And the winner is...
December 22, 2008
- Posted by Regan Ray
You've cast your votes and chosen the 2008 Canadian Newsperson of the Year.
With 1479 votes tallied, Ken Whyte emerged as the clear winner with 59.9 per cent
of the vote.
Watch for an exclusive interview with Ken Whyte next week on J-Source.
Here are the results:
How it worked
As 2008 came to a close, J-Source asked you to
send us your nominations for Canada's Newsperson of the Year. You responded, and the 20 people nominated came from broadcast, online and
print, hailed from both east and west, were both men and women and had covered everything from important local issues to important
international stories and everything in between.
From that impressive list, we selected, with some difficulty, the
following six finalists:
|
David Beers
View Results |
While many applauded the idea of a local, independent online news source, few figured it would last. But The Tyee, founded by David
Beers in 2003, just celebrated its fifth year of publishing in Vancouver. As heads of news organizations across the country struggle
with the shift online, Beers is well ahead of the curve. The Tyee’s mission is to "swim
upstream against the media trends of our day" and publish "investigative reporting no one else is doing." Five years in, the new media
brainchild of Beers breaks stories, provides solid coverage of local issues and awards two annual fellowships to fund investigative journalism in the province. |
Bernard Derome
View Results
|
Bernard Derome was French Canada’s highest profile television news person from 1970-1998, as
anchor of Radio-Canada’s flagship newscast Le
Téléjournal. He took a brief break (1998-2004), but Rad-Can called him back to the lead chair for a few more years.
Derome read his last Le Téléjournal newscast on Dec. 18 soon after anchoring the Quebec
provincial contest, his 21st election. In his twenty-plus years on the job, he’s been on air for major political events such as the
October Crisis, the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords and elections, including the first of the Parti Québécois. On his last
night on air, the news broadcast was cut short and a one-hour special Bonsoir Bernard Derome was aired. |
Chantal Hébert
View Results
|
National pollster Allan Gregg has called Chantal Hébert "the most influential journalist in the press gallery right now." CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge says she is
the "lynchpin" of The National’s weekly political panel, At Issue. One J-Source reader nomination called her work "consistently
fair-minded, smart, funny and respectful" and her grasp of national politics "non pareil." As national affairs columnist for The Toronto Star, guest columnist for Le
Devoir, blogger for L'actualité and a regular panelist on CBC and Radio-Canada, Chantal Hébert makes her mark on national news in
both official languages. |
Stephanie Nolen
View Results
|
Stephanie Nolen brought Africa to Canadians during her five years as The Globe and Mail’s Africa
correspondent. One J-Source reader nomination called Nolen’s work "astounding" and said "often these stories have been agonizing,
always they have been important." She left the "place she’s come to love"
in December 2008, to open a new bureau for the Globe in New Delhi, India, just in time to cover the
Mumbai bombings. One Globe reader wrote to the editor: "Her reports
have given us a deeper understanding of African complexities. Mostly, she has opened our hearts to the realization that it will succeed on the
true moral strength and beauty of its people." |
|
Graeme Smith
|
Graeme Smith has been reporting for The Globe and Mail from
Kandahar, Afghanistan since 2006. One J-Source reader characterized Smith's
Talking to the Taliban series as "among the best coverage of that region this
year." The series took an innovative, multimedia approach to understanding the Taliban through anonymous video interviews with
insurgents—conducted by a local colleague—interspersed with Smith’s commentary and reporting. Smith has appeared on CTV
television news reports and answered reader
questions about Afghanistan in Globe online forums. His all-encompassing approach to news coverage
gives Canadians a better understanding of this difficult and controversial mission. |
Ken Whyte
View Results
|
With the world's newsweeklies among the most endangered of print species, Ken Whyte’s
revitalized Maclean’s magazine gives
Canadians talking points week after week. Whyte takes more risks and provokes more bile than any ever expected of this grand national
institution, but it's clear the editor-publisher's chief leaning is against the dull. Between weathering the economic storm and battling two Human Rights Commission complaints, Whyte found time
this year to pen a tome about the early career of another era's controversial newsperson, The Uncrowned King: The Sensational Rise of William Randolph
Hearst.
|
In the interests of full disclosure, here's how we arrived at our short list.
The nominees for the Newsperson
of the Year were (in alphabetical order): David
Beers, Harvey Cashore, Henry Champ, John Cruickshank, Bernard Derome,
Sarah Fulford, Melissa Fung, Edward Greenspon, Chantal Hébert, Ezra
Levant, Rafe Mair, Don Newman, Stephanie Nolen, Susan Ormiston,
Anna Maria Tremonti, Justice Robert J. Sharpe, Mark Steyn, Steve
Murphy, Graeme Smith, Ken Whyte and Tom Zytaruk.
