.) Other reporters will call it a "piece", but the idea is the same. A really good story includes some sort of struggle. This is why the news is full of crime: it is not because crime is unusual, but because it falls neatly into the "story" format, complete with characters and a beginning, middle and end. Best of all, there is no pesky research for a reporter to do: the details are spoon-fed by the prosecutor.

Third, the story needs to be understandable. This is where I usually start to get annoyed. You see, most issues are not black and white. Usually there is a lot of gray, with some red and blue thrown in for good measure. However, this does not make a good story or an understandable story. Watch the local news and you will almost never see anything like this: There is no typical client. Many have complicated needs, and we can't help them with all of their problems. In fact, unless they take responsibility for changing their lives, we can hardly help them at all. (Funny, I don't think that's hard to understand at all.) Complicating details are left out, and others are summarized into something that is understandable but not quite true. I call this "more punchy, less true" journalism. In fact, if you call an editor to complain about this, he will argue that a) it really is true or b) nobody would ever understand the difference.

Fourth, the characters need to fit into one of about six different journalism stereotypes:

• The harried small-business owner
  
• The ne'er-do-well
• The angel
• The expert
  
• The uncaring authorities (usually but not always the government)
  
• The maverick
  

If the characters don't fit into one of these categories, the story won't work. Deadline journalism is not about shades of gray, and characters can't be three-dimensional. Some details will have to be ignored for the sake of the story. (There are bigger issues at stake here, people: Journalism itself requires it!) If a person is cast as an angel, for example, everything he says will be completely true. He will be long-suffering but never to blame for any of his troubles. And remember: the true angel in any news story is the reporter herself for having the courage to shine a light on the tragedy.

Journalists, of course, will never admit to any of this. They are usually convinced that they can explain complicated issues better than those so-called "experts". Knowledge isn't power, it's suffocating! In fifteen minutes, a journalist can learn everything he needs to know about an issue to be able to explain it to people.

Right. And I'm the one on the dark side.

Culture shock

Steve and Michael went for a walk on "the track" the other day. "The track" is not actually a track; it is the path that was left behind when the railroad was ripped out of the Newfoundland landscape. This path runs near his parents' house and I suppose that if you put your mind to it, you could follow it all the way across the island.

I have no fond memories of "the track": unlike some of my friends, I never took part in any hanky-panky on or near it. I'm sure my brothers have some interesting stories to tell, though.

During their walk, Michael made an exciting discovery. There were strawberries GROWING OUT OF THE GROUND. This was a big deal. Steve and I grew up in places where we could pick berries all summer long, but Michael has never seen this before.

What, am I not good enough?

Seriously, I can't handle this any longer.

Rebecca Eckler has got religion. Yes! This might be too funny for words, but I'll try.

Ickler still doesn't know how to pour milk over cereal, so she was out for breakfast with her daughter the other day. Being a little girl, Rowan brought three stuffed animals, which of course was hideously embarrassing, so Eckler was trying to look in another direction. That's how she saw a blind woman who needed her help. Most normal people would have helped anyway, but you have to understand that this was a major breakthrough that ought to be trumpeted from the rooftops.

However, some things never change. Even though Rowan was RIGHT THERE, Eckler didn't bother to talk to her or even mention that there was a third person walking along with the blind woman for goodness knows how long.

Get it? Eckler is SUPER GOOD NOW. And as proof, she has decided that she wants to go to an ashram. Excuse me while I fall over, clutching my sides from the pain of laughing too hard.

I'm not sure she understands that an ashram is not an extra-quiet spa. The main benefit seems to be that there are no ashrams in Toronto, where her daughter lives. She wants to go to California, because there are no icky Indian people with germs there. Whoops! I meant that California's closer than India, so she could see Rowan more often. Wait, that can't be it, either. This is the woman who says goodbye to her child but kisses the dog.

Facebook's good for something after all

Michael looks like a young offender in all of Cousin Charlotte's posed shots from Sean's wedding, but this shot of the Elms boys is just too cute to pass up.

It seems to me that David should be about twelve years old, but you will recall that I am still suffering from the delusion that Ben is Michael's age. That's David's daughter, Leah.

Sean was a year ahead of me in high school, and everyone used to confuse him with Steve. This is probably because he has a bigger personality than Steve does: while Steve will sit quietly in the back of the room, Sean will demand loudly that someone join him as he dances on the table. If you never get close, he's definitely the one you'd remember. From time to time someone would ambush me near homeroom and say she didn't know I was going out with that Elms guy -- how long had we been together? Surprised, I would stammer out some variant of "a year", and Little Miss Cheerleader would be halfway down the hall before I figured out that I had just started a rumour that Sean was cheating on whatever girlfriend he had at the time.

Sean moved to the NWT soon after we did and was living with us throughout my pregnancy and after Michael was born. If this was a "bookended" news story, this is where I would triumphantly close the loop by noting that he used to work at the young-offender facility, but you, dear readers, deserve better than that. Sean quickly proved himself to be the best substitute teacher in town as well as the only uncle Michael knew as a baby. He kept us well-stocked with tiny Maple Leafs jerseys and homemade baby-sized hockey sticks. I was really sad when he moved out of our house: after fourteen years, he is like my brother too.

