Repackaging the News
In Urban Decay Continues, Carmi Levy notes that “the local newspaper, when it isn’t busy repurposing generic content from other newspapers in its cost-cutting national chain, runs the occasional cheerleader-like piece talking about how the area is coming back from its malaise.”
Since I recently harped about the same thing, I’ll take this opportunity to note the similarly disappointing decline of the news-reporting ability of our local tv station. It seems to me that the majority of what airs on A-Channel as news these days has already been reported elsewhere.
Today’s 6pm newscast had a piece by Derek Rogers about violence in the core, and one man’s attempt to draw attention to it. Specifically, the Jason Bikus’ YouTube videos.
Don’t know what I’m referring to? Well, hop on over to Alt-London, where it’s already been discussed for about a week!
© Fowler Media
Right you are, Greg, right you are.
Then when the Free Press finally gets around to exposing the hanky panky at city hall with…
[editor: commentary about CUPE Local 107 story deleted]
Greg,
The view from your bottom step looks a lot like the view from the cheap seats. Although we’re all used to AltLondon regulars complaining, the hypocracy here is just too much…
Firstly, the original site for the fight videos (and 99% of all videos on-line), is YouTube… NOT AltLondon (or the London Fog or any of the other local sites that posted linked versions of the videos). Although Butch will be devastated to learn it, YouTube gets at least a trillion more hits a day than AltLondon will ever get. The video in question, along with several others, have been on YouTube for months, and existed there long before they appeared on AltLondon. So why aren’t we calling AltLondon out for posting something that has “already been reported elsewhere”. And who cares that they did? That’s the whole point of why the videos being posted in the first place (according to the YouTube page), so that “everyone gets to see”.
Secondly, the item on AltLondon was not “reported”. A semi-decent quality video clip of a drunken brawl was posted. There was no “reporting”. The person who shot the video wasn’t identified, nor interviewed, nor was anything added to the video except for 10 “comments”, 5 of which had to do with whether people could actually view the video or not. That doesn’t make a “report”. AltLondon has done some reporting and some legwork on other stories… and done it well which brings me to another problem with your posting.
Thirdly, the only thing posted higher on AltLondon (as it has been for weeks), is an “AltLondon Exclusive” (kudos to AltLondon for finding original content), after which much of the discussion (including a post right here on your site), is about why the MSM has NOT picked up on the story… but yet when they do pick up on a story you lambast it as the “similarly disappointing decline of the news-reporting ability of our local tv station”.
So which do you want? To get information out there? Or to be ignored?
I haven’t seen the report, I’ll catch it at 11. But unless they interviewed 5 people talking about how they can’t seem to get the darned video to play on their computer… it’s nothing like what’s appeared on AltLondon.
If I’m wrong about any of my points, I’ll be back to apologize. In the mean time, feel free to do the same.
CORRECTION: The story about the CUPE Local 107 prez has been up on altlondon since April 27, 2007, at 9:09 p.m. The Freeps MAY cover it a month later.
Regarding the number of hits on altlondon and YouTube, YouTube reportedly gets 20,000-million hits a month. Or perhaps views.
And who cares? So what’s with the Butch will be devastated baloney?
The streetfight video was posted on alt-london by the fella that shot the video. I didn’t ask him to. Sure, it was on YouTube first, but the A-Channel saw it on altlondon and tracked the altlondon link back to YouTube — where it’s since been removed according to a post on altlondon by the videographer.
The bottom line is that the A-Channel milked a story out of a video posted there — one that was previously posted on YouTube. People from the A-Channel are on the site every day. But they won’t touch the union prez story until the Freep does it and then they’ll be all over it.
Your above bitch makes little sense. It has that vacuous, know-it-all, smarmy feel to it that reminds me of a truck several bricks short of a full load.
Like, what’s your point? Currently, it seems like a whole lotta zero.
Oh Butch, don’t take Darren so seriously. It’s only [editor: name deleted] with another one of his sock puppets.
Darren:
Your observation that the video was posted on YouTube before Alt-London is correct. But my post was about local reporting of local news. Perhaps my post didn’t clarify that well enough. I’ll try to do better in future posts.
When I go through my daily ritual of reading the news, I begin with local sources, ie. The Free Press, A-Channel, CJBK, AM980, Alt-London, London Commons, LondonFog, etc. Following that, I turn to Ontario sources, ie. Toronto Star, Globe, Hamilton Spectator, Ottawa Citizen, etc. Periodically, I check out YouTube and other similar sources to see what’s interesting, but not with any regularity. There’s simply not enough hours in my day.
The act of posting the video on Alt-London did constitute a form of “reporting” what happened by the poster, IMO. You’re free to disagree.
With respect to your 3rd point, what I’d like to see is increased original reporting, as opposed to simply rehashing what’s already reported to have occurred. I’ve lived in London all of my 57 years, and I can remember when local stories often originated on CFPL and were subsequently picked up by the paper. Each had it’s own team of investigative reporters, and most often the community got a different version of what had transpired from each of them. There’s rarely any evidence of that any more. Most of what we get is very shallow, picked up from CP or AP, unattributed, etc.
Finally, I’m not so conceited that I’m going to say categorically that “I’m right” and “you’re wrong.” This site gives me an opportunity to express my opinion at a given point in time, and hopefully from time to time to get some feedback which will either support my belief or cause me to reevaluate it. So, thank you for taking the time. I appreciate that you made the effort.
