News

Unlike the traditional branches of the media, the Web offers a tremendous forum for real dialogue between readers and the journalists who gather, edit and distribute news and commentary.

We at globeandmail.com are strongly committed to the widest possible conversations with our readers through live discussions, "comment on this article", blogs and other features.

We've greatly expanded all of these over the past few months — not without a few bumps along the way.

While many of you have taken the time to tell us that you like these new formats for two-way dialogue, others have questioned the policies associated with them or made suggestions for alternative approaches.

We'd like to continue that dialogue right now with globeandmail.com editor Angus Frame and executive editor Jim Sheppard, who are on-line to take your questions.

Angus Frame has been with The Globe and Mail since 1996 in various capacities in the news and Report on Business sections. He moved to globeandmail.com in 2000 as Deputy Editor in charge of business coverage and became the site's editor on Sept.10, 2001.

He has an honours BA in Political Science from McMaster University and a Journalism degree from Ryerson University. He lives in Toronto's High Park neighbourhood with his wife, daughter and dog.

Jim Sheppard joined globeandmail.com four months ago after spending the past 10 years helping to launch, then develop washingtonpost.com and ABCNews.com Prior to that, he was a foreign correspondent for The Canadian Press, based in Moscow
and London.

Sheppard is also a Ryerson graduate who worked for The London Free Press, Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, and the late Ottawa Journal before spending 16 years with CP.

Editor's Note: Even in this discussion, globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

However, since we get a fair number of questions about this policy — and its implementation — you can rest assured that one of the things we'll try to do is explain this in more detail.

Michael Snider, globeandmail.com: With us today are Angus Frame, editor of globeandmail.com and his number two, Jim Sheppard, executive editor. We have them corralled for an hour, so now's the time to hit them with whatever complaint, question or comment you might have about how the website handles comments and the introduction of live discussions, blogs and other features designed to encourage and facilitate two-way dialogue between reader (that's you) and big media monolith (that's us).

Before we jump into questions from readers, let me throw something out to both Angus and Jim: What on earth compelled you to think that letting readers speak out, and actually publish what they have to say, would be a good thing?

Angus Frame, Editor: I sense a wee bit of sarcasm in Mike's question so he may be disappointed that I deliver a somewhat straight-faced serious and even "worthy" answer. Globe readers are a diverse and interesting group. They know a lot. They have a lot to say. Their words and insights make the website a more interesting and dynamic place. So we opened the floodgates and asked 'em to talk ... talk to us ... talk to each other. I admit there are moments, as I wade through some of the more partisan debates, that I question the wisdom of the move but I still firmly believe it was the right thing to do. Interestingly, it was only after we opened to door to comments that people began telling me I was censoring them by not posting 100% of their insights to the site instantly. Sigh.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor: Thanks, Mike. It's always nice to be a sitting target. I've always believed — even as far back as 1995 when my friends asked me why I was "abandoning journalism" to go work on the Web — that one of the keys to success on-line for any major media brand is two-way communication with readers. In the early days, that was just a cut-and-paste e-mail exchanges. Now, of course, it's "community journalism," blogs, comments, discussions and more. I think both sides benefit from this kind of interactivity. Readers get to pose questions to journalists and experts to get the information and analysis that they seek, rather than have us dictate to them what they get. It's also instructive to see how many Globe journalists, such as Doug Saunders, have said after one of our live discussions that they use reader feedback to inform themselves and to guide their reporting.

Asif Hossain from Toronto writes: Recent editorial comments from The Globe show that this paper has taken a decidedly pro-Israel slant as of late. One article commended the Stephen Harper government for backtracking on its aid to the Palestinian people. Considering that cutting such aid is going to lead to greater poverty and terrorism, this would not be a wise move. Another claimed that 'seeing no options, Israel is forced to go it alone.' This article seemed more the work of lobbyists than anything of journalistic value. To uphold Israel as an exemplary partner in the 'road map' is cynical at best. Will the editorial board bring more balance into their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Angus Frame, Editor: A delicate issue, and you will have to pardon my obvious side-stepping and question ducking. This is something worth discussing but the ideal guest would be Marcus Gee, the editor of The Globe's Editorial Board. Fans of these discussions will remember Marcus from a raucous discussion about The Globe's decision to run an editorial endorsing Stephen Harper during the final day of the last election campaign. Maybe it's time to bring Marcus back for an encore presentation.