By request

I pulled this off Cousin Charlotte's Facebook. I refuse to believe that Michael is really this big. Can he really pick other children up? This has to be trick photography, like those pictures of the Loch Ness Monster.

What's in my MP3 player?

This is for the benefit of those who always think the worst of me. Excuse me: I feel like coughing.

Every now and then I fall apart

Apparently I promised to lend Deathly Hallows to Glen when I finished it. I do not remember this, but his description of the circumstances of our agreement does sound vaguely familiar, and I am disinclined to do battle with anyone who seems to enjoy contract law as much as he does.

I am going to put most of this in white text, but I'll break it up so you can choose to read one section and not another. Highlight the white space to read what I've written.

Unanswered questions:
I've pored over enough interviews to be expecting certain things that were never delivered in this book.

What did Dudley see when the Dementors attacked him?
Who does magic late in life?
What was the veil?
Why did we get so many subtle references to time that never paid off? For that matter, what was up with the constant references to hurt fingers?
If Regulus drowned in the cave, how did Lupin know he was dead and how many days he'd stayed alive after leaving the Death Eaters?
How did the Potters defy Voldemort three times?
Weren't we supposed to see more of Ginny Weasley's power?
Why were Harry's eyes so important? Just to reinforce that Snape would see Lily every time he looked at Harry?

Pacing:
I read a few reviews that claimed the pacing was really fast, but I thought the story dragged in several spots. There were chapters and chapters of Harry and Hermione just sitting around doing nothing, and then all of Snape's back story was revealed in about five pages. Come on! I deserve better than that!

Epilogue:
ARGH. You have GOT to be kidding me. This is what she's been hiding in a vault for the past 17 years? Sorry, but this was really lacking.

Revealed Secrets:
I figured most of these out, thanks to my scrutiny of the earlier books. I even knew what the last Horcrux was, despite the fact that it had never been described before HP7. Something about the subtle reference in book six made me take note, and as soon as they mentioned Ravenclaw's crown I knew I was right. That felt good.

But I was incredibly wrong about Harry being a Horcrux. I thought there was no way this was possible, and I scoffed at people who clung to the theory. It turned out that they were exactly right. Honestly, I have no idea how they figured this out, because it seemed so incredibly unlikely to me. A Horcrux created by accident that can be destroyed without physically destroying the object it's in? Please explain to me how this is possible, because I don't get it. I've spent so much time convincing myself that it wasn't real that I really don't understand how this could work. The only thing I can come up with is that it is related to the look of triumph: Harry can't die because Voldemort is still alive, so the only thing that can die is that bit of soul.

Deaths:
I do not get upset when characters die, because the deaths are supposed to add something to the story. I am confused about Lupin, Tonks and Fred, though: their deaths moved the story along only to show that nobody would be safe, and we'd had plenty of that already when Mad-Eye died.

I'm not sure what the point of creating Tonks was. She was a great character in book 5 (although just a bit player in the movie) but it seems like she had no real role and could have been pulled out of the story without missing a beat. Cindy says she thinks Tonks' role was to show Lupin that he could be loved, but I still think there needs to be a bigger purpose than this. Any of the other characters could have done that.

Overall:
Yes, I sound really negative, but I really did like the book. I think I just need to wait for an interview with JKR to explain some of my lingering questions. This probably won't happen unless she does another interview with The Leaky Cauldron, so I won't be holding my breath. On the other hand, I can look forward to many more stories that "break" the news that she came up with the story on a train, wrote in coffee shops and never told anyone the story for 17 years. (Way to go, Mainstream Media!) It is not the best of the series -- "Prisoner of Azkaban" has always been my favourite -- but I did enjoy it. Now I will have to go back over the other six to find all of the clues I missed along the way.

END OF SPOILERS (but no promises about the comments box).

Charming witches is more than just wandwork

I really ought to stay away from the religious nutcases, but if I did, I'd have to shut Uriel down, and that would be no fun at all.

I can never get over the crazy people who pop up every time a new Harry Potter book comes out, and I closely follow the antics of parents who try to ban the books from local schools. They really don't seem to understand that the spells don't actually work and that they are the only ones who think it is real.

I knew that the series would end with voluntary self-sacrifice to save others. This is not just because I am a geek who studied previous books; it is also because I am a geek who read every JK Rowling interview I could get my hands on. She has often been asked how she feels about the crazies, but she usually gives a very pat answer about the books being fiction. But one day she said something different. The interviewer had asked if she was a Satanist or some such nonsense, and she responded that she was a Christian and that knowing that, anyone who had read the books should be able to figure out where the story was going.

I'm going to give my readers a little more time to finish the book before I talk about the details. Yes, I will be doing that: you have been warned.

If I squeeze you too hard, God knows I'll break you

Well, it's over. I have finished the last Harry Potter book. I waited at the bookstore for hours last night with Fisher and a few other adults, but mostly a bunch of kids. Yes, I felt a little bit geeky, but I gave up any pretensions of being cool long ago.

It took me eight hours to finish it. I am not going to give away plot details here, but if you do not want to read anything about the book, STOP RIGHT NOW. This is especially important if you have talked to me about theories, because I am going to discuss my reaction to the book.




I mean it.




Since you're still here, I'm going to assume that you are taking on responsibility for not being spoiled. In fact, if you're worried about learning the ending, I'd advise you to stay off the Internet until you've finished the book.

