Can the Supreme Court get you off the hook in J class?

The Supreme Court of Canada issued a new ruling on Tuesday which can help journalists, bloggers, and anyone else who circulates information to defend themselves against a libel lawsuit.

And here’s the kicker: they can do so even if some of their facts are found to be untrue, provided they show they tried to verify the facts and that the information is in the public interest.

Well, that sure levels the playing field a bit.

CBC is flagging the new defense, called “responsible communication”, as a benefit for Canadian journalists. But I’m not so sure.

Double-checking facts is one of the things that separates us journalists from any common Joe out there with a blog or a Twitter account. Checking our facts and sources before publishing means, more often than not, we get our stories right.

Sure, it may take a little longer for the news to get out to the public. Instead of simply hitting the “update” button on the Twitter page, we spend time confirming our information is accurate.

But I’m willing to wait, rather than take every story with a grain of salt, knowing it could be untrue.

When I read something in the Free Press, or head something on CBC radio, I could trust that what I was being told was accurate because, as journalists, it was their job to make sure they had their facts straight before going to air or putting the story to print.

I knew this wasn’t the case with what I read on Twitter, or someone’s blog, so when I visited these sites I made sure – as our journalism instructor Steve Vogelsang would say – I had my BS meter turned on.

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow journalists to defend untrue facts by pleading “responsible communication” means we no longer have this criteria by which to judge the news we see or hear.

You would have thought they’d have learned their lesson by now: inaccuracy can cause major problems.

Photo Credit.

Back in October 2008, a citizen journalist for CNN by the name of “johntw” mistakenly reported to the iReport website that Apple CEO Steve Jobs had just suffered a severe heart attack.

The story was quickly picked up by other mainstream media and sent the Twitterverse into a frenzy.

Within the first hour of trading on the day Steve Job’s heart attack was falsely reported, the market value of Apple went down $4.8 billion.

Whether “johntw” intended on creating this hoax, or was simply passing on a rumour and thought he’d beat the mainstream media to it, the dangerous effects of false reporting, especially in the technological age, remain.

Some, like the Toronto Star lawyer Paul Schabas, says it better reflects freedom of speech, and that may be so, but free speech comes with a price.

Too many Steve Jobs-like hoaxes can cause well established and credible news corporations like the CBC to lose their reputation and the public’s trust in them for quality news.

And if journalists start to make the same sloppy fact checking (or no checking at all) that frequent bloggers and tweeters alike, we will likely see more costly mistakes, all in the name of public interest.

Ultimately, it still comes down to whether the Supreme Court believes the information is in the public interest, and that the author tried to verify the facts.

While the new ruling does have the potential to be liberating, it would still be wise to tread carefully.

Continue to double-check your facts and sources.

The question is, just how many will?

Hey boss - what's your colour?

Yesterday, the CBC radio program The Current analysed a new trend in today’s workplaces: personality testing.

CBC focused on Insights Discovery, a company who uses personality tests to categorize employees by colour: cool blue, earth green, sunshine yellow, and fiery red, which focuses on their preferences for thinking, working, and communicating.

As someone who’ll be entering the workforce full-time within the next few years, I was interested. And as I listened further – concerned.

Of course, there’s the issue of stereotyping, which can have both positive and negative side effects.

Our brains use stereotypes as cognitive shortcuts, making it easier for us to process information quickly, so knowing the personalities of our co-workers can make it easier for us to understand and communicate with them. Sounds good.

But stereotypes also make it easier to process who’s in our “in-group” and who’s in the “out-group”. And that means it may influence who should get that promotion.

According to David Zweig, professor of psychology at the U of T, “we’re all cognitive misers: we don’t like using our brains any more than we have to. So if I can identify you, for example, as blue, that’s how I’m going to code you. And every interaction I have with you, I’m going to think of it in the context of “oh, you’re blue.” So perhaps when it comes to deciding who I’m going to promote, I may think so-and-so‘s not good for this job because she’s a blue. We need a green.”