R. Carriere from Canada writes: I thoroughly enjoy the freedom of the story blogs. There are articulate, intelligent dialogue along with opinions from the left and the right which always me greater understanding. Regarding discussions, I feel improvement could transpire is either lengthening the sessions, or allow the featured person to answer more questions in advance to allow a more thorough exploration of the subject matter. Often, it appears that we are just getting into the crux of the discussion, and, as the saying goes, 'we are out of time.' Any way to improve here?

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor: Well, first of all, I'm very glad that Mr. Carriere and so many other readers who have taken the time to e-mail us their views like the discussion format. We'll be happy to look at these suggestions for expanding these discussions. I'd point out, though, that the biggest reason they are usually limited to one hour "live" — although we leave the transcript up much longer so that more people can read it — is that the Globe journalist, columnist or outside expert is taking this time out of his/her normal business day to exchange views with globeandmail.com readers. Not many of them are willing to commit to more than one hour. But there are certain topics where we could make this request in advance. And, I like the idea of allowing the guest to answer more questions in advance of the "live" hour. But again that's always going to be the decision of the individual guest.

Michael Snider, globeandmail.com I'd also like to add, Mr. Carriere, it can be strenuous work for the guests. Typing madly for an hour straight, though not the same as running a marathon, has its physical challenges. When I got off the phone with yesterday's child care debate guests, they both expressed how intense the experience was.

Hal Slimchuk from Toronto writes: My question concerns the standards the G&M uses in regard to readers' comments. There is a line somewhere between allowing raw comment that provokes healthy dialogue and views that must be censored. On this theme, political correctness both protects those who are less capable of defending themselves but often also strangles discussion about delicate subjects that should be brought into the open. Deciding which readers' comments will be reproduced on the site must be very difficult. What standards do you use to decide?

Angus Frame, Editor: Our standards are fairly clear, I'll do a quick cut and paste from the site so the official word is repeated and then offer some additional thoughts. Ok, cutting and pasting now... Editor's Note: Globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject, in its entirety, the appearance on this website of each comment. Allowed comments are not the opinion of The Globe and Mail, but only of the comment-writer. Spelling and grammar errors will not be corrected. HTML is not allowed. Comments that we will not allow include the following: comments that include personal attacks on Globe journalists or other participants in these forums; comments that make obviously false or unsubstantiated allegations; comments that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact is not publicly known; or comments that include vulgar language or libelous statements.

And the additional thoughts, sometimes there is a great comment that goes off the rails in the final sentence by veering into curse words or attacking a person or a group of people in an inappropriate way. These comments get dropped though if we had more resources we would simply cut out the offending words and leave the rest of the remark. We also tend not to include comments that link to websites we are not familiar with — we do not have the time to check the links ourselves and we do not want to risk linking without knowledge. And sometimes a comment gets dropped because it repeats something we have already heard dozens of times from previous commenters. So for all the people who read Terry Weber's story about kids failing to leave their parent's home, I apologise for not approving the umpteenth comment that said "Tell the parents to stop cooking with cheese"

Mark Smith from Canada writes: I've noticed several times that posts do not always appear in chronological order: sometimes one or a series of posts made earlier appear after one or a series of posts made later. Why is that? I've speculated that it might be due to different editorial shifts with different biases. Also, the ability to post comments with separate paragraphs would be nice. And finally, because I think foreign attempts to influence our views is highly likely (in fact, I'd say we see it daily), it might be a good idea to have comments posted from IP addresses outside of Canada automatically flagged as such so that readers know when a comment is posted by someone located outside Canada. In fact, perhaps the IP address should even be posted with the comment when it's an IP from outside Canada.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor: Thanks for the question about chronological order, Mark. I'm going to give away one of our "secrets" here. We don't have one person who reads, then approves or rejects, all comments at any point in the day. Rather, that responsibility is divided up among all the editors and reporters at globeandmail.com I firmly reject the idea that any of our journalists are biased. In fact, we strive diligently to ensure fairness in everything we do. But news judgment is a very subjective thing and reasonable differences may exist among reasonable journalists, just as they do among reasonable readers. As well, different editors have different work methods. Some work in chronological order. Some work in reverse chronological order. Some would decide one post one way on the basis of violating our guidelines. Some would decide the other way. Sometimes, we debate the right approach when there's no quick and easy answer.