I've been a fan for years now. One of those weirdo fans who searches for clues and is openly mocked, even by friends. I've had theories for years and have scoured the earlier books, looking for hints to the ending. So I wasn't really caught up in the recent backlash against the New York Times when the paper printed an early review of the book. I already had a pretty good sense of what would happen. The only thing I learned from the review was what the Deathly Hallows were, and this wasn't a huge blow.

But I definitely had my theories, and I knew that today it would all be over. I resisted the temptation to jump to the back of the book. I admit: I did look at some early spoilers, but I found them very unsatisfying. There were lists of characters who would die, but all of the lists were different, so there was no way to know which was right. In any case, the list does no good to anyone who likes to read: what's important is how the death moves the plot along. I had a list in my head anyway, and I was reasonably certain that I was right, based on clues in the earlier books.

Well, I was right about many things, but incredibly wrong about one of the biggest issues that has been batted around ever since book six. Actually, when book six came out, there were five big questions:

1. Who is RAB?
2. Is Dumbledore really dead?
3. Is Snape evil?
4. Is Harry a Horcrux?
5. What's the last Horcrux, and where is it?
   

I was convinced that I knew the answers to all five questions. It turns out that I got four out of five right. Well, to be totally honest, I wasn't convinced on one of the questions. I was reasonably certain, though, and with this one, I think that's as far as anyone could have gone. My geekiness has paid off. Yes, there was a gleam of triumph in my eye as each secret was revealed.

However, I got the ending wrong. Through years of study, I had worked out the pattern the books were taking, and had a general sense of how it MUST end and how it would have to happen. I solidified this into a theory of how the climactic scene would end. If I do say so myself, it was a pretty good theory that strung together several of the loose ends that had never been really explained but that I was reasonably sure I had figured out.

Unfortunately, I was wrong. Not about the pattern or the loose ends or how the end would come, but my theory about the scene was wrong. This is hard to take, because I was very sure. It is related to my error from the five big questions: I was so sure about that one that I got the ending wrong. Yes, I am a bit annoyed with myself.

I also got the list of deaths wrong. I had used clues to work out a list of people who would die, and I was very close, but missed a few and guessed a few others incorrectly. This is sort of spoilery, so if you want to see my list, highlight the space below. I repeat: this is NOT a list of the people who actually die, it is the list of people I thought would die.

Voldemort: Duh.
Snape: I had an elaborate theory about how this would happen.
Lupin: I thought that all of the Marauders would be dead at the end of the series.
Wormtail: He has to repay his life debt to Harry.
At least one of the Weasleys, with my money on Ginny: There are so many of them that it seemed at least one of them had to go, and I thought Ginny was the logical choice because she's Harry's girlfriend and because of a clue in book five.
Draco: I thought he would run away from the Death Eaters and be killed.
Hagrid: It just seemed like Hagrid's time to go.

And now it's all over. No more theories and no more clues. I'm not sure how to feel.

Congratulations, Sean and Adrienne

______________________________

A note about this video that is completely unrelated to today's festivities but will be seared into my brain as long as I live:

I first saw this video when I was about sixteen. My best friend throughout high school was a second-generation Brit whose mother and grandparents had moved to Bay Roberts years earlier. She was a huge fan of Rowan Atkinson, and was keen to show me samples of his stand-up comedy.

But there was a catch.

You see, before I was allowed to watch the video, I had to answer a skill-testing question that had stumped her, her mom and her grandmother but that she was fairly certain I would know: "What's fellatio?"

It just so happened that I did know what it was, but I was not keen to broadcast this. Fifteen years later, I still get a long way on I don't know what that is and I think you can get germs from doing that. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what to make of the fact that she had no doubt that I would be able to shed some light on this matter, but I suppose that is a post for another day.

In any case, I explained quickly and without much detail. She silently got up from the couch and walked into the dining room, where her mother and grandmother were playing cards next to the baby grand: "Megan knows what it is."

The spotlight burns a hole in me

Boy, it's hard to be me, especially with all of the criticism about what is and is not on the blog. Here I am, trying to reflect community standards so I don't cross any of the invisible indecency lines, but it's really difficult. Apparently Maggie Gyllenhaal's breast is OK, but Paris Hilton's man-boob is not what readers want to see.

You know, it's hard to read minds. Fortunately, my prudish critic has let us know what he would like to see in the blogosphere. And as always, I am doing my best to keep up with the requests.

Yes, I know what you think of me; you never shut up.

Apparently, some of my readers *coughGlencough* are too prudish to be able to handle a picture of Paris Hilton's naked breast at the top of the blog. I live to serve my committed readers (even those who probably should be committed), so this post should be welcome.

Things Paris Hilton makes me wonder

1. When everyone in the entire world has seen her vagina, how can there still be a market for photos of this woman's nipple slips?

2. Is this a market I could get in on, considering that:
a) my breasts are larger than hers;
b) Glen says I don't have the proper physical characteristics to be a Hoffette; and
c) the Girls Gone Wild guy is still in jail?

3. Is it really a nipple slip when she has obviously pulled her top down to pose for some guy with a camera?

If you turn your other cheek to me, you'll find a place to radiate

Hello, Pot? This is Kettle.

Today’s episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Hey, you can’t do that! Misleading pictures are OUR business!