Err... not so good.

And consider this: the majority of employees being tested are those in entry-level positions. In the United States, 1 in 3 workers between the ages of 18-24 reports that they have taken these types of workplace personality tests.

The danger here is being “labelled” as a certain personality early on in their career and limiting their potential.

And not being able to account for change is crucial.

When first setting foot in my new work environment, I may be quiet, shy, and prefer more formal modes of communication like memos and business meetings.

Taking the personality test as this early stage may categorize me as a colour I may no longer “be” a few months, or a few years, down the road as I become more comfortable with my work environment and co-workers, evolving into a more open, less shy person who prefers more informal methods of communication like meeting over lunch.

That’s not to mention employees arriving from other workplace environments where they may have had to develop a certain type of personality to fit in. At first, they may approach their job with the same personality as they did their old job, but over time, adjust their mannersims to fit their new workplace

People are not static, and neither are their personalities, so one test will not reveal all. But if companies opt for periodic testing to account for change, exactly how much time should be devoted to the process?

And in the end, as Anna Maria Tremonti, the host of The Current, said: aren’t we just saying that everyone’s multidimentional and do we need a test for that?

Personality tests do have their benefits, in that sometimes we don’t know ourselves, and these tests are a way of discovering who we are.

But in the same way, this benefit is also a problem.

If there is one common thread I’ve noticed from taking personality tests, it’s that people (myself included) do not always answer the questions honestly – either intentionally, or unintentionally.

Some of us would rather not admit that we react badly to stress, while others may simply not be aware of the fact.

It’s like being asked at those get-to-know-you sessions to “tell us something interesting about yourself” – sometimes it’s better to ask those who know you and witness your behaviour.

The way we see ourselves is not necessarily who we are, so in placing ourselves in these personality categories, are we really creating a true representation of ourselves, or just a model of who we think we are?

In the end, you’ll still have people who are red, blue, yellow, and green, only they may say they think, work, and communicate in certain ways, when in reality, they’re just the opposite.

Maybe it’s better to put the colour wheel aside and let time, interaction, and experience help you decipher who’s who in the office.

Download The Current's podcast on workplace personality testing here.

Twitter-cism on the latest social media fad

I’ll admit it: at first blush, I was attracted to Twitter.

Its colourful, fresh vector design layouts appealed to the creative in me, and the short, one-sentence updates free for viewing to all on the worldwide web appealed to the minute attention-seeking part of me that (judging by the content of most of the tweets on Twitter) I think is in all of us, whether we’d like to admit it or not.

But then, thankfully, that moment passed.

Andy Warhol said in the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. But in today’s world of electronic social media, it often seems like everyone is trying to draw attention to the importance of themselves for way more than 15 minutes.

For example, right now I’m eating cinnamon toast. Does anyone care that I’m eating cinnamon toast? Or, more importantly, should anyone care? Of course not.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Twitter users that I have seen use Twitter to do just that. It reminds me of a cheeky photo Kimberlee posted on her blog: never before have so many people with so little to say said so much.

As I mentioned in class today, up until now I didn’t have a Twitter account for the very fact that I know I’m not important enough to broadcast my daily (or hourly, or minutely, or secondly) activities to the world (then again - is anyone this important, really?) and for the fact that other people are using it in this way.

So I posed the question: how can Twitter be used other than as a “status update” tool? (Maybe I should have said: is Twitter meant to be used other than as a “status update” tool because now that I think of it, the very fact that Twitter is based around the question “What are you doing right now?” (since changed to “What’s happening?”) confirms my suspicions.)

Kenton assured me it can (still getting back to me on the “how” part), if you know how to use it. If that’s the case, then looking around, there’s lots of people (including me!) who don’t know how.

I’m not saying I can’t see the potential – I agree, it is there. As Case Stevens said on his blog: “you have personal access to anyone using Twitter and all people [on] Twitter are VERY responsive!” I haven’t tried them out yet, but those hashtags look powerful, and for those in marketing, advertising, public relations, etc. that rely on public feedback, Twitter is definitely an instant way of getting it.