Those
on the list represent virtually every aspect of journalism
and come from both the front lines and the head office. In some cases, they were explicitly or presumably nominated not for their journalistic
work but because of actions they
took or actions that had an impact upon them. John
Cruickshank is a good example of the former. His decisions at the CBC, on a column by Heather Mallick and on the coverage (or non-coverage) of the Mellissa Fung abduction,
pushed him into the media spotlight. In the second category is, of
course, Fung herself, whose abduction and safe release made headlines
(eventually) around the world. Similarly, Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the Western Standard
magazine, was the object of much coverage and many YouTube hits because of his unapologetic defence, before the Alberta Human Rights Commission, for republishing controversial cartoons.
We
discussed these nominations at length. Clearly we had not asked
J-Source readers to select people who made it into the news this year (Stephen Harper? Julie
Couillard?), but these particular nominations
were tricky because these people were journalists who had become news.
In the end, we decided to focus on finding, in the words of J-Source Editor-in-Chief Ivor Shapiro, "journalists whose exceptional work helped
Canadians better
understand their country or their world in 2008."
Even then, deciding on six finalists was far from easy, and J-Source readers
made the last, toughest choice. The poll is now closed. You can view
a map of the final results here.
Paul Benedetti
Interactive Editor, J-Source (Note: all reader comments on the contest have been compiled below)
|
Ken Whyte was an outstanding candidate who could perhaps have won this poll on merit. It's a shame his selection is tainted by the bilious antics of bloggers who so publicly and gleefully "freeped" the poll to "their side." Looking at the numbers, it's also a shame that relatively few Canadian journalists ever rouse themselves to get involved in journalism issues in general, and in this case make the small trouble to vote. But as they might say, we do get the media we deserve.
It's alarming that Chantal Hebert and Stephanie Nolan; two of the hardest working journalists in Canada, are so unrecognized...
Is it just me or do others not see the trend to fawn over right wing publications like MacCleans? the "revitalization" of the magazine will be debated for some time I hope.
Many thanks to the CJF and folks at J-Source for including me in such esteemed and deserving company. It is a real honour to be on this list, and I thanks all who saw fit to vote for me. Congrats to Ken, as well as Bernard, Chantal, Stephanie and Graeme. Best wishes for the New Year.
My choice is David Beers, not because of any talents as a journalist, but because of his careful efforts which have built The Tyee into a wide-ranging journal which covers topics of every kind. I find that the Comments forums which follow Tyee articles deliver as much or perhaps more information than the articles themselves. This is the direct result of Beer's careful monitoring (which is rarely appreciated) but which keeps commenters pretty much on-topic and civil - forestalling the repetitive and banal BS which spoils so many other fora.
If J-Source, like the Canadian Journalism Foundation, "exists solely to contribute to the achievement of excellence in Canadian journalism (and) better journalism means a better-informed citizenry and an improved democratic process," what does "Freeping" the J-Source newsperson of the year poll do to democracy?
I suggest it hijacks the spirit as well as the process of such a poll -- not just because of the process, but because of the partisan, semi-literate and adolescent savagery expressed by bloggers.
Journalism at its best strives, with all its might, not to be partisan. Which is why I think freep'in "Citizen Journalist" blogs trying to influence a poll to "their side" (ideology?) have no kinship with journalists.
I notice that many of Ken Whyte's fans are in the United States. If this poll is about "Canada's" news person of the year, shouldn't voters have to live in Canada?
Other comments have noted that David Beers admirers seem to be quite motivated. I think that says something; I'd far rather have three hundred passionate advocates than 900 indifferent surfers from places line Columbus, Ohio and Dallas, Texas.
Know what's really scary?
I can't tell if Wink is kidding or not.
Hey, credit where credit is due...I got the weekly Tyee email newsletter and was coming over to vote for my pal David and noticed that the poll included Ken. I voted for him and posted it on my little site. I then sent email to a few friends - Kathy, Kate, Mark, Nick, Ezra.
Ken Whyte has stood up to people who wanted to use the state to curb freedom of the press. By standing up he has protected the rights of every journalist and every publication in Canada to print what it believes to be the truth or a legitimate opinion.
Which, notwithstanding David's wonderful contributions to online journalism, should make him the news "person" of the year 2008.
Didn't we agree that right wing opinions would be filtered out?
If one of these candidates is a right winger, I need to know and then change my vote if necessary.
Isn't Chantal Hebert the right wing mole at the star? It doesn't matter, she is an amazing person. Very bright!