My American readers may have seen a new TV series about ice-road truckers. The series was filmed during the winter and follows truckers as they drive from Name of Town Withheld to the diamond mines several hundred miles away.

Ice roads are distinctly northern. I assume they have them in Alaska, too, but I think of them as Canadian. There are no permanent roads to many communities, so when the rivers and lakes freeze, they become temporary roads.

These roads are not hundred-mile ice slicks; they are built in a way that keeps vehicles from sliding around too much. However, there are always dangers: driving too fast or too close to another vehicle can weaken the road. Ice thickness is checked often to make sure that the road is as safe as possible. The road is flooded with water, then graded and flooded again to thicken the ice. When you drive over it, the road can jiggle up and down like Jell-O. Big trucks can jackknife or even fall right through the ice.

So I’m not surprised that producers would want to do a reality show about these truckers. They work in conditions harder than you or I could imagine. If their trucks break down and they have no heat, they can quickly freeze to death all alone on the ice.

The CBC, naturally, is interested in this show. I suspect that they wish they had had the idea first (something about a mandate to reflect Canada to Canadians), but in any case they are out of the running now. Instead, they’ve been interviewing people who worked on the show. I always like these interviews because I am a geek who likes to peer into the guts of programming.

During my morning coffee I was treated to an interview with the producer of the show. It was standard stuff until the interviewer established that the scary shots of trucks falling through the ice were not, in fact, shot by the production team while filming the show. That led to this question: Don’t you think that’s a bit misleading? I mean, the people who maintain that road take safety really seriously.

Hmmm. What an interesting question! You see, I’ve seen those images, too. Many, many times. I wonder who filmed those shots and who would be replaying them over and over on the supper-hour news. It couldn’t be CBC, could it? Definitely not – that would be misleading! It must have been the reality show’s production team. They probably also filmed the historical shots of people fixing giant scary-looking holes in the road years ago. The CBC would never mislead people into thinking that the road is unsafe and then re-sell the footage, especially not when the engineers who work on the road take safety really seriously. No, that’s what trashy reality-show producers do. Not the national broadcaster. They’re above all of that.

I'm a fisherman's son, got fisherman's ways. I fished with my father in my young days.

The Ickler bump

Visits to the blog follow a fairly predictable pattern. I get 25-35 "visits" (in gold) and 40-70 "page views" (in red) per day. Each person who comes here counts as one visitor, and if you come back twice a day, you're counted twice. If you click an internal link, like one of the comment links, that counts as an additional page view. Visits drop on weekends but are reasonably stable throughout the week.

I'm a little freaked out by the number of new visitors and the fact that I'm not completely sure that they're not secret Ickler fans. Things appear to be going back to normal, which is good. I like to know who my audience is.

Mother told me, yes she told me I'd meet girls like you

When I was pregnant, the father of my child went away a lot, and I fell in love with someone else and carried on an intense emotional affair with him. I figured this was OK because a few celebrities did the same thing. In public, I pretended that we were a couple. I wished that I could plan falling in love the way I planned my C-section, and I was really upset because I had gained 47 pounds. Also, I was going to have a baby, whatshername.

So I wrote about my emotional affair in the New York Times, because I am super classy.

Oh, wait. That wasn't me at all. That was Eckler.

UPDATED: Welcome, Technorati users. The full list of my Eckler posts is here.

Every whisper of every waking hour I'm choosing my confessions

It has been a rough couple of days.

The worst part is that I cannot really talk about why it has been so bad, especially not here on the blog. There has been a fair amount of self-loathing (see yesterday's post) and hours of gut-wrenching fear.

However, the experience has taught me a few things:

1. If someone is convinced that he is always right, telling him that he is wrong will not change the final outcome of your conversation.
2. When things are really bad, there is comfort in knowing that they could be much, much worse.
3. Getting really drunk on shots of Newfie screech does not actually help the problem, but does deaden the pain for a few hours.
4. Drinking water is good. Very very very good. Also, Tylenol is my friend.
   

Weeping silver tears on a rusted heart

Do you guys in the States know who Jann Arden is?

I've always listened to music at work. This used to be easier at the MotherCorp, where it's normal to wear headphones at your desk. I had a really great set of headphones that drowned out the entire world -- necessary with a job like mine that entailed fixing the mangled carcasses of botched interviews. When I was pregnant, I used them to play Mozart to my stomach (my boss thought this was hilarious). And just before I quit, I used them to ignore my co-workers and listen to Jann Arden.

Leaving CBC was like a sucker punch. I'd just spent $40,000 on an honours degree in journalism and moved to the Northwest Territories. I couldn't have moved any further away and still been in Canada -- I'd gone from one corner of this giant country to the opposite corner in the name of journalism. Journalists have it hammered into them: they are professionals in the most noble cause there is, and "public-relations officers" are the excrement of creatures that live in pond scum. I imagine it is like leaving a tenured position as a philosophy professor to sell vacuum cleaners door to door. Except that as a professor, you do understand that some people need vacuum cleaners, so somebody's gotta sell them. The jump to public relations is sort of like that. You have this deep-seated self-loathing for the first little while, and all of your former co-workers look on you with disappointment, or (worse) say things like "I knew that's where you'd end up" or "Enjoy the money".