But, looking around once again, the vast majority of Twitter users (including me!) don’t have such a cause – hence my second question: should everyone have a Twitter account?

I’m now on Twitter because it was required for my public relations course, and I’m more than willing to hear some suggestions as to how I can use my newfound media tool in a way that is meaningful.

Otherwise I fear I’m just going to become yet another mundane person tweeting about eating cinnamon toast, hoping someone will notice.

Procrastinate – CreComm style

Procrastination has never been more entertaining since I discovered chrisd.ca and his collection of newcast/media related bloopers.

As I said earlier, news is all the more entertaining when journalists go off script. It’s even more entertaining when it means I can temporarily delay the college-related task at hand, get a good laugh, and learn some valuable broadcast production lessons along the way.

Lesson #1: A TV broadcast is the product of a team effort. If someone isn’t doing their job, everyone just looks bad (especially those on camera).

Lesson #2: The floor director is important: watch for the floor director’s cues! Or: floor director, give less confusing cues!

Lesson #3: Pronunciation quizzes in radio class? Don’t need ‘em for TV!

Lesson #4: Giggling. And what to do when it happens on-screen.

Finally, the most crucial and hilarious lesson of all:

Lesson #5: Pets and interviewers do not mix. Especially on live television.

My new mom.

Meet Phyllis: Kleenex says we’re made for each other!

(Image credit)

They say you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family. Well, you can scrap that old adage now – Kleenex is letting you choose... your mom.

Wish she was more like your best friend? Try Jessica. Need some of that down-home kinda lovin’? Try Magnolia. Or how about down-to-earth lovin’? Check out Amber. Want mom around only when you’ve got time for her? Swap schedules with Veronica.

Even if you’re not sure what type of mothering you need, you can take the online quiz to see which one is best for you.

Kleenex’s getmommed.com is a campaign that really puts the “viral” in viral advertising by taking advantage of the widespread concern over H1N1 and what they say are people’s increased need for tissues and TLC during this year’s cold and flu season.

Kleenex gives people the opportunity to get that extra mothering via the Internet, and as for the tissues, don’t worry – they’ve programmed every mom on their site to insist that the best way to conqer an illness is “(insert character appropriate phrase) and a big box of Kleenex tissues.” (That’s the first sign something’s amiss – since when does mom ask if you want a “Kleenex tissue”? It’s “Kleenex”!)

The website alone has enough mom stuff to keep you occupied for a couple of hours (make that multiple hours if you’ve got even a moderate internet connection – there’s a lot of graphics to load), but if that doesn’t satisfy your mommy cravings, you can sign up to get email, text messages, phone audio, and Facebook messages from the mom of your choice (you can even “friend” your mom on Facebook – each character comes equipped with their own page.)

Without a doubt, Kleenex’s campaign is entertaining (watch out: you’ll end up spending all your free time listening to the spiels of all 10 mothers vying to be chosen as yours), but it is also highly effective.

According to Ad Age, the 30-second TV commercial titled “Homecoming” has had the strongest persuasion scores and ability to break through ad clutter in more than 10 years of copy tests for Kleenex.

It also reinforces what many advertisers have said for years: empathy works. If you can do empathy, you’re on your way to a great campaign.

That being said, it doesn’t take long before you realise that not only is the campaign is targeted at Americans, but it also targets American stereotypes.

Take the quiz to see which mom suits you, and you’ll be asked which is your favourite on-screen mom: all of which are well known, but all of which are also from good old American family programs.

Go and sign up for a Kleenex account to get emails from your chosen mom, and you’ll be asked where you shop – in the States.

But more than that, getmommed.com presents stereotypes galore. BrandChannel sums it up nicely:

”Kleenex also knows that "mother" and "motherhood" can't be defined singularly. Motherhood is a rich and dynamic tapestry, made up of women from various walks of life and nurturing styles. Unless you're a minority!”

