2010 Olympics Business News for the Vancouver and Whistler regions of British Columbia. Plus, Alberta, the rest of Canada, Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, Montana & California

OlyBLOG Features:


Human Rights Abuse 2010 Style

Boycott Beijing 2008? or Boycott Sponsors?

Journalists Bicker On Air - Video

Canadian Newspapers are Yesterday's News



Human Rights Vancouver 2010 Style

Do You Look The Other Way?

The primary difference between human right issues in Beijing and in Vancouver, is scale. Beijing displaced an estimated 1.5 million residents against their will in order to build Olympics infrastructure, while Vancouver is only displacing a few thousand poor and mentally ill people.

Unfortunately, the pain is the same.

While the IOC and Beijing panic over torch protests related to Tibet, the mentally ill and homeless in Vancouver continue to suffer and get pushed from their homes. When the torch protests erupted Vancouver quickly drew parallels that the same backlash could occur here. VANOC, their Olympics sponsors, and local politicians know that once the Beijing 2008 Games are over, the world will turn it's energy on the human rights abuses in Canada respective of the 2010 Olympics.

It is not lost on Olympics sponsors, that being attached to human rights protest harms their brand. It won't take long before average people connect the dots and call for a boycott of sponsors like Coca-Cola or Visa. I've always maintained that if you want to get to Olympics organizations, impact their revenue stream, and the best place to do it is their sponsors. Everyone looks the other way regarding human rights abuse until it impacts their companies directly.

Money talks. If you want to send a message to the IOC and Beijing, send it through Olympics sponsors like GM, Coke, HBC, RBC, or Rona. They have a vested interest and great monetary incentive to listen.

It's shameful how we treat the mentally ill and homeless in Vancouver while Olympics organizations and their partners continue to reap huge financial rewards.

It has to stop, and it has to stop today.

We all have to stop looking the other way.



Boycott Beijing 2008? - or Olympics Sponsors?

In early April 2008, 44% of Canadians thought a boycott of Beijing 2008 was a good idea, and the number is rising, not only in Canada, but around the world.

However, boycotting Beijing 2008 is not the most effective solution. Instead, I've promoted for years that putting pressure on Olympics sponsors would have greater impact and also provide Host regions like Vancouver more leverage.

The big question today is;

How long can Olympics sponsors and athletes look the other way?

The votes are in ... The Vancouver Sun newspaper and John Furlong, CEO VANOC, think boycotting the Beijing 2008 Olympics would be a bad idea, while those with a conscience think it would be an effective way to send a strong message to the IOC and China that mother earth's inhabitants won't tolerate human rights abuse in the name of sport.

It's not surprising that The Sun and Furlong feel this way considering that both have such huge financial gain at stake respective of smooth sailing for anything Olympics.

The Sun, which happens to be an official paid Olympics booster, in a classic case of juxtaposition, buried a small piece on page 19 (the second last page of section one - 03/20/08) supporting the argument that sane people should boycott 2008, but it will hardly have any impact considering that for two days The Sun ran stories on their front pages arguing that an Olympics boycott would hurt athletes. The following day they also ran a "Letter to the Editor" from a reader who painted China as a bully, and thought a boycott was a good idea. And a few days later they put a spin on a statistic from a poll they paid for by publishing in a blaring front page headline that 56% of Canadians oppose a boycott. By putting their biased twist on it The Sun fails to communicate that 44% of Canadians, and a growing number btw, think a boycott of some sort would be a good idea.

As I mentioned earlier, boycotting the Olympics directly isn't the best strategy, but The Sun apparently supports Olympics organizations over human rights. It boggles the mind to think that such a large newspaper could be so morally wrong, and it is especially disturbing that one of their best journalists, Miro Cernetig could fall into this trap and so easily toe the company line. He's a smart guy, and it's hard to fathom that he actually believes what he wrote, but like many people in Vancouver, since 2010 hit the streets, this city is very difficult to afford, and well paying jobs are hard to find.

A direct boycott of Beijing 2008 is not be the ideal way to send a message to China, and it might have a short term negative impact on the revenue of 2010 organizations and for their partners like The Sun, but unless The Sun can come up with a better solution a boycott is a good way to get the message across effectively. We think making Olympic sponsors accountable is a better solution, but not a peep was heard regarding this solution from anyone at The Sun.

