The story BEHIND the story

Reader-submitted: My husband was out and about on free comic day and found that magazine in a discount bin at a comic store. (WHAT? Hello, employee oversight. Heads are going to roll. Hoff at a discount? So wrong.) He called me and said, "I found something that I think Megan is really going to like." I said, "Megan?" followed by "I'm scared. What is it?"

When I saw it, I was totally giddy. I mean, HOW AWESOME IS IT? And in totally MINT condition. I hope you realize the strength of generosity it took for me to mail it your way. I wanted to stick it under my pillow and keep it there FOREVER. But I knew it would thrill you even more so I willed myself to put it in the envelope and send it to its spiritual home.

Amazing story. Please tell your husband that I understand the strength of character it took to preserve the magazine in mint condition. There is always the risk that some sweat will get on the old-school stuff.

I know he is a moral person, so I appreciate the fact that he did not alert the comic-store owner to his grave error in misfiling it. This must have taken a lot out of him. Usually these situations only arise when Babe Ruth cards accidentally fall into shopping bags or rare recordings get slipped into the wrong LP case. A true dilemma, to be sure. If the owner had discovered his error, this priceless artifact might have been lost to his own private collection.

Reader-submitted Hoff

The way I've always dreamed it could be

Reader-submitted complaint: I won't go so far as to laugh at journalistic ethics, but you're sounding utopian. Do journalists mystically get less bounded by their own expectations and valuance of information than the rest of us?

No, but they should be. I hold them to a higher standard than the rest of you, and they often let me down. I expect them to follow basic journalistic ethics, but they don't always meet my standards.

About a week ago, a reporter told me that I am mean to people in her industry. I thought that was funny, because many of my readers have worked or now work as journalists. Most of my closest friends are former reporters, and I respect the role of the media more than most people do. Sadly, that respect means that when they let me down, they deserve additional scorn. We need to root out the evildoers, chase them from this land, and destroy those who would give them comfort.

Uh, sorry for getting all Cheney on you for a moment there.

Our system is not perfect. There are no formal standards: anyone can start a newspaper or radio station and take on the responsibility of providing information to the public. The industry is governed by voluntary standards that are generally accepted but by no means required. Nobody is going to pull your local science reporter's license if he starts to believe the Flat Earth Society's propaganda. The public has only two ways to insist on better reporting:

1. Refusing to buy subscriptions or advertising.
2. Public shaming.

Traditionally, members of the media have collectively called out the worst offenders in their midst. Media critics, ombudsmen and senior journalists are responsible for informally policing their industry. Sadly, this is not common in Canada. This may be why my columns provoke such a reaction from some working journalists: they know I'm right, but they can't believe I'm saying it.

So far, no journalist has ever told me that my columns about journalism are incorrect. However, I'm open to the possibility that they simply did not want to challenge me at the time, so I will throw this out there: If you believe I am incorrect on any matter related to journalism, please let me know. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts. You can use the comments box or send me an e-mail privately. My e-mail address is linked on my profile page.

Thanks for your complaint.

Good news, bad news

Reader-submitted complaint: Journalism ethics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That was really un-called-for. I demand that you apologise to me and all of my readers who are either current or former journalists.

Journalism ethics are real, although they're not like, say, medical ethics. They are a voluntary code and there are no standard consequences for reporters who violate them. There is no licensing body and, at least in theory, anyone can work as a reporter. However, a reporter who really screws up will get fired and won't work in journalism again.

I cannot point you to any definite set of rules, because different publications have different standards. My former employer has a pretty good set of guidelines, and that would be a good place to start.

I can provide a brief overview, though:

Journalism must be accurate. This means challenging a person's false statements. It means presenting as much information as possible. It means checking facts and getting as many sources as possible. Really outrageous stuff should be double-sourced, and things that are easy to verify should always be verified. Information should not be presented in a misleading way. Corrections should be prominent and online versions of stories should be updated with the correct information.

Journalism must be objective. This can be tough. Journalists are people (yes, ha ha...) and people can get wrapped up in their work. It doesn't mean that they have no stake in the issue -- usually reporters will have SOME stake in their stories -- but that they can fairly evaluate the issue. Often, one of the following things will cause problems for a news organization's objectivity:

• The reporter will be unable to accept the possibility that he or she has been duped.
• The reporter is convinced that someone is hiding a big secret or is corrupt to the core, despite evidence to the contrary.
• The reporter (or his friends or family) somehow gets involved in the story.
  
• News breaks late in the day and there is no time to allow the subject of a story to respond to a nasty allegation.
• There is not enough or no separation between news and editorial staff.
• There is censorship of some kind -- perhaps there is pressure to avoid making an advertiser look bad.
• A source has been paid for his or her information.
  

News organizations must be accountable to the public. They have an obligation to report the news and to bring matters of public interest to light. But they also have an obligation to acknowledge their own errors. Some have ombudsmen, but others do this through their senior editors. This can be tricky, because when staff screw up, the boss's first instinct is usually to back them up. This doesn't work in the news industry. The person at the top has to be willing to admit when he makes mistakes, account for the decisions he made, and promise to do a better job in the future. That's a bitter pill.

Journalism ethics can be complicated and it would take an entire blog to discuss them in any depth. There is no list of rules; you just have to learn the basic principles and apply them to situations as they arise. Sometimes this will be a matter of weighing principles that appear to be in opposition to each other: for example, there is no real consensus about how to deal with confidential sources who turn out to be lying or with government agencies that present compelling reasons a story should not be published.

Thanks for your complaint.

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.

Boring conversation anyway

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: You didn't give me an interview, so I'm going to say that you suck!

I don't know who originally said that you should never argue with men who buy ink by the barrel, but in general, it's not a bad idea. (Well, except when the men making these bulk purchases are really bad at journalism or grammar.)

The Paper of Record has a bone to pick with Harrison Ford. Apparently Mr. Ford sucks, and everyone knows it. We tolerate him, but don't respect him. And we definitely don't love him. Basically, we put up with his presence on our movie screens because -- well, the Paper of Record never really makes that clear. But it's in the Paper of Record, so it has to be true.

You see, Rick Groen wasn't able to interview Mr. Ford for his column. If the actor had made himself available, I have no doubt that the Paper of Record would have published one of its typical fawning stories, complete with a photo. But he didn't, so the Paper of Record will have its revenge. They CONTROL the masses, doncha know? Simply by saying that nobody likes him, they will make it become true!

It would never have occurred to me that nobody likes Harrison Ford. It's a ridiculous notion. Sure, some people don't like him: nobody is universally loved. But the man is an icon and has been in dozens of movies, including some of the most popular ones ever made. Han Solo has a cult following. Raiders of the Lost Ark is still one of my favourite movies.