It’s true. While the Caucasian moms are a little more unique in their characteristics, the African-American mother, the Asian mother, and the Hispanic mother are pigeonholed when it comes to their traits.

I’ll quote BrandChannel again, since they phrase it so eloquently:

“Perhaps you need some tough love? For that there's Sue, the Asian mother with a purely coincidental accent. More interested in a feisty mom? Okay, try Lisa. Everything about her is sassy! A sassy African-American woman? Unheard of. Are you from a big family? Well, say "Hola" to Ana Maria. You can't miss her, she's festively attired in a vibrant outfit.”

As for all the attention Kleenex is getting, there’s still no word yet on how real moms are reacting when they find out their son or daughter is going to the computer for affection and advice from their virtual mother.

But in any case, getmommed.com is the perfect procrastinator site for us CreComms. Go on over and take the quiz and let me know “who’s your mommy?”

Personality Profile: Kevin Miller

Kevin Miller is easily one of the most athletic people I know, and the most knowledgeable when it comes to environmentalism and athleticism.

I went through the same cross-country ski program as did his kids, and I remember when I was little occasionally seeing him on the ski trails decked out in all that professional gear.

Today, he gives off the same impression as he did back then. Kevin is serious about physical activity – but in talking with him, I discovered that his interest extends not only to performance, but to the advocacy and education aspects as well.

After speaking with him for a generous 75 minutes, I could just as easily have written my 700 word assignment on cycling in Winnipeg (even better: winter cycling in Winnipeg), the advocacy approach of Bike to the Future, elite vs. performance athletes, gender neutrality in sports, the benefits of individual vs. team sports, or the challenges of being a high performance athlete in your 50s and overcoming the various health related obstacles.

But my journalism assignment required me to include a balance of work and personal information to help others understand the person I’m profiling. In other words, to try and discover, then explain in words, what makes Kevin Miller “tick”. I knew there had to be something; after all, using the bicycle as personal transportation 24-7-365 since 1993 can’t just be all for the fun of it.... right?

Despite the first snowfall of the season, Kevin Miller rode his bicycle to work today. Look closely, and what appears to be plastic wrap covers his helmet vents to keep out the cold. Wearing cycling glasses, spandex bike pants and a triathlon jersey, the tall and slim built Miller gives the impression he just finished the Tour de France. In reality, he’s just serious about cycling.

Miller is co-chair of Bike to the Future, a Winnipeg lobby group that advocates cycling as transportation, but first and foremost, he’s a performance athlete: Miller completed his 583rd race this past Thanksgiving in the Linden Woods Fall Classic. He is also among the few who’ve beaten Cindy Klassen at in-line skating – at least once: Miller finished 4th in the 1998 North of the 49th Inline Marathon, where Klassen placed 5th.

Besides running, in-line skating, mountain biking, and year-round commuter cycling, Miller has taken up triathlons with his wife and two children, thriving on the individuality and motivation that comes from setting personal goals. “It’s the drive, the internal drive to prove to yourself what you can do and to use it as a motivating tool to get better.”

This mindset helps Miller bring the same passion he puts into cycling into his volunteer work at Bike to the Future. Since 2001, Miller works only 60 per cent as a software programmer at Great-West Lifeco Inc. to devote more time to organizations like Bike to the Future, a commitment which speaks to the value Miller has placed on cycling for most of his life.

In 1974, at 18, Miller started saving for university and found commuting by bicycle, instead of the bus, gave him more time, money, and freedom. “When you take the bus, you’re on its schedule, and I found out really quickly that cycling is faster than a bus,” he said, admitting personal fitness and environmentalism were not the major incentives they are for him now, at 53.

These days, Miller chooses to cycle to work, though he could afford to drive by car. “I could fly six or seven times a year, generate greenhouse gases and have three cars – I could afford all that. But I’m ideologically driven, so I don’t do all that because I don’t believe in it.”

Believing in cycling and its potential for Winnipeg brought Miller to Bike to the Future. As co-chair, he tends to “be a little bit of a glue”: producing the majority of the organization’s communications, orchestrating monthly meetings, and doing his share of lobbying.