So Miro ... if you have a better solution please share it.

I don't mind that you criticize a boycott, but at least in the name of ethical journalism if you're going to so quickly dismiss a viable solution you could at least offer a way to fix this problem and an Olympics business model that is seriously flawed.

Are you suggesting that we do nothing and simply look the other way?

Should we also continue to ignore the human rights issue of Vancouver's mentally ill and homeless, and what do you think about the slaughters being committed in Darfur that China sanctions? Actor and activist Mia Farrow and a growing list of others refer to Beijing 2008 as the "Genocide Olympics," but so far The Sun hasn't picked up on this tragedy either, at least not in a way that gives the story context or merit.

Maybe your solution Miro is to continue to talk about it
until the Olympics pass and the issues become moot.


While I'm on the topic of ethical journalism, in the future, when The Sun publishes anything even remotely Olympics related, can you please also print a notice at the beginning of each article stating that The Sun is paid by the IOC to boost the Olympics. Your readers should be aware of your economic affiliation. Anything less is unethical.


If there was ever a time to fix some of the problems civic leaders have ignored for so long it is now while the spotlight of the Olympics is on us and our communities have some leverage. I wrote a book about the process called Leverage Olympic Momentum. You should read it.

Unbelievably, Olympics organizations once more feel no shame in trotting out and putting athletes on the front line when they need someone to justify their corporate greed.

Ironically, Olympics organizations use athletes as pawns regularly, but if a community endeavors to manage a similar strategy local mainstream news media and Olympics organizations shoot it down and try to convince us that Olympic athletes are more important than oppressed Tibetans or mentally ill homeless people in Vancouver. It's clearly a double standard that has gone on for way too long.

To add insult to injury, The Sun also states that Olympics corporate sponsors would be hard pressed to scuttle multimillion dollar investments over something apparently as trivial as human rights abuse.

You want us to look the other way.

I'm betting that athletes and corporate Olympics sponsors like RBC, HBC, and Visa will eventually change their tune when the world revolts against them through social networking sites like Facebook and independent blogs like this or through publications like The Tyee and Epoch Times.

Is it any wonder that the IOC wants to keep athletes from blogging?

Boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics will be the least of an athlete's worries after they realize that consumers will refuse to buy products endorsed by Olympics gold medallists and all the other products sold by multinationals who choose to look the other way. You can pay us now or you can pay us later, but you will pay. I'm not sure who coined this phrase, but I have a message for Olympics athletes and sponsors; Never let your short term greed get in the way of your long term greed.

I'm disappointed that Olympics athletes have not spoken out strenuously in support of human rights issues in Beijing, Tibet, and Darfur, and also in Vancouver regarding the homeless situation in our Downtown Eastside.

What are you thinking? Does the IOC have you so intimidated you've lost your moral compass, or is it just plain greed that causes you to look the other way? Please tell me it isn't greed.

Chinese leaders oppress Tibetans, they poison our pets, poison our children, cause overwhelming pollution and global warming, execute tens of thousands of their citizens every year, and muzzle news media, but still VANOC and their partners like The Vancouver Sun feel it is OK to look the other way. Not only do they feel this way, they endeavor to convince the rest of the sane planet to think in terms of greed like they think.

I wrote a couple of weeks ago that the greatest value to Chinese leaders for hosting the 2008 Olympics is to convince their citizens that they are a fair and stand up nation.

Contrary to what most people think, China is not hosting the Olympics primarily to convince the rest of the world how civil they are, because most Westerners already know their communist regime is barbaric.

Chinese civic leaders want to use the Olympics to fool their own citizens into thinking that they are changing, and that they take human rights seriously. The truth unfortunately is that China has refused to follow through with the promises they made to the IOC regarding human rights issues, while the IOC and their partners like VANOC and The Sun all choose to look the other way. The 2008 Olympics haven't even begun and already China is cheating, and the IOC is allowing them this license.

I'm all for leveraging Olympic momentum and using the Games to propel our city and country forward in the name of sport, but this is way to much too ask of any rational moral person.

You can line up behind The Vancouver Sun and VANOC ...

