Welcome Home, Dawna Friesen!

Red River College welcomes Dawna Friesen, Global National anchor, on Tuesday, Oct. 26.

She’s the face of Canadian media. And she’ll be at Red River College tomorrow.
Rumour has it; Dawna actually asked Global National if she could stop in at her old school during her Winnipeg stop of the show’s national publicity tour.

She will be hosting a live broadcast of Global National later in the afternoon, but in the morning, she’ll be speaking to Red River College students about social media.
Those of you who know me or have read this blog, I’m sure, could guess how I feel about this. I’m super excited.

Dawna Friesen grew up in a small town in Manitoba, took CreComm, and then went on to work in Portage La Prairie, Thunder Bay, Saskatoon, and Brandon. After that, she worked nationally for CTV and CBC before becoming a NBC foreign correspondent. She held that position for the past 11 years and is now the Global National anchor and executive editor.

According to a press release from Canwest Corporation, Dawna has covered “everything from the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the British Royal Family. Assignments have taken her to Africa, Middle East, Russia and across Europe. Dawna was part of the Emmy® award-winning team covering Barack Obama's election and returned to Vancouver in February to report on the Winter Olympics.”

I cannot wait to ambush her tomorrow…err…congratulate her.

Passion in Journalism

This week, my blog is going to be about a segment of television from The View.

I don't really want to start talking about the content of what the discussion in the below clip is about (it sort of makes my blood boil, so I'd rather not). What I do think is relevant to this blog is the confrontation that takes place in this clip.

Take a look:



Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg get up during the interview with Bill O'Reilly and walk off stage, saying "I don't have to sit here for this." Basically, O'Reilly says, "Muslims killed us on 9/11," and the women are so offended by this, they leave the interview. They do return after O'Reilly has apologized for what he has said but, I still think this walk-off merits discussion.

Now, after the women leave the set, Barbara Walters (Queen of the Universe) says that her colleagues were wrong to leave because in today's society, people should be allowed to speak their minds and there should be an open forum for discussion, without people getting angry, violent, or storming off.

While I agree with Walters to an extent, I also see why the women walked off set (and trust me, Goldberg is my least fave of The View women, even over Hasselbeck).

I think sometimes, passion, when it comes to journalism, is necessary. I don't blame the women for walking off set to prove their point. The reason for that is this, sometimes, when you are dealing with someone who is quite set in their ways, discussion really will not change their minds. Additionally, I feel that as the interview went on, O'Reiley's comments only got more and more offensive, more ignorant, and more hurtful. It was only after the women left the set that he finally stepped back and apologized.

Now, don't get me wrong. I also see the benefits of letting an interview get more and more heated. Often, that is when the real juicy or truth of the matter comes out. Such as in this interview, O'Reilly's real feelings came out as a result of things getting heated.

But at the same time, sometimes, even as a journalist, I feel we need to take a stand. No matter how important an interview is, I do feel the journalist, if they feel offended, disrespected, or completely ignored, can get up and say, "I am done with this interview." Sometimes, integrity matters more than a good interview.

What do you think?

To J or not to J? That is the question.

An instructor in the Creative Communications program at Red River College, Kenton Larsen, posed a question about whether or not the program should become major-less on his blog.

Go here to read more, http://www.kentonlarsen.com/2010/10/whats-major-idea.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KentonsInfotainmentScan+%28Kenton%27s+Infotainment+Scan%29

Anyways, after reading his blog, I got to thinking...would I enjoy CreComm as much as I do if I could not have majored in journalism and had to take advertising, PR, and media production in my second year?

The truth is, I do value the other three subjects which make up CreComm and have learned so much from each of them. That being said, I am not good at advertising. Broadcast stresses me out because I am a techno-phone...and PR, while I appreciate the work, am not always motivated by it.

So my take on the whole thing is, it is important for CreComms to be well-rounded in all four of the major areas, but at the same time, it is essential we hone our greatest skills in the second year with our major.

I'd be more open to the idea of two majors, broadcast-j and ad-pr, but to eliminate the majors all together is not something I would be crazy about. I like the extra time I get in journalism, I like the work because it interests me, challenges me, and is where my passion lies.

I think CreComm's major system is good as it is.

Does gender count when it comes to votes?

This past weekend the Winnipeg Sun and the Winnipeg Free Press both wrote stories which said that if Winnipeg’s mayoral candidate Judy Wasylycia- Leis was a man, she would win the upcoming civic election.

Reading the article got me thinking. First of all, I found the articles poorly written with unsubstantiated facts. The authors and sources pretty much made the claim that Judy would win if she wasn’t a woman…but really, no one knows that for sure.

Secondly, I started to think, “Is it true? Is gender the main thing holding Judy back from being as successful as she could be?”

Don’t get me wrong, there are hundreds of successful women in the world who have not
let their gender come between them and their dreams.

Then again, to say that gender plays no role in how reputable a woman is in politics would be a mistake, in my opinion.

I feel like gender is the one minority status that doesn’t work in your favor in politics. For example, if I were to run for mayor, I’m sure the fact that I’m East-Indian would help me. Other East-Indians may vote for me just for that fact alone.

But I’m not sure people would vote for me just because I am a woman. More than
helping me, I think it may work against me.

To say people don’t have stereotypes against women in office is untrue, in my opinion.

Take a look at the Winnipeg Free Press’ articles about the issue.

I want to reiterate that I feel the articles are not well written, they are not backed up with real people, or statistics. But I do think the topic of gender in politics is a good and debatable one.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/gender-may-sink-judy-expert-104231469.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Prof-says-gender-working-against-Wasylycia-Leis.html

What do you think?