But the Paper of Record is desperate for proof that everyone hates him. He sucks because his name reminds the writer of Presidents Harrison and Ford. He sucks because he's in Steven Spielberg movies. He sucks because he doesn't direct himself. He sucks because he likes privacy and didn't want to be president, governor or mayor.

Did I miss something? Is it now a black mark on an actor's career if he does not run for public office?

Over and over

I talked to a reporter the other day.

Now, I talk to reporters all the time, but I don't usually talk about my personal life. I'm not exciting enough to make the news very often.

However, the NWT Blog Awards are going to be back in the news on Monday. Sadly, I have to agree that the way the contest ended is fair game for the arts section.

When the reporter told me she wanted to do a story about the cheating, I told her that I really wished it hadn't happened. I haven't talked about it much because I didn't want it to end the way it did. I was basically in denial about it for days. I knew it was happening, and it was happening during the first round, too, but it really took off on the last day of the second round of voting for Best Post and Best Blog.

Online polls are very easy to "goose", but I was hoping that nobody would. I mean, it's a stupid blog contest. It doesn't mean anything. It's definitely not worth cheating. Heck, my own family forgot to vote.

There are two ways to cheat. At first, people were using proxy servers. I saw this happening and thought they were morons for going to the extra effort. Then they started to clear their cookies -- this probably took about one second each time and allowed them to vote as many times as they wanted. I was pretty annoyed, and this is why I ended up calling both categories three-way ties. Apparently, no matter how many times I say this, people do not clue in that I can see what they are doing when they are on one of my websites.

Fewer than 100 people actually voted. During the second round of voting there were 335 visits to the site, 1090 page loads and 488 votes for Best Blog. I watched one person in Nova Scotia vote 100 times over a two-hour period. It apparently never occurred to this person that an additional 100 votes would be noticeable.

I ended up closing the contest a few hours early. I was thinking about letting it all play out, but then someone in Quebec came back (yes, back -- I assume he was taking a break) and started another round of megavoting. By the time he'd voted 76 times in a row, I decided to put him out of his misery. Seriously, if you're going to sit in front of your computer getting calluses on your hands, it should be for something much more exciting than blog awards.

People have asked me who really won. Honestly, I don't know. There was so much cheating that there is no way to separate the real votes from the fake ones. I am pretty comfortable saying that Best Post really would have ended in something close to a three-way tie. All three posts were within a vote or two of each other for days, and I was getting ready to call it a tie when the numbers suddenly spiked. The vote totals for Best Blog are all so far off that I can't tell you who really won.

It doesn't matter, though. My goal was never to pick the best blog in the NWT, and I don't think you could do that even if you wanted to. The point was to get more readers for local blogs and to promote the community of bloggers. In that way, it was a success.

Although I thought of it as a silly, fun contest, I clearly underestimated its importance to other people. Obviously, they thought it was important enough that they were willing to spend hours at their computers trying to keep their favourite bloggers' numbers up. (And people say bloggers are the losers.) It is great to see that people have superfans who are willing to go the extra mile to get them some much-deserved recognition. I'm just sad that they thought this would be the way to get that recognition for their favourite writers.

When everything's going bad

I'm a nice person. I promise.

Reader-submitted question: Do you keep scaring new people, or is it the same person who just can't let go?

You mean the grammar stuff?

I keep scaring people. Family members say they're afraid of me. Strangers say they're afraid of me. Friends say they're afraid of me.

The last reader-submitted item came from a person who is worried that I will savage him if he puts his creative writing online. Only a grammar terrorist would do a thing like that. I should probably take this opportunity to state emphatically that I would never want to stifle creativity and that I really do want to read his stories.

Yes, those pants make your butt look fat

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Things you should never say.

Consider this your monthly dose of free communications advice. I really mean it. If you say any of these things, I may be forced to take violent action against you.

I refuse to comment. Uh, moron? This is a phrase the media made up to make you look bad. When you won't answer their questions, they say you're refusing to comment. It's a way to make you look shady and untrustworthy. Never ever ever use the word "comment" when talking to a reporter. It just puts the word in her head. If you can't talk about something, say that you can't talk about it and explain why.

Anecdotal. I sort of understand this one. I mean, you're a bit slow to begin with. You can't be blamed for telling people that their stories are anecdotal. They're technically anecdotes, right? If nobody's ever told you that the worst thing that ever happened to you was anecdotal, I suppose you might not realise that this word sends the message that it's just a cute little story that's not worth taking seriously.

Safe. You're stupid. Never tell anyone that something is safe. It might be safer, but it's not safe. The second something bad happens, you'll be screwed.

I'm not going to talk about it. That will make everyone else stop talking about it. I have lost all respect for you. Fortunately, I didn't have much to lose. You don't control what other people say, and you don't control their opinions about what's important. The only thing you can control is whether you tell them your side of the story.

I don't know what happened, but I assume... Uh, hello? Stop talking. If you don't know what happened, just shut up. The last thing you want to do is start guessing about it in public. Your educated guesses are helpful in private while you're trying to figure out what really happened. They are not helpful to anyone else. Tell people you're going to find out what happened, and then go and find out.

You didn't use the same words I did, so you're wrong. No, she's not. You're a control freak who can't stand it when someone else talks about your favourite issue. There are times when you need to use your jargon. Those times should be very rare. If your jargon's really the only way to explain something, tell people why. At all other times, normal people should be able to understand you and talk about the issue using normal English. Don't tell people you're collecting nasopharyngeal swabs when you could just tell them you need to rub the insides of their noses with Q-Tips. And it's a waste of your energy to get upset with them when they don't use your jargon.

Not in my backyard. Okay, I knew you were an idiot, but this takes the cake. People don't say this about THEMSELVES. The phrase means that a selfish person is refusing to go along with something that almost everyone agrees is in the public interest. Usually the selfish person thinks it's in the public interest, too, he just doesn't like the way it would affect HIM. Until recently, I wouldn't have believed that it was even possible for someone to be this dumb. However, you have surprised me. Boy, I love surprises.

It's been too long

David Hasselhoff - MyVideo

All of the elements of true ART are present in this video:
Intense singing...check.
Expensive sets...check.
Killer special effects...check.
Hot models...check.
Sexy singer...check.
Music that no mortal could duplicate...check.

I can't read the German on the web page I found this on, but it doesn't matter. His dazzling musical genius transcends language and culture.

"Love ya, Megan, but..."

Reader-submitted complaint: ...you scare the crap outta me. Writers write, editors correct.

You are quite right. Newspapers need multiple lines of defense, and that is why news stories should go through at least three sets of hands before they get to print. The reporter does all of the research and writing, the editor makes sure it is complete, and the copy editor checks the grammar, spelling and other details. When all three people are working together well, the result is usually very good. When they're not, I cringe.