How is sending readers to an interesting site "sabotaging" the vote? As long as no one hacks the vote and it remains one computer one vote, then I fail to see what the problem is?
Since the intent of most online votes is to bring eyeballs to your site, having someone advise others of its presence seems like a boon to the web site owner not something to complain about.
It would be worthwhile to check your webstats. I'm sure you'll find an awful lot of traffic coming from http://thetyee.ca.
The Tyee is notorious for sabotaging online polls.
This poll will become meaningless if the results are driven from a single website and its readers.
<b>Kathy Sullivan</b>:
You're absolutely correct — if we allow The Tyee to swamp the votes so that David Beers becomes the shoe-in, the votes will be meaningless.
Oh wait. <i>That's</i> not what you're concerned about, is it?
Look, whatever anybody thinks, Obama won because he mobilized his base better than McCain mobilized his. Nothing "meaningless" about it. If the same thing happens here because SDA mobilizes its (surprisingly diverse!) base better than The Tyee mobilizes its base, then the people who are coming here from SDA, <i>regardless of who they vote for</i>, deserve to carry the day.
Don't like that? Perhaps you should start your own poll and only invite people whose political views you agree with to vote in it. Yeah, baby — <i>that's</i> Canadian diversity!
Garth Wood
<i>Kate McMillan is notorious for sabotaging online polls.</i>
Yes - telling people about an event really is synonymous with "sabotaging" it.
<i>This poll will become meaningless if the results are driven from a single website and it's</i>[sic] <i>readers.</i>
As opposed to the meaning invested in an on-line poll if only the people with whom you already agree chance upon it, I presume? On-line polls are never known for statistical reliability or full representation at the best of times, but I fail to see how hoping for a narrower base of participation will in any way "improve" the results, unless your real goal is to produce a pre-ordained outcome. That strikes me as sort of like announcing that Jack Layton was the clear winner of a poll taken among members of the "Jack and Olivia fan club" - sure, it's a data point, but what value does it have?
It would be worthwhile to check your webstats. I'm sure you'll find an awful lot of traffic coming from http://smalldeadanimals.com. Kate McMillan is notorious for sabotaging online polls.
This poll will become meaningless if the results are driven from a single website and it's readers.
Oooo! A "right wing blog".
That's Canadian for "blog with opinions that ordinary, normal people agree with, as opposed to embittered, 'disabled' NDP lesbians-of-convenience and their beta male comrades."
If lefty bloggers are too lazy/stupid/"principled" (these are actually synonyms, come to think of it...) to tell their readers how to vote, then their favourites deserve to lose.
Competition, ambition, success -- such difficult concepts for lefties to understand.
IMHO. "Freeping" is a derogatory term used by individuals that don't understand democratic process. You are actually insinuating that, for example Barack Obama guilty of "freeping" since he was involved in Acorn. If encouraging individuals to vote a certain way and getting them to the polls is freeping, then freeping is 100% democratic and 100% threat less.
Besides, Kate can tell me how to vote all she wants. She still can't MAKE me vote how I want.
This poll is no more being "freeped" by a "right-wing blog" than it is by a "left-wing online publication" (The Tyee, which is where people from SDA found out about the poll in the first place). "The Tyee" have been asking people to vote for David Beers.
If you have an objection to SDA getting mobilized, where's the appropriate outrage over The Tyee?
Grow up. One of these people will win -- oddly enough, probably the one that gets the most people motivated to vote for him/her. The online world's no different from meatspace -- when you want to fight City Hall, it turns out that the best way to do that is to tell all your friends and neighbours. Others will work against what you're doing. One group will win.
That's the way it is. And you could also give the "ideological labeling" a rest -- attempting to de-legitimate your opponents by labeling them is the lowest and most scurrilous form of public discourse. If you actually have a *real* objection to Ken Whyte ultimately winning, try stating it with, y'know, like, logic and rigorous argumentation.
Garth Wood
This poll is being freeped by a right wing blog called Small Dead Animals.
The blogger, Kate McMillan is telling her readers to vote for Ken Whyte.
Terrible to have to choose from such outstanding people!
Mr. Ken Whyte has the strength of conviction. He literally committed his money, reputation, and future to defend the most valuable of Western ideals: freedom, and all it entails. He had the stones to call a bluff, and in doing so, revealed Kanada's HRC's to be the cowardly bullies they are. Mr. Whyte makes me feel proud of my heritage, and my culture. De liberis loquor!
D.J. Drover
When anyone views the list provided, our society can certainly rejoice with the fact that our populace is being well served by journalists across our nation. For that we can all share with gratitude this bounty that comes with a free society.
Sincerely,
victor b. paquette