Is "hate" too strong a word?

Remember "In Minutes?" On the front page of the L-P, when I was growing up, there would be little summaries of the news headlines from (as I remember it) all around Canada -- big stories that would be found in various sections of the newspaper. It was a sidebar, of course, as the most pressing story of the day would be dealt with on the front page, or maybe two or three stories.

Flash forward to 2006, when A-Channel, in Calgary, decides that there are enough "hard news" shows being run in Calgary, and that they will, basically, become an entertainment and e-news network. A close friend who is a cameraman for A-Channel went from following police scanners and political scandals to, basically, filming garden shows and cultural festivals. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this; I think there is probably a desperate need for artistic support in Calgary, and as for their news show, while it may be mostly comprised of Lindsay Lohan's latest screwup or a Michelle Pfeiffer interview, at least they're straightforward about what they're doing.

My parallel here is rather clunky but obvious: the Leader-Post has clearly decided to become an entertainment newsmagazine, leaving behind all pretense of reporting, international news, or even a scrap of objectivity. As you can imagine, I would gladly write a book about the shittiness of Bob Hughes, but that doesn't even begin to cover the problems with the paper in general (especially since he is no longer the general editor, and is apparently kept on staff simply to rant about the two most irrelevant subjects he possibly can). What about local reporters digging into stories, instead of interviewing cutesy or kitschy characters for feel-good tales of Regina bravado and achievement? What about wire stories being, say, commented on, or at least run at their full length so the rare reader who makes it to page B8 isn't left wondering whether the government of Holland did, indeed, fall? What about -- gasp -- copyediting, at least for content if not for spelling?

The "In Minutes" section I mentioned above has been cut for one obvious reason: There is no actual content within the paper to summarize on the front page. If forced to use this format again, the L-P editors would simply point out to us that their "In Minutes" is virtually identical to the Table of Contents in "People" magazine. In the past week, I have read no less than three different "entertainment columnists" rehashing crappy Hollywood gossip they got off their MSN sign-in webpage. As well, I read Christalee Froese's complete tripe about how her small town life was better than Calgary (according to her 8-and 11- year old niece and nephew, who were on vacation and had nothing to do but eat ice cream and have fun), which had at least two spelling errors and at most 0 coherent arguments.

Christalee Froese, however, is not to be blamed; she's just doing what she is told, which, in my opinion, comes straight out of Bob Hughes' mouth and must be something like this:

*Write something inoffensive, with almost no real thesis;
*Write something that, if people do disagree, it won't really matter (therefore, try to stick to subjects that will affect almost no-one directly);
* Write as quickly as you can, so it sounds like you're talking, or rambling if you prefer.

Now, I realize that I might be overimagining the greatness of yesteryear's Leader-Post, and I have no solid evidence that they actually had, for example, comprehensive international coverage, original content, or any sort of curious (or dubious) scrutiny of local happenings. However, it is a well-known fact that Conrad Black gutted the reporting staff when he bought the paper, as he does (or did) as a matter of policy. L-P staff byline strikes go unreported, wire stories make up the bulk of the newspaper, and Doug Cuthand was fired outright for comparing the First Nations situation in Canada to that of Palestine.

This is not, clearly, what we would refer to as journalistic integrity. I think it is instead what we might call another feather in the cap of the corporate media machine, or perhaps, if I wished to be dramatic, another stab in the corpse of skepticism, curiosity, or truth. The Leader-Post is merely a much less cutting-edge version of A-Channel's "e-news" reportage, but under the pretense of somehow conveying news, facts, or something vaguely educational.

So, this being a blog, I'm not obliged to conclude with how I proved my point, but merely how I'm feeling. (There is something to be said for the lack of journalistic integrity here, as well, I suppose.) Therefore: The Leader-Post makes me angry every time I open it, Regina's population continues to be stunningly unaware of itself (its demographics, its sprawl, its population trends, etc) due to a 100% focus on white-middle-class views, news, and issues, and I hate Bob Hughes with a passion that I do not feel is healthy for my soul.

I'm going to read The Onion now ..... check this out in the meantime.

The Kindness of Strangers

I knew that I would see Regina differently when I returned with a baby. I imagined that I would now notice playgrounds, and sidewalks lacking corner ramps. I would seldom see Bushwakkers, but I would swim in an outdoor pool for the first time in years. I didn't predict the major difference I found as a new mother: being ignored.

Canada supposedly has a reputation for friendliness, but we found that The South really is the friendly place it is reputed to be. In Regina, I was used to looking over people's heads when standing in line, sitting on a bus, or waiting in a restaurant. I enjoyed the fact that interactions with service personnel were brief and impersonal. I never learned small talk.

In The South, out with my baby, every possible category of person would talk to us, smile at the baby, even touch him. This was done in such a way that I didn't even feel our personal space was being invaded. On a typical outing, an old Mexican abuelo would tickle the baby then help me on the bus with my grocery bags. An Asian college student would offer me his seat (and I'd refuse - it got to be a joke between us as we often took the same bus); once seated, the sorority girls would flirt with the baby and he'd smile and coo. A young black man would compliment me on his crocheted hat, and a white business-type would ask me where I got the baby carrier and if the mom who made it at home would like marketing advice. If the baby ever fussed, strangers would come forward to sing to him.

It got so that the baby expected people to look at him and smile. If he sat on the bus near someone who was ignoring him, he would coo at them. If they didn't look (which was rare), he'd tilt his head to one side and coo louder: "Aaaaa!" They would invariably look, and smile.

When I arrived in Regina in May, my first social appearance was at Smitty's. Smitty's was full of elderly people, whom I had come to assume were all surrogate grandparent wannabees. As we waited for a friend to arrive, the baby stood on the seat and looked over the back at the array of strangers. He smiled. He cooed. He cooed loudly. No one even turned their heads to look.

It was shocking. I was shocked. The baby was nonplussed. And now, three months later, he no longer coos at strangers. He is no longer the first to smile when he sees someone. And I am once more rehabituated to ignoring strangers and having them ignore me. But now, I know what I'm missing.