I usually tell people that I left the CBC because I had a baby. The truth is more complicated. Yes, I had a little guy underfoot and no child care. I really did need a job that would allow me to work from home. But I also felt like I was heading up a show that had little to no support from our head office. I was very sick while I was pregnant and took pains to show my devotion: I used to joke that I would give birth in the studio while directing the show. I came back from maternity leave wanting to prove that nothing had changed; that I was still the same person. I didn't want to admit to myself that I had indeed changed.

Jann Arden's known for her sense of humour, but you'd never know it from her music, which is usually about pain and sorrow. This song and every other song from Living Under June brings me back to early 2002, writing "greens" and re-writing intros with tears in my eyes.

Mystery solved

I have been outed by a poster over at 9 Gram (see comments). This is quite a relief: I first wondered if an Eckler fan club had stumbled over my blog, but I soon realised that there were far too many visitors for this to be a group of her fans.

I do indeed do satire, even of Eckler herself, but I am not 9 Gram. Fellow Eckler haters, you are more than welcome to stick around.

And a short note about copyright: I will immediately remove any material on this site that I did not create myself if the copyright holder contacts me and asks me to take it down. This could be done through the comments section if the message comes from the copyright holder's account. All this person would have to do to assert copyright is to admit that he or she created the material, and I will pull it down right away and replace it with a review/summary.

UPDATED: I actually started to feel bad for Eckler, so I pulled down her post without being asked. I wrote the review myself and did not create the source material.

UPDATED AGAIN: Welcome, Technorati users. The full list of my Eckler posts is here.

Hmmm

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I will just put it out there: Three hours ago I started to get some unusual traffic here on the blog. Since then, about two dozen people have come by to read my posts about Rebecca Eckler.

I can't tell if the Ickler fan club has suddenly discovered that I exist (in which case I assume that her entire worldwide fan base has already checked me out and found me lacking) or if something even weirder is going on.

UPDATED: Welcome, Technorati users. The full list of my Eckler posts is here.

A new Plan B

I have a new back-up career plan.

For several years, I planned to become a Girls Gone Wild girl if anything went wrong with my current career path. This seemed to be the perfect plan: it would offer me the lasting fame I have been seeking for my entire life.

However, over the last few months, Glen has pointed out that this is probably not the best option. There were several reasons:

1. Girls Gone Wild girls do not really get lasting fame. They are on screen for a few seconds at most.
2. The pay is really bad. They're probably paid in cheap vodka, which you have to drink out of another girl's brassiere.
3. The Girls Gone Wild guy is in jail. Who would've thought that it would be illegal to allegedly ply allegedly underage girls with alcohol and allegedly videotape them while they allegedly take off their clothes, then allegedly profit from sales of the video? Fascists!

So I need a new plan. And I found it close to home.

David Hasselhoff needs women to shake their butts and lip-synch behind him while he lip-synchs. These women are called Hoffettes, and I think you can see the attraction. This could be a long-term career. It would be the perfect combination of not-really-singing, not-really-dancing without having to join the Pussycat Dolls and show off my "confidence". (Yes, I am so lonely that I actually watched their TV show last night.)

Anyway, back to the Hoffettes. These women have indeed gained lasting fame. Not only do they get to travel all around the world, but they have been immortalized in music videos (the gritty video for this song includes some kick-ass special effects at the end). And I think it's unlikely that David will be arrested anytime soon. If the police tried to cuff him, they would probably burst into flames from the sheer sensuality of it all. Some people can't take it. I, however, would be really good at shaking my butt while wearing high-heeled boots. If this communications career of mine ever falls apart, it's very comforting to know that I have other options.

Stars fall from the sky for you and me

Just before bedtime last night, Steve made an unexpected discovery: his plane ticket to Newfoundland was not for tomorrow. It was for today.

So here I am, sitting all alone with no boys to love me. And this is Hour 1 of my three weeks of solitary confinement. I wasn't ready for this so soon.

For the past few weeks I've been swinging back and forth between loneliness and excitement at the thought of the boys going away. Part of me likes the idea of ordering whatever I want on my pizza. It's been a long time since I've gone any length of time without hearing a knock on the bathroom door. The freedom might get to my head. I might start smoking or stay up past my bedtime.

But right now I'm feeling lonely. I miss my boys.

BREAKING NEWS

You know that old joke about the guy who murders his parents, then asks the judge to go easy on him because he's an orphan?

A 13-year-old girl from Medicine Hat is guilty of murdering her entire family.

Old men watch from the outside, guarding their prey

You probably did not know this, but apparently blogs are dangerous. Yes.

I'm sure you can think of a few ways blogs might be more dangerous than, say, the Government of Canada's website. For example, they're often not designed very well, and it can be hard to find what you're looking for once you get into the guts of a blog. Wait, I suppose that's not really much different than what you'll find on the federal government's site.

So I'll cut right through the suspense and tell you why blogs are dangerous. You see, if you have a blog, people can disagree with you. Yes! Quick, let's shut THAT feature down before anyone discovers it!

Also, people who disagree with you can -- wait for it -- LINK TO YOUR BLOG. I am so annoyed about this craziness that I almost slipped into my Uriel voice for a moment. (Uriel fans: I promise to bring her back, but I've been staying away from the religious hypocrites for the last little while. This is good for my sanity, but has put me into contact with an entirely new group of hypocrites.)