... or over here behind Stephen Splieberg, Mia Farrow, me, and
the rest of our planet who refuse to sell out humanity.

Choose your side wisely though because the world is watching.



______________________
___________________

Here's an interesting video of a reporter and "live" news show host arguing on air about how to conduct an interview. Even though this was recorded in the '80s, Vancouver news companies could take a few pointers today. Thanks to Peter Shankman for turning me on to this video.

http://view.break.com/467869 - Watch more free videos




Canadian Newspapers are Yesterday's News

Beers VS. LaPointe - Debate March 5, 2008

"Real journalism consists of
what someone doesn't want published,
all the rest is public relations." George Orwell

Langara College hosted a Beers vs. LaPointe debate that had the potential to stir up some serious news media muck, but it never really dug deep enough to raise even the blood pressure of any of the sixty-five or so people in attendance, except maybe for one older lady sitting behind me who might have been a relative of LaPointe, possibly his mother. When Lapointe started looking a bit anemic towards the end of the debate she cackled aloud in no uncertain terms that she thought he was good looking. It was a good save, because up until that point, an affable Beers had easily scooped LaPointe on most of the big laughs.

David Beers, is editor-in-chief of TheTyee.ca, an indie online magazine,
and Kirk LaPointe, is managing editor of The Vancouver Sun newspaper.

Beers put forth many good arguments, one being that newspaper companies kill millions of trees, but overall, when it came to hard issues like newspapers losing trust of their readership, well … juicy tidbits like that were not even broached.

It also became apparent that neither really knew where young people get their news, and neither cared, mainly because youth are not part of their target market. Jon Stewart wasn't mentioned once the whole evening, and neither were Rick Mercer, Seth Meyers, Amy Poehler and the entire SNL cast and crew, The Colbert Report, plus David Letterman, Bono, Geldof, and literally millions of bloggers, and let's not forget Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. All these people count whether you like them or not, and they all compete with newspapers, television and radio, and they represent just the tip of the iceberg.

Beers and LaPointe both woo the 50ish-and-up crowd - the faux rich sitting on huge sums of retirement capital, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they aren't aware of emerging trends respective of youth.

I am surprised however that some of the Langara journalism students didn't jump up during the question period to educate the panel regarding where young minds get their news, but once I heard the students' questions it was obvious they were influenced by curriculums designed to funnel them into the traditional newspaper business.

It should also be noted that The Sun co-sponsored this event.

... in the interest of full disclosure - I'm not a big fan of the CanWest group, and if you are a regular OlyBLOG.com reader you know that I blog about them occasionally. Sometimes more occasionally than I'd like. I have also critiqued their actions in my book, Leverage Olympic Momentum. This debate was the first time I've seen either man in person, although I do comment on The Tyee respective of the 2010 Olympics, and have been slapped on the wrist by Beers' editor for taking a personal, but a well-deserved shot at one of his writers, who ironically, also happened to work for one of the CanWest companies. As Stump said, I show no favorites.

LaPointe on the other hand, and no matter what I send to him directly or via "Letters to the Editor," ignores me. He must be scared that if he even acknowledges me it will be the beginning of the end, but that could just be my ego nattering away. I know it's not because the information I send him is incorrect, because almost every single one of the predictions I made in my book and this blog is spot on, including the BC Place roof, and that The Vancouver Sun would eventually become a paid Olympics booster. I made that call way back in 2005 and it came to fruition in mid 2007. It's no wonder he ignores me. I'd be pissed too.

Business relationships bewteen Olympics organizations and mainstream news media are often hurtful to a Host community.

Here's one reason why . . .

News media companies managing Olympics business relationships are privy to vital information before groups that have stronger civic commitment, and this uneven distribution of information gives unfair advantage to business groups whose intentions are driven by profit, even when it harms the region.

Keep in mind that the IOC and VANOC thrive on secrecy.

LaPointe spent an inordinate amount of time assuring us that his newspaper has a strong advertising base, and strenuously maintained that this is why his newspaper would survive. (He must have thought the room was full of potential advertisers - maybe it was.) To him, advertising revenue demonstrates power and brute force, but to the informed it indicates that news companies have sold their loyalty and flipped to an advertorial bias, as opposed to responsibly managing an investigative news ethic.

