Category: Media

Ineptitude? Carelessness? Cheating? Elections train is off the rails

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 23, 2008
21 Comments on Ineptitude? Carelessness? Cheating? Elections train is off the rails

In a surprising announcement today, Elections Administrator Brendan Piovesan confirmed that the race for VP Administration, between incumbent Sarah Naiman, “Scary” Mike “the Rabbi” Kushnir, and Yian Messoloras, has been cancelled. The exact reasons are yet unclear, but they involve campaign rules transgressions on the part of one candidate. Apparently, Messoloras broke the rules when he asked people to vote on his laptop computer on the spot. The elections code specifies that candidates cannot pressure people into voting and they have to be at least 10 meters away from voting stations. All the votes that have been submitted on the electronic voting system, which closed yesterday, will be discarded. This may not in fact be allowed, according to AMS elections code, however.

Article 3, Section 7, states: “if serious offences have been committed by more than one candidate in an election, the Elections Committee may declare the results of that election invalid.”

Cancellation thus requires that there be serious offences committed by more than one candidate. As far as we know, here there’s only one. Also, there’s no power to “suspend” an election – only to declare the results invalid. This decision may find itself in Student Court.

Right now though, brand new nominations for the position apprently going to open, and the new race will take place in February. Questions about why the disqualification of the candidate in question, as opposed to the cancellation of the whole race, was the course of action chosen remain unclear. This development will doubtless bode ill for the VP admin race, which will probably have a lower profile and lower voter turnout due to the delay.

This incident is only one in a string of administrative and political gaffes that have marked this elections period. Other notable controversies include the bungled all-candidates’ meeting, too-short campaign period and late and absent updates on the AMS elections website (including updating candidates’ blurbs in a timely fashion). In addition, if you expect to find candidate profiles, media coverage, or posters near the paper ballot voting-booths tomorrow, you may be disappointed. Uninformed voters hoping to make an on-the-spot decision will find it hard to gather information at the voting booths, since Piovesan has confirmed that neither candidate blurbs, nor bulletin boards for posters will be provided at the voting stations. Candidates may independently bring their posters to the voting sites, but according to Piovesan, they will not be officially organized. “No way. I’m not gonna do that,” quoth he.

In the realm of the Voter Funded Media contest, things are not much better. Voting using the Interpolated Consensus counting system is impossible on Web Vote software, and even a simplified voting system has not been organized on the university-controlled program. Therefore, voting for the VFM contest has been delayed, only to take place after the elections are over. It remains unclear on what system this voting will take place. Speculation about the influence of this delay on VFM results abound: will late name-recognition entries that have done no coverage (like the Science and Arts undergraduate newspapers) end up benefiting at the expense of smaller unfunded independent media? We’ll see.

Of course, administration hasn’t been the only issue. Some candidates seem to have stopped showing up to debates. The BoG debate on Monday was notably missing two prominent candidates, and yesterday the VP External debate did not even take place due to the absence of one candidate. Of course, candidates should have the freedom to determine what the most effective campaigning strategies are, but in this elections it seems like unprofessionalism from the administrative side is feeding the same from the candidates to result in a week of exemplary irregularity.

The elections committee redeems itself somewhat by their funny loudspeaker announcements pulling people in to vote on the SUB’s North side, but whether that’s enough to salvage a voter turnout short of disastrous is suspect.

AMS Elections 2008 Media

Letter to the Editor, re: VFM

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 23, 2008
14 Comments on Letter to the Editor, re: VFM

This was sent to us as an anonymous letter to the editor, and we would like to run it as continued discourse on the VFM:

How to Drink the VFM’s Milkshake
name withheld upon request

The VFM contest would have very easy to hack this year. The main problem with VFM is that it is extremely easy to enter. For a measly $150 and five minutes filling out a form, any publication can appear on the ballot. The entry fee was raised from $100 to $150 this year as an attempt to filter out the ‘noise’. As Matt Naylor put it, “the idea is to limit the number in the contest; otherwise it would collapse under its own weight.” Great idea Matt! Too bad you went about it
entirely the wrong way. The voter media website explains the choice of using an entry fee: “It’s better to charge an entry fee than to require media entrants to collect signatures, because an entry fee has far lower social cost.” That last part seems to about sum it up: an entry fee has a low social cost. With a $2000 cash prize on the line, an entry fee with a low social cost and a high return on investment, it is almost like the contest was inviting fly-by night publications to enter just for the money. Matt Naylor’s mistake was focusing on the number of entrants and not the quality of the publications.