Apparently it's impossible to link to a non-blog website. Also, people without blogs have no critics and total control over the things other people say about them. This is important, because when someone has a different opinion, the best way to deal with it is to make them stop talking. You definitely don't want them to disagree with you on your own website.

I'm glad we cleared this up. I am going to start making plans to pull my blog down right away. That way, nobody can tell me to go to a nunnery, criticise my taste in music or disagree with me at all.

For my new reader in Ontario

Hi. It's great to have you here. I'm really glad that you like my posts about Canada.

There's a whole blog here too, and it's more than just posts about Canada. Of course, you're free to keep coming back to check the Canada label every day if you aren't interested in anything else I write about. This blog is mostly about my life and family, with some media analysis and grammar advice tossed in.

Welcome, Karan

I am now very close to achieving my goal of getting everyone I know to start their own blogs.

Glen...check. Cindy...check. Capitalist, Philosopher King, Blueberry Princess and whatever we're calling Ben these days...check, check, check, check.

And now: Welcome, Karan.

I've known Karan for a few years, and she is now a constant presence in our lives. You see, her son is Michael's new best friend. They live right across the street, and Michael spends more time with her son than he does with me. In fact, you'll recall that there were some tense moments when it seemed that I might lose out on the coveted bike-riding lessons. (Or as Glen put it: You do know that you're jealous of a six-year-old, right?)

When my phone rings after supper, I know it's Karan calling to invite me over for a cup of tea. The two boys spend their evenings running back and forth between the two houses creating mischief while we chat about life in general.

As I look back on my older posts, I can see that she inspired one of my earliest posts about grammar -- in a good way, of course. This was so long ago that Little Miss Know-it-All didn't exist, and in fact I didn't talk about grammar or journalism very much at all. I can see that I was already known as a grammar enthusiast.

I've added Karan's blog to my links list: please go and check it out.

What's in my MP3 Player?

It's not OUR fault!!! Quick, blame that guy over there!

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Media accountability.

Name of Paper Withheld does not take criticism well. Shocking, I know. Here's the complete text of a city-council brief from yesterday's paper.

Parking meter letter angers councillor

During member remarks, councillor Mark Heyck said he was
dismayed by a letter that ran in the June 15 issue of Name of Paper Withheld.

In the letter, Name of Town Withheld-er Patrick Kane described his anger
at the state of parking enforcement in the city.

While Heyck said he appreciated concerns about broken
parking meters, he took issue with the how the letter “singles
out and belittles the parking officer.”

Rather than targeting the writer, Heyck took aim at Name of Paper Withheld,
criticizing its decision to run the letter.

“(Name of Paper Withheld) owes the official an apology and they owe
the city an apology,” he said.

“I’m not holding my breath.”

Ah, yes. Those muckrakers, always stirring the pot! City council's annoyed: way to go! Raises all round...wait, that's not quite right. The typesetter probably got a free pen and a grunt of approval from his editor.

I don't usually agree with Councillor Heyck, but I had the same reaction when I read that letter to the editor. It detailed one resident's frustration with city staff for enforcing local bylaws -- somehow, he had racked up $200 in parking fines. In particular, he was quite rude to one employee, who he described in enough detail that anyone who lives here would know who he meant.

Now, I don't know about Name of Paper Withheld, but most media outlets receive tons of calls and letters from people on the far side of crazy. The media's job is to sift through them and determine which are actually in the public interest and which are just weirdos with a grudge.

This is not censorship. It's called editing. It means that Name of Paper Withheld is responsible for the things it prints. And it's completely fair for a public official to criticise the paper for its editorial decision to run a letter that was clearly written only to embarrass a woman who is unlucky enough to work for the city.

Heck, I'll do it right now: A newspaper is not a public bulletin board where anyone can publish any type of garbage to get back at regular folks who are just doing their jobs. Newspapers are called to a higher purpose. They publish information about important local issues and provide a forum for discussing those issues. The main difference between a newspaper's letters page and a message board on the Internet is that a newspaper is supposed to screen the letters and decide which ones are in the public interest.

To sum up:

1. Jerk writes letter to newspaper to embarrass a person who was just doing her job.
2. Newspaper gets all excited -- whoo hoo! Someone cares about us enough to write letters! -- and prints the jerk's letter. Because it doesn't really matter if a city employee gets hurt.
   
3. Reader criticises newspaper's decision.
4. Newspaper gets its back up and responds: "Hey, WE didn't say it, we just published it, therefore we have no responsibility here". Because hurting a newspaper hurts us ALL.
   

My trip to Sachs Harbour

I was lucky enough to get into the spare seat on the RCMP plane. We stopped in In-uvik to refuel and pick up the fellow who looks after the detachment there. This is one of the other officers.

No trees. Say it again: No. Trees.

No matter how much you try to prepare yourself, it is still a shock the first time you realise what "no trees" really means. About eight years ago, we were thinking about moving to Nunavut, which is entirely treeless. We read everything we could about the territory, but still weren't prepared for the first picture of Iqaluit we found on the Internet.

There are trees throughout most of the NWT, but Sachs Harbour is far above the tree line.

Like I said: No trees. These three-inch flowers were the largest plants around.

Some parts of the community reminded me of Newfoundland. Some of the houses are similar, and this boat seemed oddly familiar.

Visit to the High Arctic

Just before the end of the day, a co-worker came into my office and jokingly asked if I wanted to visit the most northerly community in the NWT tomorrow. She was taken completely off guard when I got all excited and asked if she was serious.