A reporter who doesn't do his or her job is usually lazy, not stupid. There are tell-tale signs, the most common being:

• The same interviewee you've heard a hundred times saying the same old thing. (GREAT! No need for extra research!)
• Lots of cliches. (Why bother coming up with a new way to describe the search for the germ that will cause the next pandemic when you could just say it's like a time bomb? Another day, another dollar!)
• "More catchy, less true" journalism. (The editor doesn't know what's true, right? All he cares about is the way you describe it!)
• Believing a source without questioning him or her. (She says the city's new bylaw is unconstitutional, but you don't have the energy to actually read the Constitution to find out if that's true. Just put "unconstitutional" in quotes and you're covered!)

Reporters are usually pressed for time. They have to file a certain number of stories every day, so they rely on these little shortcuts that end up wrecking their credibility. Not in the newsroom, of course: their editors usually have no idea that their reporters are screwing up so badly. If you really want to know if a beat reporter's doing a good job, ask someone who works in that industry.

Editors sit in the newsroom barking orders at reporters and turning down bad story pitches. Well, the good ones turn down bad story pitches. Lousy editors will just check to see if there's a news hole. Editors are responsible for catching all of the reporters' mistakes:

• When they see the same tired old quotes from the same tired old sources, they are supposed to ask the reporter to interview someone else.
• When they see cliches in a story, they are supposed to remove them or ask the reporter to rewrite the story.
• They are supposed to know that no story is simple enough to sum up in five words. Catchy copy needs extra scrutiny.
• If a source is saying something really crazy, editors are supposed to hold the story until it can be confirmed, not just put quotes around the weirdest stuff.
  

They also look for logical inconsistencies, unanswered questions and sections that are really just diversions from the main point. They pull things into sidebars and oversee teams of journalists. A good section editor will understand how to use photography, layout and writing to tell a story.

Although many people think of editors and reporters as being in competition, they should be making each other better at their jobs: an editor can shape the final product and provide guidance to a reporter who's not sure how to proceed.

Editors are usually pressed for time, too. The idiot reporter has spent HOURS trying to write a story about the break in the sewer line downtown, and of COURSE he filed it late! And now HOW is the editor supposed to fix this mess? This is a true crisis! Is this quote from the mayor or from the director of public works? Who can tell? WHO FUCKING CARES IT'S ALMOST PRESS TIME! That reporter's ass is MINE in the morning!

And that's when the copy editor gets the story. The copy editor is the last person who can fix grammatical mistakes or factual errors before the paper goes to press, and he usually gets only a few minutes with each story. The editor is furious, and the reporter's throwing a tantrum because the headline had to be changed at the last minute, and now it seems that there was NO BREAK IN THE SEWER LINE AT ALL! FUCKETY FUCKETY FUCKETY FUCKETY WHY AM I ALWAYS THE LAST PERSON TO HEAR THESE THINGS???

Copy editors (or "sub-editors") are angels who work behind the scenes. They clean up bad grammar and lousy spelling, and they fix minor factual errors. They may be the poor chumps who give the editor the bad news that the story about the sewer line needs to be spiked or completely rewritten. At some publications, they lay out pages and write headlines. You will never know how much work the copy editor puts in: the reporter and editor usually take all of the glory. The copy editor is responsible for making them both look good and keeping them out of my Little Miss Know-it-All columns.

But, dear reader, this is all in the context of newspaper reporting. I do not expect average folks to have copy editors for their blogs. Please do not allow my occasional criticism for professional journalists to keep you from your creative writing.

Happy Mother's Day, Mom

I don't know if any of my readers other than my parents and the Capitalist will know what this is. (Philosopher King?)

My son is now asking for his very own iPod, but when I was his age, we listened to records on my parents' turntable. We LOVED Pete Seeger, and this song was one of our favourites. I am still partial to Sam The Whaler and Sweepy Sweepy Sweepy, but when I pass my iPod on to Michael, I will make sure that Abiyoyo's on it.

It's almost Mother's Day, right?

Michael used to be very good at cleaning his room. This video clip from 2002 proves it. Each day he would dutifully put all of his Legos into the Lego box and all of his blocks into the block box. His clothes would be put away, and his books would be returned to his shelf. I liked that.

His new standard of cleanliness for his room is "seeing the floor". I do not think this is a good goal. When I ask him to clean his room, he will do what he calls "clearing a path". This is exactly what you think it is. Toys on the left side of the room are pushed to the left wall. Toys on the right side of the room are pushed to the right wall. Clothes, books, cash, and old notes from his teacher are pushed into one of the two piles. Actually, it is probably more accurate to refer to them as mountain ranges: it's not as if there are only two piles of mess. They will occasionally have minor avalanches that completely upend the natural order. I don't know how he finds anything. I definitely don't know how he knows which items of clothing are clean, because it seems to me that they are all strewn across the floor with no accurate way to determine the difference.

I am really starting to get the feeling that I am nothing more than a maid. No, wait: normally, you pay the maid. On the other hand, I am expected to work every day so that new purchases can be placed in the mountain range.

Every few months I will go through his room and fill two garbage bags with old toys. I do this secretly while he is at Daniel's, and he never misses the things I've thrown away. I am pretty sure he could live quite happily with only his Pokemon cards and his Transformers DVD. I also suspect that I could do a similar purge on Steve's stuff while he is distracted by the short-skirted girls on Deal Or No Deal, but I haven't actually put that plan into action.

Yet.

Follow those who pale in your shadow

Reader-submitted question: Hi Megan. This might sound weird. I LOVE your blog, but oftentimes I don't get it. I don't really understand why the music videos you include are there. This, I'm sure, is generational. Try this video. I would love to know what you think of this. I LOVE it -- I can hardly stand to watch it; I love it so much.

Wow, a reader who understands both semicolons and dashes! You really know how to get me to publish the things you send in, don't you?

I really like this. I've always liked this song, and this version is great. I am not really very familiar with Dusty Springfield, but this is really good.

You don't understand my blog? I'm surprised, because I often feel like an open book. Like I'm actually telling my readers TOO much. The music videos I include are often part of that. They do mean something. Well, not the birthday greetings, but those are clearly labeled. Sometimes those are references that the average person wouldn't catch. I'll admit that.

The others mean something. They're supposed to illustrate something about the post or about my life. And they're not just for the Stevie Nicks fans who like to hang out here.

"The editor in me wanted to madly edit the blog!"

Reader-submitted complaint: I'm not sure how to raise this with you. I went to your blog for the first time last night, but, uh, I only read the first entry. I didn't realise you were such a fan of that writer. But I also had trouble with the spelling errors. I couldn't keep reading.

Oh dear.