So, how could one hack the contest to assure themselves the top prize. The easiest way would be to pull a James Green. James Green, a relatively unknown, ran for mayor of Vancouver in the 2005 civic elections. He received an impressive 4,273 votes, but many think that the majority of James’ votes were actually intended for the similarly named and far more well known candidate, Jim Green. Voters, when scanning the ballot, just voted for the first J. Green they saw. So if
one were to enter the contest with a name similar to another a publication, it can be reasonably assumed that some of the voters would mistakenly vote for it. So which publication’s name would one mimic to generate the most accidental votes? It might be tempting to riff off the The Underground, the top finisher from last year, but as that publication is likely to enter the contest, one would more likely split the vote than win the prize. Luckily for the would-be hacker, the most well known newspaper on campus, The Ubyssey, doesn’t enter the competition. Mark Latham did something called a “multifactor analysis” of last years results, and concluded that had The Ubyssey entered it would have won by a landslide. And thus, The Ubussy is
born.

So unless the election code is changed next year, I am going to drink the VFM’s milkshake. I’LL DRINK IT UP!

AMS Elections 2008 Media

January 17th: Debate photos and commentary.

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 20, 2008
19 Comments on January 17th: Debate photos and commentary.

One of the things people most frequently mention about UBC Insiders is that the posts are often wordy, and lacking in sass. This should remediate both of those.

photos and comments behind the cut (warning, there’s lots!)

Ubyssey staff Brandon Adams and Jesse Ferreras, huddling before the debates start. Or exchanging sweet nothings. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Michael Duncan secretly wishes that the Presidential election was, in fact, a big hair competition.

confidential to DP: telling girls about the size of your hydrant is a bad idea.

Che Allison’s Head of Police forcibly ejects AUS President Stephanie Ryan.
I support the intention and the action and hope to see Stephanie more frequently bodily removed from things.

Mike hones his “monkey see, monkey do” skills as Erin promises to fight the War on Fun.

There was a point being made here, but I’ve forgotten it. Also, it’s not a very good photo. I’m sorry.

Maayan asks a question, as Shawn from Eat Cake erroneously thinks that he looks better in maroon.

Brittany promised violence upon my person if I said anything mean about her, and I figure she’d be at least as thorough at that as she was as VPF…

Brendon watches the debates as Jeff watches us. Because Jeff is watching us all.

Paging Dr. Freud!

I don’t want his lucky charms.

Chris Diplock, throwing down fresh rhymes and phat beats during the VPF debate.

Sarah Naiman watches the debates while enjoying a “baby roll”, one of the items on the Honor Roll’s secret menu. It’s made out of babies.

Enraged at being caught in the act of eating a baby, Sarah goes after the wrong member of the media. Luckily, Brandon survived.

Tough questions. Reasonably priced drinks. What more could you want in a debate?

Stef Ratjen, VPX candidate that Jesse Ferreras has neatly disassembled.

Freeman Poritz, VPX candidate that Jesse Ferreras has neatly disassembled.

Some of the Senate candidates look away as Colin Simkus tries to serenade the moderator. Alex Lougheed is definitely taking mental notes.

~~Being on the elections committee~~ Listening to would-be senators read their resumes would also drive me to drinking. I hope Tariq comes out of this with an intact liver.

AMS Elections 2008 Media

VFM and other media-themed updates.

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 19, 2008
16 Comments on VFM and other media-themed updates.