This is Sachs Harbour:


You have no idea how far north it is, but just for fun, try this:

Now, I know some of my readers are looking at the bottom edge of this map and thinking that the states below it are "north". HAHAHAHAHA. I live near the middle of this map, but used to live in the top left corner, right next to the northern coast of Alaska. Almost nobody gets to go to Sachs Harbour, which is why I was so excited to get the opportunity. This is the sort of trip that some people plan for their whole lives.

I'm going with the RCMP, which will be interesting just by itself. I'll have photos tomorrow.

Breaking news

(...and all the rules?*)

I am pleased to announce that I have been successful in getting the emergency exit at CBC In-uvik named as one of the Seven Wonders of the CBC. I'm totally serious. (Note that the real name of the town does not have a hyphen.)

After The Seven Wonders of Canada wrapped up, people reacted in true Canadian style: with anger and bitterness. At the time, I suggested that the true wonders of Canada were:

• The word "sorry".
• The shovel, for use on both snow and bullshit.
• A bone, to toss to aboriginal leaders when they threaten to set up a blockade.
• Canadian flags, to hang all over Quebec in hopes that they won't leave.
• The phrase "At least we're not as bad as the States".
• Waiting rooms in the emergency department at the hospital.
• The SUV, for navigating the drive-through at Starbucks.

Tod at InsideTheCBC decided to run a follow-up contest: The Seven Wonders of the CBC. Now, InsideTheCBC is a public blog, but most of its visitors are current or former CBC-ers. People were invited to submit ideas. I've worked in five CBC shops, but I probably wouldn't have submitted anything if the very first comment hadn't been:

The 10th Floor Artist’s Lounge at CBC Toronto. Rare panoramic view of the Toronto’s lakefront.

I think we can all agree that of all the things we DON'T want to be a Wonder Of The CBC, it's the Artist's Lounge at CBC Toronto. So I clicked the link:

CBC In-uvik: The emergency exit, with its rare view of the Western Arctic’s utilidors (above-ground sewage lines).

I provided a link for southerners who had no idea what a utilidor was, and that was that. Lo and behold: my lobbying has paid off.

I am a little concerned that, much like the original contest, my suggestion was accepted simply to ensure regional representation, but I'll take any recognition I can get. I'm a bit of a media whore that way.

*My very first footnote: "Breaking news and all the rules" was the tag line for a terrible series of CBC ads. The ads were promoting the "re-launch" of supper-hour newscasts with a new format that, as far as I could tell, was better only in the sense that it was cheaper to operate.**

**In true CBC style, I'm so deep that even my footnotes have footnotes.

The things that really count

PLEASE NOTE: This story includes a few community names. As usual, I'm using hyphens to thwart the search engines.

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: The little things.

As usual, Name of Paper Withheld is doing a realy bang-up-job att editing. Off course, it realy doesn't matter as-long as you get thestory.

My analysis is in bold text.

Blondin's coming together in Yk, Ndi-lo
Two day family reunion will bring together old and new family members

The point of a headline is to grab the reader's attention and to give some clues about what will be in the story. Consider this one a success, Name of Paper Withheld! Apostrophes are just decoration! Hyphens are boring -- who needs them? Not you!

This headline grabbed my attention right away and really did give some clues about what would be in the story: grammatical error after grammatical error. This is especially important in a story like this one, which will probably be cut out and put on refrigerators and in scrapbooks. My hat is off once again.

The extended Blondin family and friends are being encouraged to make a trip to Name of Town Withheld and Ndi-lo for July 13 and 14. Ted Blondin, son of George Blondin a Dogrib elder, storyteller and writer, is arranging the family reunion for his father who is 85-years-old.

Did the Blondin family get extended somehow? I'm picturing a bunch of ten-foot elders mincing around like characters from "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". I suppose this is part of a newspaper's job: to let me know about important local events.

The family is encouraged to come here ON July 13 and 14. Not "for". They're coming FOR a celebration, not for a date on the calendar. The second sentence is missing a couple of commas, but more than makes up for it with some added hyphens. You see, when you're a professional journalist, it's really important to get the right number of punctuation marks into your story. It's not so important to use those marks in the right places.

“We wanted to do something this summer,” Ted said of the reunion. The event isn’t being held for an anniversary, but mainly because George is one of the eldest members of the Blondin family.

“My father is 85-years-old. He’s the oldest family member that is still alive.”

There you go again with the hyphens! It's like you think they belong there or something! I imagine this was a tough call for the copy editor. He probably stared at a copy of "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and bit his lip before triumphantly adding those hyphens. Great investigative work! And wait a second -- the party's not for an anniversary, but it's to celebrate the oldest family member's birthday. Hmmm.

Friday will see a social gathering at the Royal Canadian Legion in Name of Town Withheld which will feature an open mic for people to share stories, Ted said. Saturday will be a large barbecue at the property of George’s sister Muriel Betsina in Ndi-lo.

Again, commas are totally not needed. They just slow the reader down. Good call. But isn't it a HUGE story that this family is able to turn days of the week into barbecues? That would definitely be a first.

“We’re starting to fill up the freezers with caribou meat,” Ted said. He said they’ve already received some interest from family members from outside of town, but he doesn’t know how many yet will attend. “For them to actually agree to come together like this it’s a pretty big deal,” he said. Some family members would be flying in from De-line, which costs approximately $1000 for the flight.