Butch:
I appreciate the fact that your site identified the fact that the Local 107 story exists. However, whereas it appears that you may have a copy of the actual letter of complaint, and may have additional sources, I don’t have any of that. You haven’t seen fit to publish the complaint letter, and neither has anybody else, so from my perspective it’s all too speculative for me to comment on so far.
That the 107 story does in fact exist, has now been confirmed for me. Thanks to a reference in your site’s thread, I went in search of what Joe Ruscitti’s had to say about the story’s non-appearance in the newspaper. Took a while to find, since his comments are only to be found in a blog post about the paper’s tabloid format (”Compact but not too compact”). Seems to me that he could have started a new blog thread about this. If not to discuss details of what’s been alleged, then at least to discuss the question of whether or not the paper should be keeping silent about it.
I gather from what Mr. Ruscitti has written (”But having someone tell you something, and having that person freely put their name to it, does not safeguard a newspaper or any other type of media from legal issues for publishing it”), the complainant is unidentified. Do you care to comment about that? Do you have a copy of the complaint letter? If so, did the author fully identify him/herself?
What, the CUPE Local 107 story only exists if the Free Press talks about it. It’s been on altlondon since April 27.
I’m not making this stuff up, Greg. If I was, I’d be served with legal papers in a heartbeat — under the Libel and Slander Act. People from the City of London and other media outlets are on altlondon several times a day…
[editor: remainder of comment deleted]
Butch:
I don’t doubt your honesty. I simply wondered about how careful you’re being about potential legal action for publishing the story. I’m not a lawyer, and any impression that I have about libel/slander is probably tainted by American movies/tv that I’ve watched over the years. Seems that you know the identity of the complainant at least. Which may or may not be enough to protect you for what’s appeared on your site.
You deleted all that? Why would you do that? Greg, I’m seriously disappointed in you.
Then you make the bizarre statement that “Seems that you know the identity of the complainant at least.”
Greg, I know this story inside-out. Of course I know the complainant and I have ALL the documentation. Nobody’s denying this story. They’re saying that the prez is entitled to the money. But what’s the point of elaborating here? You’re a wussy just like the Free Press.
The story on alt-london is 100-per-cent true.. And what I posted here (never again) that you deleted was 100-per-cent true.
But I see that you are a chartered member of the cover-up club. Good goin’ Greg.
Well Butch, you can call me names and accuse me of wanting a coverup, but the truth is that I don’t have anything which collaborates the story. I’m glad that you have documentation. I don’t. I only have your 2nd-hand account of what’s going on. I was good enough to credit Alt for being the first local media source of the YouTube video, and if/when the Local 107 story is verified I’ll be happy to credit Alt for breaking it as well. If that’s not good enough for you, I’m sorry. But I’m not going to take a stupid risk of being sued for libel/slander simply because you want me to. And if that means that you’re not going to post here any more, then so be it. I’ll try not to be too devastated.
Funny thing about London. When a third-rate newspaper like the Freeps writes a story about something, then the story exists. Until then it’s a non-entity.
The story has been on alt-london for more than a month. Everyone at city hall has read the story, including Whitworth and most union members. No one has challenged a single aspect of the story. Not once.
Regarding getting sued, Greg, stay shivering in the coop. You think I want to get sued? Guess what? The best defence to a libel or slander action is if it is all true.
Follow the herd, Greg. Follow the herd.
Greg, I never aksed you to run the story, as you state on the Freep editor’s blog, it came up in the comments above, which you largely deleted.
Regarding the so-called “unproven allegations,” the situation has now moved way beyond that territory.
[editor: some commentary deleted]
If anyone in London wants the paperwork, simply e-mail me and that wish can be acommodated.
[editor: more commentary deleted]
Butch:
You took exception when I deleted details from your comment submission that were unverified by me. Expecting me to allow story details isn’t quite the same thing as asking me to run the story, so I’m sorry that I used that phrase in the “Editor’s Blog” post. It wasn’t my intention to be inaccurate, and I’ll try to correct it with another post. I’m also sorry that you don’t seem to grasp the distinction between what you view as fact (because you appear to have documented evidence) and what I view as unproven allegations (because I don’t have any documented evidence). But whether I personally put something in a blog post, or simply allow something to appear in a comment submission by someone else, may very well turn out to be too fine a distinction for a court of law. Again, I’m no lawyer, and I’m simply taking a precautionary approach. If you want to meet with me and provide me with copies of evidence that you possess, then I might very well reconsider my position about publishing. BTW, with respect to some of your previous characterizations of me, anybody who knows me personally or knows about the number of times that I’ve arranged to be arrested as a political action, knows that I’m no shrinking violet when it comes to social justice issues.
Greg, I’ll simplify it for you since you seem both paranoid about this story and confused.
And you can obtain this information for yourself. Call Larry Allen up in Human Resources at City Hall and ask him directly whether or not the president of CUPE Local 107 is being paid pursuant to the collective agreement or not.
Either Whitworth is or he isn’t, right?
Tell me something, if the story appeared in The London Free Press — as it has on altlondon — would you still be in detail abou tthe veracity of the story?
Blah, blah, blah…
You offered copies of the paperwork, I asked for it. Either you’re prepared to produce it, or not.