Voting started yesterday (Friday). As you may have noticed, the system being used is the archaic and inflexible WebVote hosted on the UBC Student Services site, not the new AMSLink system purchased by the AMS this year, which is still not functioning. If you tried to vote, you may also have noticed that the VFM entrants are not yet on the ballot. The VFM administrator, Paul Gibson-Tigh to explains:

VFMs are not on the online ballot as of yet, because the deadline for entering the contest was today at 4pm. We didn’t want to disadvantage the last minute entrants (of which there were a few) so we couldn’t complete the list until the registration period had closed. I would call it a coordination error that I guess arose because the entry form was created before the election period was determined. People will still be able to vote in the contest, even if they have voted for candidates already, so I dont think there will be any problems. I’ll keep you and the other 10 entrants posted on whats coming up if this causes any problems.

So don’t worry – everyone will still be able to vote for their favorite VFMs. Still, this timing is highly unfortunate. Media cannot themselves be publicized and marketed to a campus of 50 000 people in a timespan of days. In turn, I doubt VFM will succeed in fuelling increased voter turnout this year. We’ve learned that some last-minute entries has been submitted however. True to form though, the VFM website has yet to be updated. Another point to note is that the new voting system (Interpolated Consensus Voting) that AMS council introduced for the media contest this year can’t be administered on WebVote. The system is a little hard to understand, and I was planning a fabulous explanatory post, but don’t worry, you don’t need to know anything about it anymore. As Matthew Naylor amusingly noted last week (in a totally different context, but still) “democracy was narrowly averted”. Too bad.

Some other media notes:
The Ubyssey printed an extensive elections supplement yesterday, with profiles of all the candidates. This is great. They’ve barely published any analysis or real campaign coverage. This is sad. To summarize our official student newspaper’s coverage: 1. an article on joke candidate names; 2. an article on one specific joke candidate (the hydrant); 3. an “analysis”/opinion piece running one presidential candidate down.

This last piece is truly unfortunate. While it’s nice that the Ubyssey is trying to make it’s Friday magazine more dynamic by introducing articles that are not striclty news, but have some opinion mixed in, this patricular piece was NOT labeled as such. It’s a bit jarring to read a heavily angled and editorialized article you think is supposed to be news, and to suddenly encounter the first person “I”. Obviously, these shouldn’t take the place of actual serious reporting, which has been totally absent in the Ubyssey’s pages this campaign. The Ubyssey has formed a veritable gallery of photographers and news staff at every debate – so where’s the coverage? Given the mismanagement of the VFM contest, most voters that have read anything at all will probably be going to the polls on the basis of the Ubyssey’s inadequate and downright skewed coverage.

AMS AMS Elections 2008 Media

VFM 2008 has already failed.

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 13, 2008
19 Comments on VFM 2008 has already failed.

Dissillusioned VFM sponsor Mark Latham and I chatting yesterday. I’m not picking my nose, I swear! Photo Peter Rizov.

Poor Mark Latham. Well, actually he’s not on the street yet, but the AMS is definitely living in the doghouse.

Yup, this is a media on media story, so have your cringe and be over with it. Voter-Funded Media (VFM) is the media contest that ran in parallel with last year’s AMS elections and prompted the birth of this blog and other student media groups. The contest’s sponsor, Mark Latham, in his quest for a worldwide media revolution, chose UBC and the AMS as a testing ground for his idea. Theoretically, publicly rewarded media would increase quality of information, inform more people, and thus improve the health of democracy. He gave the AMS 8 grand for a prize pool, spent months discussing and planning with the VFM committee and then-VP external Ian Pattillo, and finally saw the launch and conclusion of the contest. The first VFM, though it was fraught with issues, (late start, lack of “non-insider” entrants, non-serious entrants in it for the money, lack of publicity), seemed promising. It didn’t increase voter turnout, but it was a great resource, a hell of a lot of fun, and probably increased the level of knowledge for the people that did vote. It could have worked. It could have grown.

This year, there was no excuse for making the same mistakes again.

(the rest behind the jump).