This has happened before. My own cousin came to the blog one day and had no context for the Uriel post he found on the front page.

Sorry about that. Let me reassure you that I don't actually think that women deserve presents for bragging about spending as little time as possible with their kids. It was an attempt at satire. I'm not actually a fan of that person at all (I refuse to link directly to her), and, unlike her, I am very good at spelling and grammar. I promise.

I don't think of myself as subtle, but I think I can sometimes be too sarcastic for my own good. If it was your first visit, you definitely wouldn't have known what was going on.

Here's a good rule of thumb: If you think I'm joking, I'm probably joking. Keep reading.

Finally, Uriel makes an impact

If you haven't been over to NWT Blogs, you should. The fabulous and uber-talented Amy has reworked it as a megafeed with about 15 different NWT blogs. It's a great way to see many blogs from this region in the same place.

She called the other day and said that the program she uses scans posts and automatically generates tags based on the content, increasing the font based on the number of posts with that auto-tag. I can see that Uriel is having a real effect on the list. "Atheists", "heathens", "lake of fire" and "perverts" all feature prominently. I will let Uriel know that she has finally conquered the Internet. Maybe this will make her stop picketing City Hall, although I doubt it.

Miss Lyndsy has joined the Cute With Chris cult

Well done, Miss Lyndsy.

"I'm not obsessed"

Reader-submitted: I'd be entertained if you were inspired to write about this clip of Rebecca Eckler, but don't mention me.

OMG like What. Ever I am not just here for your amusement. Plus, she is like an amazing star and I am totally jelous. Not only is she on TV talking about what a great mom she is, she is also in the Paper of Reocrd because she needs presents on Mothers Day. I mean really she should NOT have to ask for spa days because she is so naturally relaxed and pretty, but like how dare everyone say she is a spioled brat for telling her ex-finance that he has to buy her stuff. I mean she had to schedule the Csection and everything and then sometimes tell the nanny what brand of formula to buy and even sometimes watch the nanay change diappers or feed the baby when she was not having an emotional vacation for months at a time because of the huge stress of having a baby and getting fat! That is so deserving of a present. So like how dare they. And child support payments dont go to far when she has to pay for lawyers to sue that stupid book stealer Judd Apatow who TOTALLY stole her idea about getting pregant by accident. You go girl. Like where is she supposed to get stuff if people dont buy it for her? and if people don't want to buy her stuff how is she supposed to react.

She is definately my favourite author and I could only hope to be freinds with someone like her who really wants to be freinds with celebraties like Brad and Angelina and follow them around like a real investagative journalist. The best part of her new book is that it is just as simple to read as Us Weekly. That is a real selling feature for yummy mummies like me because lets face it, we do not have time to read. We spend our time needing to be really patient and that is another reason I am jelous of her because she is so patient all the time even when her daughter says she is using the mean mommy voice. and another thing. Other mommies are way to overprotective of their kids. I mean if your kids don't go to school and daycare when theyre sick, when are you supposed to shop? It is like they don't thing these things through.

I think its awesome that she reprisents young Canadian moms because that would mean that I was just like her! I love the haters, I just love them because did you see her stories about them? HAHAHAHA it was so awesome for her to finally get back at them. I mean she doesnt care about them at all. Like she really doesnt care, so lay off, haters. She will allways get the last laugh so dont waste your time being super-jelous. I mean SOME jelousy is normal, like what I have where I want to be her freind and meet her and sometimes maybe get a 'you rock!' on her super-cool blog and THAT is normal but the stalkers are scary and really need to get a life. I mean do they not see that she purposely creates a narcissistic persona to sell more stories? She gets the last laugh! Carry on!

I, who went to sleep as two, woke up as one

Reader-submitted question: Stevie Nicks had an abortion?

I don't know, but, since it's a pretty common procedure, it's not a stretch to think she might have.

Many people think that's what this song is about, but I don't think the lyrics are nearly clear enough to be sure of that. It could also be about a miscarriage, or about the end of a relationship. I am in the "end of a relationship" camp: I think that anyone who's convinced it's about a baby is being entirely too literal.

Thanks for your question.

My readers start to make suggestions about the blog header

Reader-submitted question: How about this? See the snow-covered hills?

Well, yes. But somehow I don't think that will work. She's got green eyes. Otherwise, she would already be up there.

Man, this is hard! Who am I, anyway? And what single image could represent this blog? I like the Anime Sweetheart more than the plain text that was up there before, though. I am going to keep it for now.

I have a few readers who are graphic designers, so I'll throw this out there: If you have ideas about what the header should be like, please let me know. I would be willing to pay for the right image.

It's the great Northwest for me

Reader-submitted question: Hi Megan. My aunt and uncle are moving up north to teach! I'm not sure of the location. Do you have any advice for them?

Absolutely! Steve's a teacher, so he can provide more information about teaching than I can. Have them e-mail us: dryas at theedge dot ca.

I haven't been to every community in the NWT, but I've been to many of them, and I know something about each one. I'm no expert on Nunavut or Yukon, but some of my readers are. :)

The NWT is a great place to live, but it's not for everyone. I can confirm that people from the East Coast seem to thrive here. I think this is because we're used to nasty weather, odd neighbours and isolation. I also think that we're more likely to take a risk by moving here because there are fewer jobs at home. I came here because I was offered a permanent full-time job for the same Crown corporation that could only give me short-term contracts everywhere else. I had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Your aunt and uncle can see photos of the NWT here.

This one's for the fetishists

I know the quality is terrible, but I love this video because of:

1. The look of pure hatred Stevie Nicks keeps flashing at Lindsey Buckingham.
2. The way she spits out her words as she sings backup on a nasty breakup song about herself.
3. The fact that he's ignoring her as she glares at him.
4. Stevie's stupid tambourine. Is it just me, or does she appear to be waving it at Lindsey's head?
5. The fact that the other musicians seem to be enjoying the entire situation.
6. Lindsey's tendency to run away from the microphone and play his guitar at the drum set instead. (Thirty years later, he still does this.)

What do you think of the new header?

Reader-submitted complaint: Hi Megan. Your new look makes you look like a suppliant. Is the Grammar Nazi a suppliant? I'm surprised. Of course, human realities are always more complex than media projections!

Really? I hadn't thought about her arm position when I put her up there. I think she looks like she's thinking really hard, or maybe shivering. Perhaps we each see what we want to see in that image. That might explain why you think she's praying. Maybe she's praying for a longer skirt.

I think it's better than the plain text that was there before, but I'm not sure if this particular image is working. She does look a lot like me, and I like the snow. It is harder than I thought it would be to find a single image that represents this blog and will work in the header.

What do the rest of you think?

P.S. Wait, YOU call me the Grammar Nazi, too?

And in the end...