You can't do both, at least not well, although news media think they can.

Don't you give CTV or CBC a mulligan every time you see or hear them addressing anything Olympics? They are official Olympics television sponsors, so of course they are biased, although I have to admit that sometimes the CBC takes a shot at Olympics organizations that truly delights and surprises me. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for other news media Olympics partners. The CBC and CTV have good reason to be biased and we accept it - they're being paid huge sums of money to boost the Games, but at least they are upfront about it and have the 5 rings all over their brand. For this negotiated privilege they generate incredible revenue and have a legal obligation to make it work from an IOC perspective. For the most part it's noble, and at the very least it's good business. The Sun on the other hand does not place Olympics rings to brand their publication, but they are also well paid by Olympics organizations. It's misleading.

Besides, who didn't dream of being an Olympics athlete when they were a kid? The Olympics are not all bad, but about twenty years ago the IOC ball sliced into the woods and they're still looking for it.

According to LaPointe, news is not about the news as much as it is about tapping the wealth of apathetic old guys who could care less whether the world goes to hell in a hand basket as long as they receive their dividends. Tell them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. LaPointe places more import on following the money than he does on adhering to journalistic integrity. At least I'm assuming he does because he talked repeatedly about advertising revenue, and only brushed vaguely on, and in the most esoteric way, ethics.

Is he wrong to want to save his bacon and the newspaper business? No. But is his modus operandi ethical, and more importantly … can his version of a modified business model still be called a NEWSpaper? We'll see.

Even he referred to The Sun as a small town newspaper, which to me conjures up visions of a local community advertorial/tabloid. Considering the weight they pull in Vancouver respective of the auto and real estate industries, I think it's time they grew up and started acting more like a newspaper befitting a city struggling to go global. They need a shot of Globe and Mail to get them up to world class, or at least national speed.

I was hoping Beers would point out more clearly that the level of intellectual sophistication of the newspaper reader is being steadily depleted at each fracture of the news market, and that the internet is cherry picking the bright and intelligent viewer, but for some reason he didn't, which surprises me because his online publication, The Tyee, has some very good writers, plus highly informed readers who contribute valuable perspective in the comment sections. In fact the comments at the end of every article are sometimes more informative than the article. Tyee writers know when to pull back and act primarily as a catalyst to get the ball rolling, and that is where the real value to the community lies. The Tyee gives people a platform and a voice to compare notes and make intelligent choices, while a newspaper simply tells you what they think.

The Vancouver Sun has been struggling since mid 2007 to get people to comment on their blogs, but to little avail. I wrote a few comments there months ago respective of the 2010 Olympics, but they never posted them - probably because I wrote in the tone I'm using here, but I'll never know why because no one from The Sun responded to tell me why my perspective was censored. The Tyee doesn't edit unless it is for reasons of libel or because a poster is attacking a writer instead of the issue, and when they do, they don't edit the entire post, just the offending word or phrase, and occasionally the paragraph ... and most importantly, they tell you they're doing it, because for the most part your post stays intact

It's a ghost town at The Sun compared to The Tyee.

At The Tyee, almost every article attracts contributions from a variety of people, including well-studied intellectuals, many of whom are ironically, professional media writers that post anonymously because their mainstream news media bosses won't allow them a unique voice. Pro writers who have something to say beyond the bounds of the corporate comfort zone are forced to skulk cloaked in anonymity.

The Tyee has grown to become the unofficial gathering place for writers' writers, while the Sun's blogs flounder in oblivion. It's no wonder that CanWest, The Sun's parent company, launched a frivolous lawsuit against The Tyee and one of its writers, Rafe Mair.

The Tyee apologized profusely. Let it go.

Look what happened when the music industry started suing their customers. Customers rebelled and drove the industry to its knees. Will corporate executives ever learn?

Libel chill is an efficient way to smother a burgeoning online publication that is doing what traditional journalists now only dream - to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not the half truth, but it does nothing for mainstream news media's image except to prove that we are right.


During the debate LaPointe made a major blunder when
he boasted that he built his first website in 1996.

1996? What took him so long?