Yet, if possible, this years’ contest has been worse organized than last year. The VFM committee completed its code changes in October, when they were passed at AMS council. Since then, a bureaucratic lapse on the part of Matthew Naylor, who’s the VP responsible for the project, seems to have doomed the project to another year of middling results and poor participation. “He just became totally unresponsive,” said a VFM committee member of Naylor. The VFM coordinator, Paul Gibson-Tigh was only hired in mid-December. As of today, TODAY, not a shred of publicity for the contest has been seen, though it officially opened (unbeknonst to me) near the end of exams. Nothing on the AMS website. No ad in the Ubyssey. No attempt to reach out to parts of the writing and journalism communities. The VFM page on the elections site still has last year’s entries. How are media groups supposed to get organized and cover elections if they have no idea themselves? Currently, I know of three media groups, including this one, all of which are snugly within the circle of “AMS insiders”. The lack of media voices paired with the sham of contest organization will be sure to spell poor results.

The intent of voter-funded media was never to have a perfunctory cash-grab over the course of a desperate two-week campaign. It was always meant to start earlier, end later, and eventually become a sustained and continuous media reward system. This vision is clearly giving way to something entirely less useful, and much more brief. Mark Latham, for one, is not amused. “What the hell was that? I don’t get it,” he interjected when I asked him about the contest’s lack of any outward vital signs. He made it clear to me last night that he would not be sponsoring the contest again unless a change in approach occurred soon. “To me, this is water under the bridge already … I’m game to sponsor VFM again, starting next month.” Not next December. “I wrote the check today. I could have said I wouldn’t write it, but I follow through. I didn’t want to be the bad guy.” The AMS has the check, but that won’t save the remarkable opportunity the AMS has had from being wasted. It’s a crying shame.

AMS Media

VFM intro, or, how complicated can counting be?

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date October 24, 2007
11 Comments on VFM intro, or, how complicated can counting be?

Voter Funded Media, the contest that saw the birth of this and other (now defunct) charming student publications, is soon to be re-launched for this year. Yay! The media-reform project is meant to improve media culture, and by extension democracy in general. This is theoretically accomplished by making media into a public good: you reward media by votes, from a public fund, that voters pay into. In our case, that means that when you vote in AMS elections, you’ll also have a ballot for your favorite elections-media group, and prizes will be allocated accordingly. Also, our “voter funding” is actually being proffered (to the tune of $8000) by VFM-originator Mark Latham, not a public fee.

Last year the contest had many successes and some failures. This year there are some changes afoot. Here’s an intro to a few features of the contest:

Contestants – VFM is open to both established media, and new media. So, for example, last year the established Arts undergrad paper, The Underground, entered the contest and won. Tim and Gina started this blog from scratch, and also did a great job. As the contest matures, and more “new” media sources stick around and get established, the name-recognition advantage for established groups will decrease. The Ubyssey, our official student newspaper, didn’t enter last year, to leave the field more open for new groups. They even paid the entrance fee for a bunch of new media groups.
Start time – This year, the contest will be launching several months before the AMS election campaign begins. The ultimate intent of VFM is to establish permanent, healthy media choices, not just during elections time. This will give media that start early a chance to establish credibility and a reader base. Last year, the contest was pretty rushed, due to last-minute planning and approval at the AMS.
Formats – Contestants can use a wide range of media formats: internet-based, paper-based, magazine-based, whatever. The mix is pretty fun.
Media strategies – Last year, a fair number of styles surfaced through the contest. There were some joke entries, ranging from great (Radical Beer tribune) to lame (Cameron Funnell). There were more serious, issue-focused entries like The Knoll and this blog. There were some informative, but unenlightening elections newspapers like Election Erection and The Underground. And there was of course, the Duncan-Kearny group that did no media coverage whatsoever, but got people to vote for them based purely on personal popularity.
Allocating prizes – At the simplest level, prizes are allocated on the basis of voter’s preference. Theoretically, they reward the media that best served them. It gets more complicated though: this year’s VFM committee has decided upon a rather complex, unintuitive voting system for the contest, which they claim will minimize the impact of “strategic” votes and narrow-appeal media groups. The system involves each voter weighing the contestants by giving them more or less theoretical money. Then some percentile (not the mean) of the allocations determines how the prize pot is “sliced”. Don’t worry, a primer on this later.