As for the issue of foreign postings, I'm not sure there's any subterfuge here. Readers outside Canada usually identify themselves as such when they give their names and their home towns. They can, of course, use pseudonyms and not give their real data. That's a broader question that I'm happy to tackle separately. I'm curious, though: Why do you think there are "foreign attempts to influence our views?" Why would anyone do that? And what do you think they are hoping to achieve?

Charles Hoppe from Weymouth, Nova Scotia writes: Since my retirement I have become somewhat of a 'Political Junkie'. As I know how to use all my fingers to type and have a pretty fast connection to the net I have frequently posted on this site. It is a great opportunity to exercise my mind and make a contribution, be it ever so small. It appears to me that this opportunity to post could be improved in two ways. First I believe that the level of discourse would be elevated if posts under pseudonyms were not accepted. Second it would be nice if, when editors reject a post an email was sent with the reason why the post was rejected. Here is my question: Will you ever accept these two suggestions? And if not why not?

Angus Frame, Editor: Hi Charles (I assume that is your real name and that you truly live in Weymouth, Nova Scotia...). I am pleased you enjoy the comment discussions and you have hit on a couple points we have been wrestling with since the feature was introduced in the fall. Our evening editor, Jack Bell, firmly believes that people need permission to post from behind a false name (Pragmatic Pundit and Putdown Pete and Stude Ham spring to mind) in order to keep the door open to all comers. Jack worries that forcing people to identify themselves may scare some people off. Jim (and correct me if I am wrong) would rather allow only properly identified posters get onto the site. I am torn but do not plan any quick changes to the current policy, which gives preference to the named commenters but doesn't automatically disqualify the folks behind the curtain of a false name. I exchanged e-mails earlier this week with A. Fraser, one of the more enthusiastic posters, and he said he didn't feel comfortable using his proper name and address because he didn't really want to reveal that much information about himself to the large globeandmail.com audience.

As for explaining why comments are rejected, I agree it would be nice to always let readers know why we make certain decisions but unfortunately we do not have the resources to do this as the volume of comments is very high. I have sent dozens of notes explaining to posters why a comment has been rejected but I have also rejected a number of comments and not followed up simply because I did not have the time.

Jim Sheppard: I'm also torn, Angus, but in a slightly different way. I want the fullest possible expression of opinion on globeandmail.com and, when I'm personally reading the proposed comments, try to approach it in that light. If someone using a pseudonym makes a reasonable comment, I'll always post it. But I'm much harsher on people using pseudonyms when they launch personal criticism or attacks on other commentators or guests. In my view, that's a bit cowardly. And, frankly, while I'm sure there are people like A. Fraser who use pseudonyms for arguably valid reasons, there are others who are regulars on our website who are hiding behind them to launch partisan or personal attacks they are clearly afraid to make in their own name.

Charles: On your other point about sending a note to readers explaining why their comments are not posted, I think that's a good idea. I'm truly not certain whether that's even technically possible. But, where a comment is rejected, I think in principle that an explanation is owed. Let me reveal one other "secret" however. For technical reasons, we sometimes can see all submitted comments. So some are not posted for that reason, rather than because they are "rejected" per se. Also, when a Globe or other article is replaced by breaking news, it isn't always possible for our limited number of editors to go back searching for old articles where comments may have been submitted but not read, let alone posted or rejected.

John Rosette from Ontario writes: I like your discussions with Globe journalists and experts. Will we see more of them? How do you select the questions that they will answer?

Jim Sheppard: Thanks, John. Yes, globeandmail.com is fully committed to expanding all kinds of dialogue with our readers and live discussions is one of the ways we want to do that. We hope to strike three themes over the next few weeks and months. First, we want to be fast on our feet and hold discussions on the day's news events where appropriate and where possible. For example, today, we whipped up fairly quickly a discussion with business columnist Derek DeCloet on why the Tim Hortons IPO was such a stunning success on its first day. You can read the transcript here . I think this kind of approach helps readers understand fast-breaking news. Based on the traffic numbers already available, it was wildly popular. It also gives our journalists a chance to analyze events in real time rather than wait for tomorrow's newspaper. Second, we want to provide deeper insight into ongoing issues of interest to our readers. We had two great examples yesterday — a discussion with two child-care advocates on opposite sides of the national debate and Campbell Clark's review of the current state of the Liberal leadership race. .

