From Ken Ohrn:
If you have ever wondered what kind of world the daily news grind consists of, then read this article.
Shelley Fralic: Women aren’t paying attention to news?
(The) bustling newsdesk was … where the newspaper, every day, twice a day, came to life.
And it, was, undeniably, a man’s world.
For the past century, our industry has largely defined news as the reportage of negativity and strife: politics, crime, war, dysfunction, disaster. …. Along with all the obligatory Middle East body counts and religious tirades, along with the local gang warfare, the murder rate and environmental and territorial resource and land disputes, it is often hard to find the stories of context amid the daily tableau of chaos, the personal human stories about how we live our lives in the midst of all these crises, how our future and the future of our families are being shaped by the take-no-prisoners business and politics and social undercurrents that we feel so compelled to record.Too often, there is little heart in our news pages. …
Newly informed, I can see that it is entirely possible that this manly cabal of scribes, and their editors, would have no trouble at all deciding in fits of pack bonding that “we hate bicycles and will slam them while defending motordom to the death”, and “we hate transit and will derail any funding referendum while defending motordom to the death”.
* * *
Well, Ken, that’s a little harsh. I know reporters and editors who have a more nuanced if not favourable attitude towards bikes and transit, though, as the Sun’s “Driving” section in today’s paper illustrates, the advertising-dependent media have more than a little self-interest in the promotion of motordom.
Regardless, The Sun just seems out of touch when it comes to cycling, so that the first item in Annals below comes as a surprise even in their own pages. Others, like The Province and some voices on electronic media, are just outright hostile to all non-motordom alternatives.
But, analogously to Fralic’s point, when they play to the presumed assumptions of a like-minded audience, they miss the cultural connection of cycling and youth, in the same way that the predominately male attitude to females still affects how her own paper places and writes about stories that feature or are of interest to women.
A young reader knows intuitively when reading a piece that is contemptuous or condescending or simply too negative when referring to bike lanes or cyclists that it is also making the same judgment about them and their wordview. So they stop reading. And don’t return.
That’s why, while I don’t agree entirely with Ken’s indictment, I think he’s on to something:
It is little wonder to me, and even less now, that this business and its fundamental, arrogant weaknesses is doomed to continue to decline and fail. The less attention and effort we bestow on them, the more we have to devote to more enlightened, effective avenues and pursuits.
Gordon: you have the advantage of me since you know some of the reporters and editors in question. I take your point.
My perspective, however, is that of someone who has access to only their published product, and the sad stories about PostMedia that pop up in the Globe and Mail’s business pages now and then. My response, when Google Alerts brings me something from the Province (or is that the “Provincial”) triggered by keywords “bicycle”, “bike lane” and so on, is to send it unread into my e-trash.
As to your friends, my fondest hope is that they will escape the death spiral and find a way to turn their talents and experience to exploring and reporting on this new world that is evolving around us.
Ironically, both papers often have ads featuring bicycles marketing products to older people. The bicycle is a symbol of health and freedom. Even automobile marketers get that.