This month, Miller began promoting the “STOP signs as YIELD signs for cyclists” campaign, urging the city to allow cyclists to yield at stop signs when no traffic or pedestrians are present. On Oct. 5, he advocated the issue on CBC radio.

Janice Lukes, co-ordinator of the Winnipeg Trails Association – one of Bike to the Future’s partner organizations – said the radio interview demonstrates why Miller is an effective lobbyist. “He explained [the campaign] in very simplistic terms, for the masses – he wasn’t talking above anyone’s head. He has a way of bringing things down to a very simple, black and white way to look at things.”

Ron Brown, executive director of the Manitoba Cycling Association and Bike to the Future member, agrees Miller is “quick to the point”. But what impresses him most is Miller’s ability to admit his own strengths and limitations. “He’ll bluntly say ‘I really don’t want to do that’, or, ‘that’s not my strength and it’s better that others do it’.”

Under Miller’s leadership, Bike to the Future successfully lobbied for a pedestrian/bike bridge on the Disraeli Bridges Project, created the first Winnipeg Cycling Map in 2009 in partnership with the city, and is a key organizer of Bike to Work Day.

His position comes up for renewal this November, but Miller hopes to continue volunteering as co-chair, striving to make cycling part of everyone’s lives. “Whether we’re talking about the environment, personal fitness, [or] livable cities, the bicycle is the answer [and] when I believe in something, I don’t have to have a personal payback-in-my-pocket type of thing to do it.”

If you’d like to read more, you can check out some of my classmates’ profile assignments here and here.

War of the Worlds

CJOB broadcasted Orson Welles’ radio play this past Halloween, marking the 71st anniversary since it’s original broadcast on CBS in 1938.

Orson Welles, courtesy of GoogleImages

If you’re looking to get some tips on how to produce radio creatively, War of the Worlds is definitely one of those classic radio stints that you would do well to have in your back pocket.

Just one listen will help you realise why so many Americans believed the play was real, and why War of the Worlds is still just as entertaining as it was 70 years ago.

It's realistic. War of the Worlds is crafted to sound like a breaking news story about martians invading Earth, and the formatting and reporter lingo is spot-on (albeit dated). Imagine yourself in the 1930s, and it sounds pretty convincing.

In the event of a martian attack, who wouldn’t expect the media to have journalists swarming in disaster areas, reporting live on the scene? Or the U.S. army storming over to the crash site, boasting their military strength and telling citizens “not to worry, we’ll have them blown to pieces in no time”, before being beaten to dust?

War of the Worlds also touches on something that I think we know, but are reluctant to admit: that even with all our defenses, we are defenseless; even though we think we’re prepared, we’re not prepared (hello, H1N1!).

This theme is repeated throughout the radio play as populations are easily killed off one by one, despite the best efforts of the military. The broadcast actually ends with a rather ironic twist on the theme as we discover the fate of the martians.

But most importantly, only three times during the course of the radio play is it mentioned that what people are listening to is fiction: once at the beginning, again at the 40 minutes interval, and then once more at the end of the broadcast.

In other words, a considerable amount of time for those tuning in late to believe that the martian invasion is real. Combine that with the fact that those who called their local police department discovered the police also thought the invasion was real, and you’ve got yourself nationwide panic.

But would it create the same public uproar today?

We are obsessed with our own destruction. Countless books, movies, and other works of art have been based on the fall of humanity: by our own hands, by someone else's hands, by rabid animals, by the supernatural, by disease, or by the brute force of nature, and I’m not sure why this is. Maybe we think we’ve got it too good here at the top of the food chain that something’s bound to attack us sometime. Or maybe we’re still mystified by death and what happens when we ‘stop being’.

Appealing to this innate obsession and taking advantage of the tense atmosphere at the time (the original broadcast aired just before the outbreak of the Second World War), Orson Welles’ production is structured perfectly for public captivation.