Reader-submitted question: Who won the blog contest?

It was a three-way tie. Yes, seriously.

Greetings, weirdos

Recent first-time readers have come here using the following search terms:

• peeing in public
• Various words about a narcissistic Canadian author
  
• The Capitalist's full name
  
• Stevie Nicks abortion date
• what would happen if the seal hunt shut down
  
• drag queen music
• reflection of snow of absorption of the ground
• cbc seven wonders of Canada
• iqaluit prostitutes (I have no idea why I keep getting this one)
• how to apologize like a canadian
• seal hunt newfoundland perspective
• rick mercer AND Jon Stewart
  

I'm sure that most of these people are very disappointed when they get here.

Iqaluit readers: Do you have any idea why there is such a fascination with prostitutes from your town? Do you even HAVE prostitutes?

"The bride should wear the veil after she has become a wife."

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: MY COLUMN IS THERAPY! YES IT IS! YES IT IS!

I should have known better than to think Sarah Hampson had improved. In the last few weeks, I've read her column in the Paper of Record without wanting to scream. For some reason, I figured that her editor had clamped down on the self-indulgent ex-bashing. Clearly, I was wrong.

As you'll recall, Ms. Hampson is on a crusade to convince the world that her own personal situation is the hottest ticket around. Divorced women, you see, are the only ones who are able to have any personal growth. Whereas married women are stupid, frumpy and unable to cope in the real world, divorced women are smart, sexy and confident. Especially if they've got a couple of kids and a nasty ex-husband. Separation agreements are hot! Got that? Come over here and let me show you my application for joint custody!

Ms. Hampson's column has typically been a mix of anonymous sources, family therapists and thinly veiled snipes at her ex-husband. Because I have familiarised myself with her body of work, I am now able to recognise where she's going with any particular topic. Her column is generally about herself, even when she pretends it's not, and it usually mentions that men are terrible.

And so I was infuriated when I saw that this week's column begins with a mention of Rosemarie Fritzl, the Austrian woman who discovered a few days ago that her daughter has been in the cellar for the last two decades. Ms. Hampson knows how Ms. Fritzl must be feeling. You see, she's been married, too.

Married women, she informs us, just want to think that everything is fine. They only see how horrible their husbands are when they have been liberated through divorce.

Ms. Hampson, you are totally right: You DO have something in common with Ms. Fritzl! Her husband is suspected of forcible confinement, rape, kidnapping and psychological torture, but your ex-husband lied to you! Your ability to sympathise with other people is truly limitless.

Women, you see, are in denial about the cause of our problems. Fortunately, Ms. Hampson can be our role model in our collective quest for self-enlightenment. She has already discovered that men are the cause of all of her problems. And she accomplished this while looking GORGEOUS.

This is profoundly disappointing, because I think a column about life after divorce would be interesting. I'd like to read about someone who is struggling to balance her relief that it's all over with her sadness that things didn't work out, but feels guilty about that struggle. She might write about her shock at discovering that her kids try to play their parents off each other, and admit that she really LIKES shared custody, because she gets a few days to herself every week. Or maybe she thinks the logistics of sharing custody are so difficult that she might as well live in the same house with her ex; besides, they're sort of getting along again.

But of course, this is too much to ask of Ms. Hampson and the Paper of Record.

"I have something to tell you."

Reader-submitted question: I voted for you in the blog contest. Really, I did. I think your post is the best one. Really, I do. But now I am scared of you. Are you judging ME like that? I feel like I can never show you anything I write! Should I have used that exclamation mark? Wait, is it exclamation "mark" or exclamation "point"? Oh, man. Did I misspell "judging"? It looks like it might be wrong. And should the question mark go inside the quotation marks? Seriously, you are my FAVOURITE blogger.

First, thank you for voting. Everyone else: If you haven't been there yet, please go and vote. I am up for Best Post in the second round of voting. If you voted in the first round, you need to vote again. (Exception: Please do not cheat. If you go over there and get a screen that says you've already voted, please don't try to vote again.) I really do need your help. There are three other fabulous NWT writers in the running for Best Post and Best Blog, so even if you don't want to vote for me, please go over and check them out. The contest ends on Friday night.

Now, on to your question: I scared you?

Really?

Well, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to scare you personally. I will admit that on the day I wrote that particular post, I almost had a nervous breakdown from the stress of reading Name of Paper Withheld's editorial. But I think you can understand why: I read a lot of lousy writing, but that was one of the worst things I've ever seen on the editorial page.

I hold professional writers to a higher standard. Regular readers know that I expect writers to be able to write, and I expect journalists to do journalism. Within those general guidelines, I am pretty liberal.

I am not a grammar terrorist: I do not target civilians for political gain. So no, you don't have to be worried. I am judging you, but not with the same level of venom. We can still be friends.

I lost my power in this world because I did not use it

Reader-submitted complaint: This blog is nothing but the deranged musings of an insane woman. I could get the same thing if I read letters from prisoners.

Well, I suppose that could be true. I've read quite a few letters from prisoners, and their writing styles are typically similar to what you'll find here. Like me, they threaten violence for comma misuse, grumble that some people are walking around free even though they are clearly guilty of gross grammar negligence, and attempt to recruit vulnerable people into their organized semicolon gangs.

Just yesterday, I was sharpening my toothbrush into a shank while considering the best way to deal with indiscriminate apostrophe usage. I have been silent on this matter far too long. I intend to send my manifesto to the New York Times with a threat: If I see one more ad for apple's or pencil's, I may be forced to ambush someone in the laundry. I fully intend to hold that person hostage until the world agrees to stop using the word impacted to refer to anything other than teeth or feces.

You will not deny me the satisfaction of knowing that I have made a real difference. Come here and let me smell your hair.

Hmmm

I wonder if people realise that when they come to one of my websites through a proxy server I CAN SEE THEM.

Well, apparently not.

In related news, the second round of the Best NWT Blogs contest is going on right now. Please go over there and vote ONCE for the best blog and best post in the territory.