By that time I had already designed and developed hundreds of websites and online strategies for companies around the world. LaPointe's admission of being late to the table reminded me that the newspaper industry, for way too many years, tried in vain to derail the internet until they could figure out how to control and monetize it. Instead of being progressive and contributing to the health of our community, and the news industry in general, news tycoons lurked in the shadows and undermined the internet in a chaotic fit of desperation.

LaPointe made another blunder when he boasted about being the last man standing in the battle to win industry market share, but he quickly recovered to include women in the equation. Ah, the good old boys club.

LaPointe eventually flat lined among the informed when he tried in vain to convince the room that there is no collusion between news properties owned by his parent CanWest Global. He can spout whatever rhetoric he wants, but when I watched Global news two hours after the debate, which is also owned by CanWest, the front page of LaPointe's newspaper, The Sun, was featured showing TV viewers what they would read in the company rag the next morning. Yikes. It might not be collusion in the strictest sense of the word Captain K, but it's a second cousin, and if you're not careful your kids will look like Charles and act like Bubba.

I did not have sex with that woman.

Yea sure Bill. But you still came in her mouth.

Whether news executives swallow is hard to prove, but informed people don't believe for a second that when the Aspers of CanWest want a hem tailored with specific drape that their wishes do not permeate and are not felt by all the subsidiaries under their leadership.

Conrad Black used to own The Vancouver Sun. Lord Black set the tone and left a legacy at all the media properties he owned, and it's no secret that he cracked the whip and ran his own unique brand of dog and pony show. He's now in prison convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice.

Compromised ethics is one of the most common complaints from professional journalists around the world. They grumble constantly about being forced to toe the company line, which all too often subverts the truth and goes against everything they learned in journalism school, although lately I've heard that many colleges no longer delve too deeply into the concept of ethics. I can only assume it is because many schools have curriculums sponsored by mainstream news companies, and as we all know, advertising and ethics make for uncomfortable news bedfellows.

When an organization like the Olympics makes a deal to buy the loyalty of a newspaper, like they did with The Vancouver Sun, the deal impacts all news organizations under the family umbrella. All for one and one for all.

Beers reminded the room that the internet is a two way street that promotes inclusiveness through commentary from viewers, as opposed to newspapers, a one-way medium that preaches instead of teaches. I was also hoping Beers would tell the crowd that today, people search for news in a new and completely different way than they did last year, and the year before that too, but he didn't, at least not in enough depth.

Today, if you choose, the news comes to you instantaneously.

Sometimes as it is happening.

Newsletters and automatic feeds are very powerful news mediums. When important news lands on my desktop or cell phone, I don't view only one source. In ten minutes I quickly scan Google and my other sources to see what everyone is saying, and then I put my brain in gear to decide what is accurate. I don't trust anyone, but I listen to what they're saying.

The days of a single news source are over. Who cares what one biased news media company reports about the Olympics? I want to know what people half way around the world who have already experienced it first hand think too. Only then will I make up my mind about what is right for me, or my community.

Moderators and hosts from Langara also dropped the ball when they ran an impromptu vote asking those in attendance whether they thought Canadian newspapers are yesterday's news. The question was designed to inflame instead of inform and it offered nothing of real value.

The bottom line is that newspapers will always be around because as LaPointe said, I need something to read on Sunday with my coffee; warm fuzzy, nostaligic , four sugars and lots of cream - not really, I hate fuzzy nostaglia. It makes me sneeze. And also ... unfortunately, thanks to obscene real estate prices artificially inflated as a result of condo fever driven by Olympics hype in local newspapers, the homeless need a mattress, but will newspapers continue to be a valued tool to dispense vital news seven days a week?

Sorry, but no. For starters, I refuse to pay the carbon tax.

Plus, and this is important, ... civic leaders, politicians, and business executives, the people who make the decisions about your lives, have breaking news fed to them via Blackberry, and the last place they check, if at all, is a newspaper. And when they do, it is only to see if they made the front page and how they've been misquoted. Irony perhaps, but the reasons have changed ... hence it's classed as evolution.

The media training industry is full of disallusioned and disgruntled ex-media pros who now teach politicians and executives to manage mainstream news media at an Ivy League level. It's an art. A skill that can be learned, and these students, at places like Harvard Law School, where Canadians participate and even lead in a meanignful way, these MBA students take what they've learned and use the knowledge to run companys and countries.