The journalist as human. Maybe it’s just me, but any news report suddenly becomes all the more captivating when journalists go off-script.

This tends to happen during a disaster, when journalists are thrown out into the field, and told to “report” on what they see. No preparation, no script – they are reacting to the event at the same time, and in the same way, that the rest of us citizens would. Only they have a mic and a camera, and more often than not, are being broadcast nationwide.

And I think others would agree that it (usually) takes a lot to shake journalists out of their professional demeanor. So when it does happen, we pay attention. For just a couple minutes, they are no longer the stoic figure of the media, they are human.

There’s a lot of this in War of the Worlds, and the “last broadcast” is probably my favourite example.

A reporter is standing on top of the CBS building, describing the scene as the martians advance upon New York City. He begins rather objectively and professionally, albeit incredulously, recounting in simple terms what is obviously a terrifying and devastating sight: people “dropping like flies” as they run from the martian’s poison gas that is quickly overtaking the city.

Finally he begins a countdown of the martian’s progress towards him where we start to hear the panic in his voice, knowing what is to come. Sure enough, he chokes out the last position of the martians at 50 feet away, then collapses. A long silence follows, before we hear the lone, despairing voice of a radio operator: “2X2L calling CQ New York. Is there anyone on the air? Is there anyone on the air? Isn't there.... anyone?”

War of the Worlds can be downloaded here.

Volkswagon's going philosophical

Volkswagon Sweden has devised what they call “The Fun Theory”, which states that the easiest way to change people’s behaviour towards something for the better is make that something “fun”.

For Volkswagon, that particular “something” is the environment. Whether it’s getting people to recycle, not to litter, or to take the stairs rather than the escalator, Volkswagon is asking people to submit videos that act as “evidence” for the theory.

But this is really a “viral” marketing campaign to promote Volkswagon’s new environmentally friendly “BlueMotion Techonology” which is now put into their cars.

According to our handy Whipple book, viral advertising is any Internet-driven promotion, such as video clips, which get passed on from one person to another, spreading like a global infection (Kind of like the ad version of swine flu. In which case this post is the equivalent of an uncovered sneeze and now, my dear reader, you’re infected. Sorry.)

Dove’s Evolution commerical is one example of viral advertising; The Fun Theory from Volkswagon is another.

In an interview with the L.A. Times, DDB Stockholm deputy manager Lars Axelsson said that “by making driving and the world more fun, we turn the VW brand into a hero. Our experiments and our Fun Theory films make the world a better and more fun place to live.”

I’ll admit – the videos are entertaining, and the ideas that people come up with are really quite innovative. But as soon as I see the Volkswagon logo with the words “An initiative of Volkswagon” at the top of the webpage, I become a little more uninterested.

Maybe I’m just being cynical, but to me, it’s like thinking you’ve finally found someone who genuinely cares about making the world a better place without standing to gain anything from it... and then, to quote Luke Sullivan, "the salesman pops out of the closet in his plaid coat".

Does “The Fun Theory” make Volkswagon a hero? Maybe, if people’s behaviours and attitudes towards the environment are changed for the long-term. But how long will it be before the novelty of piano key staircases and acade game recycling bins wears off?

Although I just might change my mind if Volkswagon can meet my challenge: how can we make streeters fun to do?

Tips for the new (Citytv) blogger

News of Creative Communications students writing blogs has successfully diffused out into the "real world": local media station Citytv shot a news segment in our PR class today to explore this wondrous new genre of college homework.

If you've stumbled across this blog after watching that segment, welcome, and thank you for reading.

It's mid-semester at the college, and after eight weeks of this ongoing assignment, I have some advice for those who are thinking of setting up their own blog:

1. Write for your readership: this is one of the standard rules we are taught in CreComm. Know your audience and shape your writing and ideas accordingly.

After all, unless the blog is acting as an online diary, the purpose of posting your writing online is for others to read it. Sometimes your topic will dictate your audience; other times, choosing your audience will determine which topics you should pursue.