A real IM conversation with my mother

Megan: you voted for me in the blog contest, right?
Mom: haven't been there
Megan: WHAT? Get over there now!
Mom: too late?
Megan: it will be too late in a couple of hours
Mom: done
Megan: yay! third place! I am such a geek
Mom: have you contacted the boys?
Megan: nope
Mom: Nate?
Megan: I actually haven't tried
Mom: come on
Megan: you know, people SHOULD have seen my blog and voted! I put a link up!
Mom: I wish you had contacted me sooner
Megan: well if I stay in third place I'll get to the next stage
Mom: I'll call Ben? should I ? it is late here
Megan: nah, don't wake him but MAKE HIM VOTE NEXT TIME
Mom: yeah but it is fun. you might need his vote
Megan: true. it is very close
Mom: yeah, and he might not be in bed yet
Megan: ha, well if you want to
Mom: ok
Megan: seriously, MY OWN FAMILY DIDN'T VOTE???
Mom: calling him now
Megan: I cannot believe you didn't vote
Mom: he didn't vote, yet
Megan: AUGH! you guys!
Mom: I'll call Matt
Megan: hahahah no don't wake him up, but if I make it through you better vote!
Mom: calling matt
Megan: you'll wake him up! he has to work in the morning!
Mom: got his machine and left a message. You should call Nate
Megan: no, HE SHOULD BE READING MY BLOG! do you guys even read it???
Mom: yes!! but not every day
Megan: uh huh. I posted about the contest a few days ago
Mom: calling nate. he hasn't voted yet
Megan: WHAT??? you guys are a huge disappointment. you are supposed to rally behind me!
Mom: he's doing it
Megan: this is sooooooo a blog post
Mom: we all got it done. maybe Matt had already voted
Megan: you'll have to vote again if I make it into the top 3. if you can manage it, that is...
Mom: of course, but you might have to remind me the day before it ends
Megan: Or you could just read my blog and click the link
Mom: I wish we could get more people
Megan: if I'd known you weren't voting, I would have mentioned it
Mom: hahahahah
Megan: I assumed you were voting! It's OK. Next time you're up for an award and need MY vote, I'll just avoid it. Clicking on links is very arduous. I AM POSTING THIS ON MY BLOG.
Mom: hahahahah
Megan: well, check that site in the morning and VOTE if my name is there!!!!
Mom: the next vote will be that soon?
Megan: yep. starts in the morning. do you think you can handle voting again so soon?
Mom: ok.I'll get the boys too
Megan: I believe you. NOT.

The Best NWT Blogs contest starts to get press

A reporter called today about the Best NWT Blogs contest. By the way, if you haven’t voted yet, get over there right now. I mean it.

I told him that I’m surprised there is almost no media coverage of Web 2.0 in our territory. The media’s favourite stories always involve themselves, so most of the mainstream media in the rest of Canada is falling all over itself to either 1) clasp blogs to their breasts in hopes that some of the coolness will rub off or 2) insist repeatedly that blogs are not worth a second of their time.

So perhaps the silence is newsworthy.

You see, Web 2.0 is a huge part of life here. The Internet is the easiest way to keep in touch across great distances, and there’s no place with greater distances than the Canadian Arctic.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t fit into the little box we’ve set for ourselves. That box tells you a few things about the Internet in northern Canada:

• It doesn’t exist in some communities. We are completely cut off from the rest of the world! Best not to mention it at all.


• It’s not relevant to our lives. Unlike city dwellers, we prefer to commune with nature. We don’t relate to other people through our computer screens.


• We’re not comfortable with technology. We definitely wouldn’t use it to communicate with strangers.

As you can see, there’s no way anyone could be blogging in northern Canada. No need for anyone from the media to pay us any attention!

I told the reporter that I did not jump headfirst into the blogging community; in fact, I was very hesitant to be public about it for the first year. I started just as Name of Paper Withheld printed a hatchet job about a friend of mine. She has a blog, too, and I remember my white-hot fury at the paper’s implication that she was involved in something very shameful because she was “posting information about herself on the Internet”. (The nerve!)

That moment kept me from telling anyone but my friends and family about my blog for many months. Goodness knows what Name of Paper Withheld might think of me. (Blogger Calls Self a “Writer; Thinks We Cant Use Punctuation. Or Blogger Claims David Hasselhoff Is Hot; Poses Shirtless.)

I eventually decided I wanted to be a part of whatever community we have up here. I struggle with the idea of being a “northern blogger”. I’m not sure that I really am one: I’ve been here too long to pull off the wide-eyed newcomer shtick, and I’m pretty sure that this blog is not particularly northern. In fact, I think it’s the same blog it would be if I lived anywhere else – only a few of the details would change.

Seriously, go over there and vote.

Congratulations, Tez

Tez is a friend from King's. I haven't seen her since I ran away to the Arctic and she ran away to the other side of the world.

Tez, we love you and we are really happy for you. You look great.

NWT Blogs

Voting has started, so go over there!

You'll have to choose between quite a few really great blogs, but this one has been nominated, so I have an interest in getting as many people there as possible. :)

You can vote in as many or as few categories as you want, but you can only vote once.

"Anything you post about her is just too stupid to make up"

Reader-submitted question: Who else is laughing at [name of narcissistic Canadian "author" withheld]? I mean, if she's still showing up in Toronto papers, she must have some sort of cult following, but please tell me that the majority of the English-speaking world is pissing themselves as they ridicule her.

I had to get help with this one. The normal rules of publishing would lead me to believe that she must have SOME readers.

My informant tells me that she sold several thousand copies of her memoirs (there have been three so far). Canadian publishing is a tough gig, and almost nobody's making any money at it. Clearly, someone is reading these books, though. I am guessing they are the same people who hang out on her blog, Nine Pound Dictator. You can Google it. I'm not linking to her.

From what I can tell, her fans are almost all women with small children who have nothing in common with her. However, they appear to identify with her stories about being a terrible mother.

I really do have to address this. Many, many women feel like Failed Mommies. We cannot live up to the standards set by the Stepford Mommies who hand-sew Halloween costumes and attend every school lunch. However, that does not mean that we should embrace a narcissist as our ideal, especially someone who brags about spending as little time as possible with her child. (Sample quote: "I watch Nanni Mimi feed (the baby) and it's a process that can last sometimes about to an hour. I do not have that kind of patience.") PEOPLE! What is WRONG with you?

Rest assured, though, that she is the joke of the Canadian publishing world. Fellow Canadian writers: Is there anything you'd like to add?

I'll follow you down 'til the sound of my voice will haunt you

Reader-submitted question: Have you seen this video?

Yes, of course. I love this song, and this is a great version.

I assume you really mean that you want to know what I think of the last two minutes or so. I don't think it really means anything.

What a let-down, eh?

Seriously, you have to remember that Stevie Nicks is a performer. She's giving the fans what they want. It's a great song and I think it means a lot to her (well, to them), but I don't think this particular performance means anything special.

As I type, my local CBC morning show is announcing a contest: they want readers to call in with their favourite break-up songs. This would definitely be one of my favourites.

And we're off!

The NWT Blog Awards have begun. We already have so many nominations that I think we are going to have to do a few of the categories in two rounds.

Head over there to check out the list of excellent posts and blogs. Please feel free to nominate your favourites.

You'd see the truth, but you've closed your eyes

I try not to get too upset about things.

So I was relatively calm when Steve ordered a wig that looks -- well, kind of girly. It's a shag wig. You know, far be it from me to judge and all that.