J. Barnard from Toronto writes: Hi Angus, Jim. There's a lot of buzz lately about the impending demise of the traditional media — especially newspapers — in the face of alternate forms such as blogs, etc. I'm wondering if you agree that newspapers are at a critical point. I'm also curious to know whether you have any data indicating that forums like this one, which seem to be a way of allowing readers to become part of the community, are preaching to anyone other than the choir. That is, do you feel these on-line forums are keeping readers who might otherwise turn elsewhere, and are these forums gaining you readership (or involvement) from people who wouldn't typically read The Globe? I'm also curious about Jim's (I think) statement about using these forums to influence content, 'rather than have us dictate to users what they get.' Isn't part of the problem that readers/users are heading to sources that provide the messages they want to hear, rather than objective reporting? Thanks!

Angus Frame, Editor: Phew, that sounds more like a weekend conference rather than a question to answer in a one-hour on-line chat, but here goes nothing.

The rise of the Internet and other forms of electronic media is certainly altering the way traditional news organizations operate. Newspaper companies are evolving into news organizations that distribute information through multiple channels so that the readers (audience? users? what should we call you folks?) can get what they want, when they want it and how they want it.

I find it exciting, which may explain my current job choice.

So are newspapers at a critical point? Absolutely. It's time to evolve and serve the information needs of a changing and demanding audience or to perish. This doesn't mean newspapers will disappear, it just means they will change. And I like to think The Globe is changing — this on-line discussion (and the even better on Derek DeCloet did on the Tim Horton's IPO at noon) is an example of an old-media company working to tell stories in a new-media way.

The final part of your question uses the word "problem" as thought having people get information from primary sources should trouble us. It doesn't bother me at all. In fact we often link to primary sources (anyone out there want to read the full Gomery report?) so that readers who want the raw goods can get it. Others rely on us to do wade through the reports and provide the context and analysis, which is what we do. In the end it all leads to a better-informed society, which is a good thing. I do not believe people will turn their backs on journalists in favour of a mountain of untamed data.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor: Wow! That's a good question — or maybe there are a dozen good questions there. Let's start at the top. I've said this in the introduction to this discussion. But I personally decided more than 10 years ago that the future of news and of journalism was digital rather than ink-on-dead-trees or voices and pictures over the airwaves. So take everything I say with that grain of salt. Nevertheless, I truly believe that every single major traditional media outlet in both Canada and the United States has realized that a significant part of its future viability depends on finding news way to deliver its journalism. The Web was the first major step in that direction. Blogs, "community journalism" are the latest phases of this ongoing evolution.

To tackle the nut of your question: I don't think I'm giving away any secrets here but almost every major media outlet in Canada or the U.S. now has more people accessing its journalism on-line rather than through the traditional product. Some of them have succeeded in making the on-line component a financially viable business. Others are still striving toward that goal. Not all will succeed. But like any business, the good will and the bad won't. But we at globeandmail.com, like other sites, are clearly preaching digitally to a vastly larger congregation than the "choir" of readers that exist at our newspaper counterpart.

As for your final question, the answer is yes and no. At globeandmail.com, like most of our major brand counterparts, we employ the same journalistic standards to on-line news as our newspaper counterpart. However, I would agree with you that the growth of partisan blogs — particularly in the United States — is probably siphoning off from mainstream media products, both traditional and digital, some readers who prefer to hear only one point of view rather than independent, objective and fair journalism. That's their choice.

Andrew Goss from Kingston writes: I enjoyed the ability on the previous website to go directly to environment related articles. I believe that the Globe and Mail also used to have an environmental reporter (Mitchell?) which also seems to be gone. Considering the Kyoto accord, the state of the environment, the interest garnered recently by the renewable energy announcement in Ontario, do you plan on adding an environment section?