2. Find your "niche": is one of the suggestions our PR instructor, Kenton, gave us when we first began our blogs, and it's a good one. Narrowing down what you talk about to as specific a topic as possible (but still broad enough to ensure you have enough to write about) not only helps you as a writer, but it also helps your readers.

The task of sitting down and writing your next post is daunting enough, never mind having to choose from your wide variety of interests. If you set guidelines for yourself in terms of topics, you'll be better able to focus your creative energies on writing, rather than brainstorming. Even better, if you have a topic in mind, you'll know what to keep for your ears open for, idea-wise, when you're not blogging.

Narrowing down a topic also does your readers a favour. There are a billion blogs out there where people post their thoughts on "random stuff", which, to be honest, is not that fascinating because anyone can have an opinion on anything. Having a blog with structure makes you stand out from this crowd. If someone wants to know what's happening in a particular sphere of the media, like punk music, and you've got a blog on it, they'll know where to go and not have to worry about sifting through stuff they don't want to read to get to the stuff they do.

And similar to what I said above, narrowing down your to topic will help you focus your thoughts, delve deeper, and maybe take a particular angle or touch on things that others have not.

The only problem: finding your niche is difficult to do.

I've tried to center my blog around communications (which is an extremely broad topic in itself), but with a focus on advertising, public relations, journalism, and broadcast media because these are the communication sectors I'm being exposed to in college, so I'm already in the habit of applying what I learn to "the real world".

Even focusing on these four sectors alone is quite broad in itself, but I'm working on narrowing my blog down as I come closer to deciding in which area I want to specialize in my second year.

3. Within your niche, have a "unique selling proposition": I borrowed that phrase from advertising, but it's just as applicable to blogging. Write about something that not a lot of other people are writing about.

Like I said before, anyone can have opinion on anything. Make yours unique. This does not mean you have to go searching for the rarest of the rare of news. If there's something that everyone is talking about, and it interests you as well, then by all means blog about it - but take a different angle.

If everyone's talking about Kanye West and what a jerk he is after the MTV awards, don't fall into the same trap of reiterating everyone else's comments in your own words. Try and approach it from a different perspective, such as whether it was good publicity or bad publicity. Even better - how would you help Kanye save face if you were his public relations person? Or would you?

4. Experiment with blog sites other than Blogger: Although Blogger has the cool techonological-age look that is associated with blogging, it is not without its glitches.

Odd spacing issues, font re-sizing of its own accord, suddenly erasing your entry before you post it, and my personal pet peeve, not being able to copy text from word processing programs, or even from other areas within the same post, into Blogger (this seems to be an issue for Windows PCs only, which makes it difficult when I want to publish a post from the college computers).

Buyer Beware: Debbie Meyer Green Bags

In the age of health conscious living, there has never been more emphasis on eating fresh fruits and vegetables. But the trick is to make sure those fruits and veggies stay fresh for eating.

In 2007, Housewares America, Inc. came out with Debbie Meyer Green Bags, which claim that they will prolong the life of your produce for up to 30 days by absorbing and removing ethylene gases which accelerates the ripening process.

As good ol’ Debbie will tell you in her infomercial, Green Bags will save you money by eliminating waste.

Sounds too good to be true? Yeah, we thought so too.

Emelia Nyarku, Kristel Mason, Deborah Remus, and I decided to take Housewares America, Inc., and Debbie Meyer herself, up on the claims they made. Should consumers pay $14.99 for 20 Green Bags when they can just as easily get 50 Glad bags for a third of the price?

The Experiment

Over a time period of eight days, we tested the effectiveness of Green Bags against the more common means of food storage: Glad bags, grocery store bags/boxes, and on the counter, or in the fridge.

We put bananas, mushrooms, and strawberries, which tend to spoil quickly, into each test condition, and examined them daily for firmness, odour, weight, size (in diameter, specifically for mushrooms), spotting, and mould.