Then he asked me to help him pick out striped pants. He also started listening to the Village People.

THESE ARRIVED TONIGHT.

Never fear: He can explain.

He has a school dance coming up and plans to re-invent himself as Simon from this video, including the fancy dance moves:


Hmmm.

Happy birthday, Michelle

CATFIGHT! CATFIGHT!

Reader-submitted question: Are you going to do any other self-important columnists? Can you do Leah McLaren next? She's got to be good for a post or two, don't you think?

Ah, Leah McLaren. And here I was trying to forget that she exists.

McLaren is the Paper Of Record's thirtysomething single gal about town. She is, of course, very different from Eckler and Sarah Hampson: She has blonde hair.

The Paper Of Record depresses me. Do they actually think that these ninnies represent Canadian women?

McLaren's distinguishing feature is her desire to not seem too vapid, but this is balanced by a keen insight that for a person as boring as she is, vapidness is the only option. The woman does have some self-awareness, after all, which is more than I can say for Eckler.

She writes four columns a month for the Paper Of Record, and, just for you, I've read them all. Never say that I don't put myself in harm's way for your entertainment. Like the best writers (Homer, Moses, etc), McLaren knows how to set up a narrative, and she comforts her readers by ensuring that each column ends the same way. We are never surprised.

Column #1: Someone asks Leah if she is Russian. She is not Russian, but decides that the person made this mistake because Russians dress really well. She read it in the New York Times, so she knows it's true. Also, she takes the opportunity to inform us that she wore fishnets in high school and flirted with LOTS of older men when she was in her twenties. Fortunately, there is no need for any personal growth.

Column #2: Leah celebrates "Literary It Girls". They are the only ones worth paying attention to, she assures us. They are smart and beautiful. Half of the world loves them and the other half wants to scratch their eyes out. Clearly this is heading somewhere, but Leah is coy. I wish I could remember if she has written a book that "takes as her subject herself, filtered self-deprecatingly through the foibles of modern urban singlehood." I'm sure it will come to me eventually.

Column #3: Leah mourns the loss of traditions like reading and cooking. She is part of a dying breed, disturbingly out of step with her own generation. I know, it's hard to watch. Just in time, she reassures us that she is white, educated and an upper-middle-class newspaper columnist, as if we might have forgotten that in our rush to comfort her. Whew. THAT'S a relief.

Column #4: Leah feels like a bitch. Wow. That almost seems like a flash of personal insight. What will we learn that's significant, interesting or new? Well, nothing, really. It turns out that she only feels like a bitch because Sarah Silverman was on the cover of Vanity Fair, and there is nobody hotter or bitchier than Sarah Silverman except maybe Tina Fey, who is -- shocker of shockers! -- ALSO on the cover of Vanity Fair. Bitchiness is IN, mothafuckas! And don't forget who's in the club now! It must be true, because it's in the Paper Of Record!

I'm not sure who reads her columns, but she clearly has some fans. Toronto readers: Do you have any insight into this?

Best NWT Blogs: Prizes Needed

If you'd like to donate a prize for the Best NWT Blogs contest, please let me know. I suppose we could have as many categories as we have prizes. So far, these people have donated prizes:

• Something "original" from Rob & Tina.
• Dinner chez moi.
• A T-shirt from Jen of Nunavut with the image at the top of this post.
• UPDATED: A framed northern photo from Martin.
  

Who else is in?

Best NWT Blogs

After some back-and-forth with other NWT bloggers, I have created Best NWT Blogs, a contest site.

Because I'm a Canadian and we all need to work together in partnership, I am taking suggestions for the categories we should use. (Uriel has already started to pray that I will create a category for "best satirical religionist".)

I'll take suggestions for categories until Thursday. Then we'll take nominations and vote. You can make suggestions to me directly, by e-mail, here or over on the contest blog. Let your readers know we're doing this: it will increase your chances of winning. :)

I need people to donate prizes for the winners. If you want to help out in other ways, please let me know. Maybe you're good at creating badges that people could put on their sites. This is a group effort and I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

Big sigh

Warning: Squeamish people may not want to read this.

Why do people insist on doing the most boneheaded things that make their own beliefs look awful?

Usually I think that about wacko fundamentalist religionists, but this time, I'm annoyed with a woman at Yale who can't decide if she wants to claim to have abortions as "art" or not. This is the best thing that ever happened to the groups that want to make abortion illegal.

First, Aliza Shvarts claimed that she impregnated herself every month for nine months, induced miscarriages each month for nine months, kept the blood and videotaped the whole thing. It's ART. Who wants to see the blood? She's going to display it AND the videos as her senior project.

I was skeptical. It's just a little bit too ridiculous for me. It's the sort of thing you'd hear about by e-mail in capital letters and way too many exclamation points along with a printable card to mail to your local Congressman. Or something you'd read in the Onion. Women have abortions just because they're bored or to make a statement! Miscarriages are publicity stunts! I, personally, have abortions at least twice a year. It is the best major abdominal surgery a person could have.

It turns out that Ms. Shvarts is a real person and had actually claimed to be doing this. There was a huge outcry. I can't imagine why. Those fascists just don't understand art. Ms. Shvarts had to meet with university officials to explain what she did. She also wrote a guest column for the school newspaper. It is full of double-speak, but luckily for you, I am a professional double-speak decoder.

The project is not what she says it is. However, I'm willing to accept it as bad performance art. Ms. Shvarts squirted semen into her vagina with a needleless syringe. Then, just before she would have had her period, she took "herbs" that could induce a miscarriage. Shockingly, she would then bleed and get cramps. She saved the blood and filmed herself bleeding into a cup.

Now, most women end up with semen in their vaginas from time to time. Most of us bleed once a month and get cramps. Lots of us take herbs that could induce miscarriages, too.

We are all fools for thinking this could be real, and I include myself in that group. Ms. Shvarts says she does not know that she was ever pregnant. Uh huh. Who wants to put money on this? I know which way I'll be betting.

Ms. Shvarts says Yale officials are lying, but they claim that after they confronted her about potential ethical issues and medical concerns in her project, she told them that she never inseminated herself or induced any miscarriages.

This project is incredibly callous to women who have actually had abortions and miscarriages. It doesn't say anything new, and it isn't even good performance art.

Happy birthday, Steve

Post #1000

This is my thousandth post. It's hard to believe. When I started this blog almost two years ago, I had no idea I'd have so much fun with it.

A few of my favourites from the past 999:

• Michael's post about the city workers. I love the honesty in it.
• The first Uriel post. The character sprang into my head fully formed, although I eventually banished her to a separate blog after many, many readers didn't get the joke.
• Confessions of a Failed Mommy.
• My plan to sue Ickler.
• My favourite video blog.
  