“The number (of people coming) just seems to grow.”

No. Ted doesn't know how many will attend YET. And the flight costs $1000.

George resides in Beh-choko (R-ae-Ed-zo). His younger sister Betsina resides in Ndi-lo where the second day of the reunion will be held. Originally she and George were from the shores of De-line.

You don't usually see the word "reside" in newspapers, but Name of Paper Withheld is not your average news-gathering organization. For example, commas are still beneath them.

“The Blondin’s moved to Name of Town Withheld in the ‘50’s. Especially George and his wife and his kids,” she recalls. She said George moved to Name of Town Withheld in order to pull his children out of residential school. She was in a residential school from the age of eight to 16 until her parents moved to Name of Town Withheld as well. “I have so many nieces, nephews, fourth generation cousins that I’ve never met. I hope they come,” Betsina said.

You never mess with a quote. That's one of the big-R Rules of Journalism. However, people don't use punctuation marks when they speak, so even if the reporter happens to be interviewing someone who thinks apostrophes are just decoration, the reporter is under no obligation to include those apostrophes in his or her copy. Or the headline. The same rule applies to hyphens. And I'm getting tired of expressing my gratitude for those dropped commas that were just slowing us all down.

Ted said that his father will be sharing stories with his family, and other family members are encouraged to share their own stories with one another. The open mic will also be available for anyone that wishes to speak on Saturday.

“I’m looking forward to the excitement of the reunion,” Betsina said.

Here's a good lesson for people who work at community newspapers: It's not nice to call people "that". Anyone WHO wants to speak will be able to speak.

Wasn't this the paper THAT went on and on about the importance of literacy a few months ago? I can't remember...

What's in My MP3 Player?

Gordon Lightfoot has a reputation as a boring folk singer, but I think he's cool. This sucks as a video, but is all I can do considering that he is not exactly a star on MTV.

Happy birthday, Canada

As I mentioned earlier, the CBC's been running a wish list on Facebook for the last little while. It was supposed to revolutionize the media, and was trumpeted from the hilltops in typical CBC style. Canadians would express their hopes and dreams for the future, and the rivers would run with chocolate. The results would be announced on Canada Day, as a birthday present to Canadians, I guess.

I've been watching the results over the past few weeks, and am having a hard time believing that the winners in the Great Canadian Wish List actually represent the hopes and dreams of Canadians.

Seriously? This is the list of hopes and dreams for our future? If so, how come nobody's happy about it? Where are the rivers of chocolate?

Instead, there has been a lot of nastiness between the two top groups -- nobody's paying attention to the others anyway. The Abolish Abortion group was set up first and took an early lead. The Remain Pro-Choice group was established when it became clear that the other group was way out in front, and it gained a lot of ground very quickly. For weeks, the two groups were almost tied. Then both groups started to scream about cheating. I watched as both gained support by the hundreds in a matter of minutes. It was due to a quirk in the program that allowed people to vote over and over for their favourite wish.

Facebook deleted thousands of multiple votes, but people still complained about sock-puppet accounts (which I can't support), votes from people outside Canada (which I also can't support), and open campaigning from special-interest groups (which are totally in the spirit of this project).

There's no way to know how many sock puppets are out there. The pro-choice group pointed out that a significant proportion of the abolish-abortion group do not have avatars. This would suggest:

• that those accounts are new; and/or
  
• that the people who created those accounts did not want to include photos; and/or
• that the people who created those accounts did not know how to include photos.

Although this is interesting, it is not really relevant. If someone wants to join Facebook just to be able to vote in this project, that's fine. It would be no problem to create hundreds of sock-puppet accounts that had photos, either -- I personally don't have the energy to do this, but other people apparently do. And I think it's really insulting to suggest that people who are against abortion are so stupid that they don't know how to add pictures.

It's pretty clear that there are votes coming from outside Canada. The active campaigning (which I'll get to in a moment) has pulled in thousands of votes from lobby groups in the States on both sides. This is really not cool. Both groups were so desperate to win that they didn't care how they got votes.

Um, guys? This is a stupid CBC poll on Facebook. It means nothing, especially when everyone knows that you've stacked the deck. It's sort of funny, though, because if this hadn't gotten so out of hand, one of these wishes might have finished in the top ten, and that would have been huge news. (What?! Ordinary Canadians care about this?!) As it is, everyone's talking about lobby groups.

And that brings me to the last complaint I've heard: that people have been actively campaigning for their wishes. I'm not sure why this is such a bad thing. Isn't that the point? If you get enough people to vote for your wish, you'll end up at the top of the list. You do this by getting the word out and by not allowing your wish to be confused with others. Target people who are likely to agree with your wish but not likely to vote, and convince them to vote. That's completely fair, and if the "save the environment" guys were doing it, nobody would bat an eye. The same thing happened when the CBC did their "Greatest Canadian" poll -- does anyone seriously think that Canadians thought Tommy Douglas was the greatest Canadian before all of the campaigning started?

CBC's gotten a lot of flack over this project, but I think it's been an interesting experiment. Not exactly what CBC was planning to get, of course, but interesting in any case.

Welcome to Web 2.0, CBC. And happy birthday, Canada.