Last year, VFM sparked some really decent debate. The candidates had to learn alot, and know the issues. It established a lively discourse during election time that was great to be part of. The new media that popped up was exciting and fresh. However, VFM didn’t increase overall voter turnout, which is still mired at about 10%. Arguably, the best media contestants did not win. And FVM took up alot of candidates’ time, preventing them from pursuing more traditional campaigning methods and getting out the vote. The good thing about VFM though, is that it improves with maturity: with more years, the contest will have more momentum to begin with, and the quality of contestants will be progressively pushed up leaving little room of get-rich-quick punks and deadbeat hacks.

We’ll see how things go this year. UBC Insiders’ awesome VFM roster is being established as we speak, so stay tuned. Here’s to media! *clink*

FYI: The VFM contest is hiring an administrator. This person would be reporting to the AMS Elections Administrator, Brian Peiovesan, and they’re offering 750 bucks. The job posting is found HERE, for those interested.

A chat I had with Mark Latham, and revelations thereof, can be found HERE

Media

The Ubyssey is kicking ass

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date September 19, 2007
10 Comments on The Ubyssey is kicking ass

Some of you may remember Gina’s issues with the Ubyssey – UBC’s official student newspaper. They’ve misquoted, butchered grammar, gotten names wrong, ignored major news stories, inflated readership numbers, published cringeable writing, and been at the AMS’s throat in the past.

But I just want to say, that this September, the Ubyssey has been kicking ass. It’s bigger and fuller than last year. The design and, especially photography, have been fantastic. The news has been timely. There were thorough updates on campus events and politics that took place over the summer months. The feedback has been fun. The background on news items has been accurate. The relationship with AMS seems to be functioning better.

OK, so the editorials are still a bit tasteless, each issue contains more sports than I’d read in a year, the website is a sodding mess (bring back the old one!!), and the reliance on the where-to-shop/eat/party/travel-on-a-low-budget format is a little heinous, but other than those quibbles, way to go

It seems that the double news editors, Brandon Adams and Boris Korby, are doing good things. AMS president Jeff Friedrich has noted his satisfaction with them in conversation, maybe signaling a more harmonious era between the offices upstairs and downstairs. The dependable Jesse Ferreras pumps out stories on AMS with reliability. Levi Barnet as copy/feedback/research is a welcome relief from the incompetence of Andrew MacRae – you need not fear the butchering of your letters any more!

True, I’m addicted to newsprint in more or less any form. But lets give credit when it’s due. And without negating the possibility for plenty of more improvements, I really think it is due.

Academic Life Government Media

The Coalition for Student Loan Fairness hits the lobbying sweet spot

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date August 29, 2007
1 Comment on The Coalition for Student Loan Fairness hits the lobbying sweet spot

There’s been a few new posts recently. Don’t forget to scroll down.

What makes for great lobbying? What gets you in the news? Why do student governments agonize and student lobbies button up, while a comparatively small group rockets into national media coverage and affects actual national party policy?

The lively example of the nascent Coalition for Student Loan Fairness (CSLF) brought these questions to my mind. The coalition was formed in April by Julian Benedict and Mark O’Meara, to give a political voice to a group of 990 000 graduates that still owe student loans. The SFU and UBC graduates (respectively), neither of whom had ever had anything to do with campus politics or goverance, got together and decided to do something about the disturbing prospect of paying their loans back to a broken system. Since its formation in April, I’ve heard about the CSLF on the CBC multiple times, and seen more than a few stories in mainstream newsprint and new sires (example: today’s MacLean’s Magazine article) . At first I was puzzled and a little miffed that it wasn’t CASA or CFS, (the two federal Canadian student lobbies) that were constantly in the news about such a crucial topic. How is it possible that the large umbrella orginizations, and even our own student societies have been either ineffectual or silent where a small group of graduates completely unconnected to student government of any sort were making waves?