• The difference between the north and the south.
• The first reader-submitted complaint, and my favourite complaint so far.
  
• The day I knew I could only call it Name Of Paper Withheld...
• ...and the day I almost went down there to behead someone.
  

I never did believe in the ways of magic

Reader-submitted question: Did you see the story about Dooce in the Wall Street Journal? It's maybe food for thought, or something.

No, I hadn't seen it until you mentioned it. I don't follow Dooce (Heather Armstrong), but she has inspired many women to start their own blogs. Dooce got fired after writing about her work and colleagues, but has become one of the most successful mommy bloggers. I was especially interested in the way she deals with complaints: she runs them over with her car. I prefer to post them on my blog, but we all have our own ways of dealing with our critics.

I'm not really a mommy blogger, but I do write about my family quite a bit. This blog is the only thing I have that's just for me, but "me" includes my relationships with my family and friends.

I'm not sure if this reader is suggesting that I should get fired and look for advertisers, but I am not nearly adventurous enough to try that. I have never been fired, and wouldn't know where to start. (Forces of Evil: Any ideas?)

I'm worried I wouldn't get advertisers, either. In fact, I read several blogs about how to be a good blogger, and apparently I am doing everything wrong. The blog-improvement blogs are close to unanimous on one point: your blog must be focused. It has to be THE PLACE TO GO for one thing, and you need to write the hell out of whatever you decide your blog is about. I'm not doing that very well for the casual reader: David Hasselhoff bondage videos sit next to grammar tips. I do think I've succeeded in making this blog all about me, though. If you come here every day, you probably know what I'm all about. But I'm not at all convinced that I'm marketable.

Thanks for your question.

Fine Canadian journalism

I haven't thought about Rebecca Eckler in a while except to chuckle at her self-absorption every time I see her Googling herself in my site stats.

But look out, Canada! You're about to get a lot more of her! A lot! How exciting is that!!!

No, I haven't hit my head. I've just been reading the press release about her new book. (I love my readers.)

It appears that Eckler is now writing her own press releases. I imagine that her publicist realised that according to publicists' ethics, he cannot claim anything that he knows to be untrue. Thank goodness Eckler is a professional writer and can step in to help during urgent situations like this one. My analysis is in bold text.


April 16, 2008
Montana Ridge: Toddlers Gone Wild by Rebecca Eckler! Now in Stores

The third installment of witty observations from the trenches of toddlerhood

Ms. Eckler is available for Media Interviews!

Because I am familiar with the basic rules of the English language, I now know a few things about this book. It is called "Toddlers Gone Wild by Rebecca Eckler!", meaning that the title of the book includes both the author's name and an exclamation point. This is a bold move. Usually, book titles don't include the author's name unless the author is at least as famous as Oprah. And punctuation's always risky. It can come off as shrill.

I also know that it comes "from the trenches of toddlerhood". That's not really a word, but I assume it means that a toddler wrote the book, which sounds just about right. If a mother wrote the book, it would come from the trenches of motherhood.

Last, I know that Ms. Eckler is available for "Media Interviews!", which sounds very exciting if not particularly grammatical. I personally have already worked myself into a frenzy like the sort of thing you usually only see in fundamentalist churches right after the snake handling.

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - April 16, 2008) -

Attention: Entertainment editors, books and lifestyle editors

Rebecca Eckler, one of Canada's most popular newspaper columnists, is back more tales from the land of mommydom, giving readers insight into life with her adorable and precocious boddler (half toddler, half baby) in Toddlers Gone Wild!

Back WITH more tales, I think you mean. But now I'm confused. Is the book called "Toddlers Gone Wild!" or "Toddlers Gone Wild by Rebecca Eckler!"? Either way, it definitely sounds incredibly exciting.

I LOVE the new "boddler" word. It is SO SMART. I wish I'd come up with it first. How can I meet the person who invented this word? I'd like to tell her how super awesome she is. Maybe we could even be friends! Hold on, I have to fan myself. I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed at the thought of being in the same room with such a literary genius.

Eckler's latest book is available to all mommies and mommies to be who want to know how Toronto's "It-Mommy" handles toddelrdom. And when not running after Toddler Rowan, Eckler will be available for media interviews as well.

AHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, I couldn't stop myself. Between the terrible grammar and the spelling errors, I thought this paragraph was directed at people who think Eckler is Toronto's It Mommy, whatever the hell that is. Maybe I DID hit my head.

Hot on the heels of her international best tomes regarding the trials and tribulations of raising baby Rowan, Eckler's Toddlers Gone Wild! looks at the intricacies involved in raising the now "boddler" aged tot.

Whoa. Clearly I didn't just hit my head; I've been caught in some sort of tear in the space-time continuum. In this Bizarro World, Eckler evidently has at least two "international best tomes". Wait. What the hell does that mean? That's not even English.

And what "intricacies" are involved in raising a "boddler"?

Gone are the days when the sweet, cherub-faced infant would mind mommy when she said "no," and gleefully do whatever she suggested. When baby reaches the boddler years, those days are replaced by the most uncharacteristic determination, followed by a tantrum (on both sides).

A TANTRUM ON BOTH SIDES? This simply CAN NOT be true.

Much like Knocked Up! and Wiped!, Eckler's humourous style examines some pertinent parenthood questions- the kind that most parents think about but never bring up in polite company. For example, Eckler's inner voice demands to know what's up with what she calls anti-children people - the kind that won't let a two year old into their store under most circumstance. To this, Eckler retorts, "She can't very well be tied to a leash and left outside!"

Ah, Eckler. You truly are the voice of mommies everywhere. I could stand up and cheer. I've given up on trying to correct your grammar, because there's clearly no point. You are TOTALLY RIGHT. I personally allowed my own son to ride roughshod over hundreds of expensive boutiques when he was two. Then I compared him to a dog and screeched at a few salesclerks.

From falling in love all over again with the Fiance, to butting heads with The Boddler, the highs and lows of Toddlers Gone Wild! will resonate with any modern day mom who wants her cake and a slice or two.

Eckler's available for interviews week of April 21 and first week of May 2008.

Say it ain't so! Are you saying that I could CALL THIS WOMAN and she might actually talk to me? Hold on, I'm feeling faint again. What if we could be friends? Maybe I could brush her hair! Maybe -- just maybe -- she could help me with my pathetic writing career!

I'm including the contact information for Eckler's publicist because I feel really sorry for anyone who has to deal with her in person. He deserves all of the link love he can get.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Montana Ridge Enterprises
Parmjit Parmar
(416) 750-0966 or Cell: (416) 402-7156
Email: parmjit@montanaridge.com
Website: www.montanaridge.com

From the Archives: Michael, age 5, watches a scary Star Trek movie