The instructions on the Green Bags packaging stated that produce stored in the bags must be kept as dry as possible, and to wipe away any moisture which formed in the bags. To be consistent, we applied this instruction to the other storage conditions too.

The Research

While our experiment was in progress, we gathered secondary research from scientists, supermarkets, culinary institutions, and consumer testimonials on the Internet. Here’s a sample of our significant findings:

Rick Holley, a professor from the University of Manitoba’s food science department, admitted that the Green Bags just might work. The presence of moisture is one of the main factors that induces food spoilage, and zeolite, a porous material that is supposedly in the bag, could act as a moisture absorbing compound.

Holley advised, however, that simply adjusting the temperature of your fridge could produce the same effect. Setting your fridge temperature at around 6 degrees Celsius, he said, would probably improve the shelf life of produce by 50 per cent.

To clarify the properties of zeolite, Ernest Prokopchuck, who teaches chemistry at the University of Winnipeg, said that it is anadsorbent material, which is different from absorbent. For instance, water can absorb into cloth, but zeolite absorbs materials to itself, similar to the attraction of metal to magnets.

That being the case, Prokopchuk said that spoilage-causing ethylene gases will not actually be removed completely, as demonstrated in the Green Bags infomercial. Rather, some ethylene will escape out the bag through the zeolite, and some will flow right back in.

Conclusion

Overall, Debbie Meyer Green Bags underperformed when compared with other food storage methods.

Although Housewares America, Inc. claims that Green Bags will “dramatically” extend the life of your fruits and veggies, their performance in our experiments was not exceptional.

Glad bags retained produce freshness just as well as Green Bags in 3 out of 4 experiments conducted on mushrooms.

(Glad bag mushrooms; Day 1 (left), Day 8 (right))

(Green Bags mushrooms; Day 1 (left), Day 8 (right))

In 3 out of 4 experiments conducted on bananas, and 2 out of 4 experiments conducted on strawberries, Glad bags actually performed better than the Green Bags.

(Glad bag bananas; Day 1 (left), Day 8 (right))

(Green Bags bananas; Day 1 (left), Day 8 (right))

(Glad bag strawberries; Day 1 (left), Day 8 (right))

(Green Bags strawberries; Day 1 (left), Day 8 (right))

Housewares America, Inc. also claims that by absorbing and removing ethylene gas, Green Bags will delay the natural ripening and rotting process.

However, 2 out of 4 experiments found mould forming on the stems of bananas in Green Bags before it formed on those in the other test conditions.

One experiment found mould on strawberries in the Green Bags, but not on those in the Glad bags.

(Green Bags strawberries)

What You Should Do

If you’re looking for ways to increase the amount of time your fruits and veggies stay fresh, save that $14.99 you set aside for Debbie’s Green Bags. We recommend trying other storage methods or even altering your food purchasing habits before purchasing Green Bags:

1. Buy local and in-season produce. Fruits and veggies shipped across the country and around the world are often harvested early, and begin to ripen en route to the consumer. There is also the potential that the produce was exposed to less than ideal shipping conditions, such as poor temperature, which will decrease the quality of the produce once you get it. Buying local and in-season produce ensures maximum freshness and quality (not to mention supporting your local farmers).

(Karl Oman, instructor, Culinary Arts program, Red River College)

2. Set your fridge to 6 degrees Celsius. This is the temperature that will encourage maximum shelf-life in most produce.

(Rick Holley, professor, food science department, University of Manitoba)

3. Don’t put your mushrooms in plastic. Mushrooms need proper air circulation to breathe. Plastic inhibits air flow, and can cause harmful bacteria to grow on the mushrooms, which can be poisonous for humans. Plastic also makes them slimy - scrap the plastic and use paper!

(Karl Oman, instructor, Culinary Arts program, Red River College)

The bottom line: Debbie Meyer Green Bags may prolong the life of certain produce, but not “dramatically”, as claimed. In the majority of tests we conducted, Glad bags were just as efficient. So the question remains: $14.99 for 20 Green Bags, or $4.99 for 50 Glad bags? It's a tough call!