Angus Frame: We still have an environment reporter, Martin Mittelstaedt. You may have seen his story on global warming on the site yesterday (we posted it on-line at 2:00pm on the Home Page). You are correct that there used to be a link to "Environment" in our navigation but it was often a page with only a single story and so we have created a home for environmental stories on our Science hub, located here : You get to it my mousing over the Health tab in our horizontal navigation and then clicking on Science, which is revealed in the sub-nav. You can also access the Science hub by clicking on the word "Science" in the Science category near the bottom of the Home Page. We have as much (or more) environmental coverage on the site today as ever, it's just in a slightly different place.

Ron McMahon from Calgary writes: I was excited when I first noticed that the Globe and Mail was initiating these on-line encounters with public figures. Unfortunately, I've also been deeply disappointed with this initiative. As a former Encana employee I looked forward to presenting a difficult question to Gwyn Morgan (Encana's former CEO) that he has refused to answer in my private conversations with him. I was hoping that a public question would finally result in a response. My question was never forwarded to Mr. Morgan. Instead he was fed a bevy of softball pitches to which he spouted his mantra of integrity, honesty and hard work.

This wouldn't be so bad had there been some new content of questions that actually differed from the fluff put together on him in the ROB Magazine last year. In reading the after-event comments, I was not the only person to experience this frustration in having tough questions of a high-profile corporate leader squelched by a host (the Globe and Mail editors). Until the Globe and Mail has the courage to allow the public (who is supposed to be asking the questions here) direct opportunity to engage an interviewee, this forum will not reach the quality and quantity level it deserves and must have if the Globe and Mail will successfully evolve to survive in this new media environment.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor: That's a good point, Ron. I don't know the details of this particular exchange you are citing. But I know the problem. Let me turn this around and ask you a question: How do you know that we didn't forward this question to the guest? It often happens that we forward questions to guests and they choose not to answer them. There's nothing unusual about that. How many times have you seen in a newspaper story or on TV someone saying "no comment." It's a fact of daily life in journalism. Now, let me add that there's one bit of my response that's disingenuous. We have not yet found the right way in these discussion forums to show when we forward a question to a guest and when the guest refuses to answer. That's a big contrast to television where the nightly news will often show a politician being asked a contentious question and either ducking his head to avoid it, or offering a non-answer.

Personally, I'm open to suggestions. However, let's also be clear. It's pretty much industry standard here and in the U.S. that on-line discussion guests get to pick and choose which questions to answer, without the non-answered questions appearing too. We do our best to prod all of our on-line guests to answer every question — hard or soft. But there's never going to be a way to force that issue. I am concerned about that and I'm happy to hear any suggestions readers may have.

Angus Frame, Editor: I do not have enough specific knowledge to talk about the Gwynn Morgan issue so I have to be a bit more general. With popular discussions, it is impossible to have every question answered in the limited time (see Jim and Mike's earlier comments on the length of the chats) so sometimes a question will go unanswered. Sometimes a question is off topic — I am here to discuss our discussions and comments so it would not make any sense to expect me to discuss the chances the Leafs have of making to playoffs this year, just as it would be inappropriate for me to answer a question about my plans for the weekend or my reason for driving a blue car.

Perhaps your question was off topic, perhaps there were just too many questions to expect Mr. Morgan to answer all of them. As for allowing the public direct access without going through the Globe and Mail editors, I am not sure how we could do that — but I am open to experimenting with different techniques for creating lively on-line conversations so if anyone can figure out how we could open the door a little wider feel free to pitch me an idea.

Michael Snider, globeandmail.com: Jim and Angus, thanks very much for joining us today. I think we got through most of the issues many of the readers and commenters have pointed to over the past few months. Readers, thanks for joining us. We hope our answers have satisfied at least a portion of your curiosity about how things work here, and what you can expect in the future.

And certainly, if you have any thoughts about the Discussion format or would like to see a particular reporter/columnist invited on or a particular subject covered, let us know. You can email your thoughts to aframe@globeandmail.com or jsheppard@globeandmail.com or msnider@globeandmail.com — or better yet, Join the Conversation and leave a comment.

Angus Frame: Yes, thanks everyone. It has been fun.

Jim Sheppard: Thanks, Mike, and thanks to our readers. I'm always happy to hear any feedback. I would also encourage readers to submit ideas for new formats, for guests or Globe journalists they would like to see on-line, for regularly scheduled programming, or anything else.