This elite, educated, and well-informed group often consider mainstream news journalists adversaries, not so much any more because they have something to hide, but because news companies too often spin the truth to suite their political or advertising agenda. It is the reason all smart people in the public eye videotape their mainstream news interviews, and when necessary, post their version online to set the record straight. Everyone, including LaPointe knows that business and politics in the modern world shifted long ago from advertising to promotion. And as you know, promotion from a news company that is supposed to be non partisan is called propaganda.

News companies are not trusted. Period. Offline or on.

PEW Research has consistently documented through extensive polling that the majority of people feel news reporting is inaccurate.

In 1985 only 34% of North Americans polled (who have good internet experience as users and practioners) felt this way, but in 1999 it shot up to 58% and hovered at 56% except for a short blip in 2001 when Bush colluded with and bullied media into selling his war and it dropped to 45%, but it shot right back up throughout 2002 and 2005 to 56%, and in 2007 it dipped back a bit to 53%.


Percentage of people who feel news reporting is inaccurate:

1985 - 34%
1999 - 58%
2001 - 45% - a scared America under attack
2002 - 56%
2007 - 53%


Why the dip in 2007? It's only speculation, but many believe that bloggers put so much pressure on mainstream news media that they have no choice but to start reporting in a more non partisan manner.

What if your car operated at only 47% efficiency, or the pilot of a jumbo jet only performed at a 47% level?

According to the same PEW poll only 46% of people feel news organizations are moral, only 44% feel they protect democracy, and a whopping 55% feel news organizations are politically biased, but wait for it ... 66% still feel news organizations are highly professional. My how they have you fooled. They sell you a scooter, but you think it's a Harley.

Why does news media think it is OK to perform at such low rates?


Here's how informed people who are vital to the community monitor the news in 2008;

1st - Internet - It's always on and ready to come to you via PDA, print, video, and two-way commentary 365 days a year.

2nd - Phone or Face to Face - Yes, I know, no one ever thinks of the phone, but what's the first thing you do when something catastrophic happens? You call or text someone, pop into the next cubicle, or parade to the water cooler.

3rd - Music Radio - News is an easy, short & sweet teaser interspersed between music, but when was the last time you sat in your parked car after arriving at your destination and listened to a news report? A good tune will very occasionally hold me behind the wheel for maybe 8 more bars, but news? If it's that important I want to go online first and skim Reuters, Associated Press, etc. If you do this first it will help you see the bias of your local news media company, because more and more lately local news companies use international news agencies as their primary source of information.

4th - Local News TV - It's full-on action, but only about 1mm deep and on their timetable, not yours. The exceptions are news feature shows like W5 or The 5th Estate, 20/20, Dan Rather Online and many more?

5th - Podcasts - upload and listen on the commute to or from work.

6th - Newspapers - old news printed a day late on dead trees.

7rd - Talk Radio - you might think this is news, but it's not. - much of it is propaganda, although there are exceptions, and a growing number of them too, especially Web2.0 stuff like PublicEyeOnline.com


8th - Now I've listed this last, but it's not really in last place ...

News magazines must be what LaPointe refers to when he talks about curling up with comfortable tactile reading material and a coffee. It's bucolic, and vintage, but The Sun doesn't even publish on Sunday so why don't you take advantage of the interlude and grab a news magazine that really goes into serious depth, and in most of the cases does a great job of reporting both sides of the story. BC Business Magazine ran a March feature on Bob Rennie, real estate marketing overlord. The Tyee's Monte Paulson did the interview. Brilliant work that left open readers' interpretation of the condo King. If you like Rennie, the piece will reinforce what you thought, but if you've had a sneaking suspicion about him you couldn't put your finger on, it will confirm everything you thought, and probably teach you a few new things too.


The valid question, and the one Langara should have posed is:


Can newspapers survive as trusted daily disseminators of vital news?

The clear answer is no.

It is no longer in their hands.

Newspapers are not relevant to people who
choose to be informed in a balanced manner.

Once you lose trust, you lose everything,
and newspapers lost trust of the informed long ago.



Talk to us before you talk to them ...
LeverageOlympicMomentum.com - the book







Have a comment?

»»CLICK HERE««