I called up Julian Benedict, the coalition’s communications manager and co-founder to find out just exactly who the coalition was, and how they had made their quick ascent to political currency and newsworthiness. “I truly believe that if you have a good story, it will get out there,” said Benedict. Benedict is an SFU history honours graduate. After he graduated, he and CSLF co-founder Mark O’Meara (a UBC student) realized that there are 990 000 thousand borrowers in a gray area with no political representation. These borrowers are a little stranded – they are no longer represented by student government, but are dealing with the fallout of funding their post-secondary education in a student aid system that’s often dysfunctional, confused, and abusive.

Through discussion on O’Meara’s CanadaStudentDebt.ca website, Benedict began to feel the magnitude of the issue. “In the begining, I spent a lot of time asking myself if this was a real issue,” he recounted. The more he spoke to other borrowers, the more he was convinced that it was. Benedict soon started filling access to information requests, talking to administrators, and synthesizing statistics. The information and knowledge amassed in this research process, and the collection of stories from borrowers form the base for the coalition’s report, containing an 8-point plan, which provides “solutions to improve public confidence and operational effectiveness” of the Canada Student Loans program. The plan asks for a reduction in interest rates for student loans . It asks for a student loan Ombudsperson office to investigate and redress mistakes and abuses in the system. Other points include providing borrowers with up to date and accurate statements (which, astonishingly, are very difficult to get now), consolidating all loan repayments into one account, enforcing directives to abusive collection agencies, and providing access to grants and debt reduction.

For a novelty song, and tips on media-whoring, check out the rest behind the jump.

The basic premise of the lobby group is fairness. “Our name was deliberately chosen” said Benedict. “Fairness is something all Canadians feel strongly on.” The CSLF believes that government shouldn’t be making money off student loans; that it’s a social service like any other. That isn’t happening now. Government charges borrowers rates from 8 to 11 % while it only pays 4 to 5 % interest itself. The margin is far more than what it takes to run the program. In fact, the government made 315 million dollars in 05/06 from loan interest, and is projected to make over half a billion in the year 09/10. According to Benedict, data shows that interest rates themselves are the reason many students default on their debts. Further, there are serious economic repercussions for us as a society when so many educated young people are significantly burdened with debt, or having their credit ruined due to defaults.

Using the often disturbing stories from borrowers of abusive collection agencies, lack of transparency, and severe financial hardship as hooks, the coalition launched their website and started sending out news releases with Canadian News Wire. This can get pricey – getting your story sent out nationally with a news release agency costs at least $130 a pop. Other than investing some money, the key to lobbying success, said Benedict, is knowing a lot, being focused, and remaining so. A tactic he mentioned that appealed to me was turning something into a news story as opposed to an educational piece. “Targeted, relevant, accurate” he chanted over the phone, as I scribbled.

Benedict works full time, but he and 10 other full-time volunteers pour many hours into research and media relations. Their efforts seem to have payed off. Since April, they’ve had half a million hits on the CSLF website, and countless media exposures. They’ve received endorsements form several MP’s and scores of student organizations including the SFSS, CFS, and CASA (the AMS is notably absent). Most importantly, no federal political party had a policy on student loan interest rates before April. Due to the CSLF’s approaches and advocacy, several now do. I asked Bendict why he thought his group has made a significant impact in a short time, while the student movement had not. He essentially reiterated that effective advocacy can only take place when you collect an immense amount o f detailed meachnistic knowledge, and have a narrow focus which you don’t waver from. Large organizations in the student movement, he obseved, are run by alot of well meaning people with a finite amount of time to devote to any one thing.

Check out the CSLF’s website for Access to Information documents, polling results, news story links, and the coalition’s 8-point plan in detail at http://www.studentloanfairness.ca/while you rock out to Mark O’Meara’s student debt song at here .