This year, The Society for News Design, which recognizes excellence in visual journalism, named Toronto's own The Grid as the world's best-designed newspaper for their circulation. "The design is minimalistic and cool," said the panel.

In honour of the honour, we asked The Grid's creative director, Vanessa Wyse, to pick five of her favourite magazine covers of all time. Here's what she picked—and designed—for the RRJ. (You can click on the image for a larger view.)

Everything—seven months of planning, discussing, organizing, and executing—led up to this night. It was Thursday, April 5, and we (the Summer 2012 masthead of the Ryerson Review of Journalism) were finally ready to reveal our baby to the masses. And, if I do say so myself, everyone loved her.

The evening got started around 5:30 p.m. at the Gladstone Hotel ballroom, which our lovely PR team had decorated with white and red balloons. An assortment of tasty appetizers were served, and the bar was kept busy by thirsty party attendees. The crowd was a lively mix of Ryerson students and staff, industry professionals, and fans/supporters/friends of the magazine. Speeches were given by our publisher, Ivor Shapiro, our instructor, Lynn Cunningham, and our editor (that's me!). One lucky party-goer walked away with a free gift basket courtesy of Labour of Love. Thanks to everyone who entered the raffle; your donation means a lot to us. As the sun went down, the party really got underway, with the masthead members and friends dancing until midnight.

 

Esquire's Chris Jones—and homegrown Canadian writer—is under fire for a 370-word post about how some women aren't as good in bed as they may think they are.

“I’ve slept with you: unenthusiastic, uncomfortable, and uncommunicative, the human equivalent of the space between the couch cushions, only without the bonus possibility of my finding loose change in there,” wrote Jones below an admittedly creepy illustration of a naked woman smoking and a man’s shadow looming in front of her. (Bonus points for making a spare change joke the same day we rid ourselves of the lowly penny.)

“The trouble is, most women act as though they’re sexual Olympians, as though they’re doing the men in their lives the greatest of favors merely by presenting themselves like a downed deer strapped to the hood of a car.” Oooh, stop, you’re getting me all hot and bothered.

 

The Twitter reaction has been mixed, but much of it has been shocked indignation.Gawker took it one step further, saying that the post boiled down to a question of "Why don't women fuck me better?" 

The writer, John Cook, suggested the piece had something to do with Jones's wife, Lee, whom he married in 2003. Cook advised Lee to "Lose the 'terror clamp' every time two-time National Magazine Award-winning magazine writer Chris Jones attempts to perform cunnilingus on you." Hey, who wouldn’t mind being referred to as a two-time National Magazine Award-winning magazine writer in bed? We all have our kinks.

Jones's reaction? "Do you really think I'm going to write that my wife does the terror clamp when I go down on her?" Christ, for her sake, I hope not.

“I’m guessing John Cook’s a single dude without kids,” Jones told us over the phone. “Once he started packing on my wife, that starts crossing a line. I thought that was pretty dirty pool.”

Certainly, the post looks bad out of context, painting women as starfishes in bed, served to men on platters who are then expected to be overjoyed at the mere sight of a couple of perky tits. Jones, however, clarifies his statements by the final graph. “The bottom line is that if your sex life is bad, you bear at least some of the blame—maybe even an entire half of it. Do you want better, more satisfying sex?” (Yes, please.) “Tell your eager man what you’d like him to do to you….You’re not a slut if you like sex.”

Call it slut shaming—even though Jones explicitly states that women are treated unfairly in the realm of sex politics—but no woman would get the same backlash for criticizing her own gender that Jones has gotten in a few short hours. “Constantly, guys are told when people aren’t good in bed, he’s got a small dick, he comes too quickly. This goes both ways,” says Jones. “There’s a double standard that exists because women have been treated incorrectly for so long. Sex should be a fun and awesome thing people do to pass the time together.”

The post isn’t about telling all women they’re bad in bed. It’s not about criticizing women for their bodies. It’s about explaining to some women that to have good sex, you need to be comfortable with your own equipment. But that’s the nice thing about writing. It gives context, even up until the 370th word.

Besides, Jones gets the last word. “This is only good for me,” he told the Review. “Thanks for all the hits.”

Image via Flickr user FontShop.

As it's been a slow week for Canadian journalism (scandals), it looks like we'll be leaning on America again for a source of ethical debate. This time, we shift to Wisconsin, where 25 Gannett employees have been called out in print by their publisher for signing a petition seeking the recall of Governor Scott Walker.

Kevin Corrado, publisher of the Green Bay Press-Gazette, issued an apology to readers on Friday, writing that "those who signed the petition were in breach of Gannett's principles of ethical conduct…. [J]ournalists who work within a professional news organization must go to extra lengths to ensure against even the impression of favoring a candidate or a position." And Walker, not the British 1960s heartthrob pop singer but the guy who removed collective bargaining rights for union workers, has not been popular with the leftish media, so something like this was bound to happen. (Twenty-nine circuit court judges already signed the petition, which itself was a matter of controversy, a story broken by journalists from none other than—drum roll—Gannett.)

 

Corrado deserves kudos for coming clean to readers when he could have easily kept the incident on the down-low. And the fact that the signers will be receiving some sort of disciplinary action shouldn't come as a surprise: one of Gannett's ethical principles states that "We will avoid potential conflicts of interest and eliminate inappropriate influence on content." But this issue of journalists being discouraged from expressing a semi-public opinion on anything—signing a petition, having a sign on the lawn during an election season—is starting to seem like a sentiment from a bygone era.

Someone needs to explain—clearly, and preferably without yelling—how thinking and believing Walker should be recalled is so different from putting one's name on a sheet. True, it may mean that said journalist is more out front with his biases, and perhaps even to an audience-insulting degree—that's up to the discretion of the editors or publishers. But coming out against the principle of a "professional" journalist exhibiting a political opinion has always seemed a little patronizing to me; it's as though the publishers assume readers are too stupid to think beyond the text and consider what biases may lie in or behind the writing—and biases will always show, whether you want them to or not. Respectable in archaic intent as Corrado may be, positions like his give the appearance of impartiality—which is unachievable, thank God—instead of the actual thing. It's the idea that we should read with an elephant in the room. What if a journalist didn't sign the petition, but wrote a column expressing similar sentiments? Is his other reportage then tainted as well? (Makes you wonder what would happen if a politician decided to do away with the collective bargaining rights of journalists. Who'll write the news?)

The ironic thing is that Gannett is deciding not to release the names of the signatories, which seems to render the whole "transparency" idea rather moot. (Also, as pointed out on The Guardian's blog, Corrado's letter to readers was also published in other Gannett papers, with different bylines—though this seems to have been corrected now.)

In the upcoming issue of the Review, so lovingly put together by us all, there are a few feature stories that concern these types of dilemmas—specifically, when (and if) it's okay for a journalist to cross the line and become something more (or less). There's something to be said for the idea that journalists' opinions could carry some well-reasoned weight (talking to people and finding their little facts, as they tend to do). One shouldn't necessarily express one's biases frivolously if such weight is to be maintained, of course. But this petition wasn't (isn't—an election is anticipated) a frivolous request. If you've got something to say, say it—you're already thinking about it.

Lead image via Justin Sullivan/Getty Images 

The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism released its annual State of News Media report last Monday, focusing on social media's growing role as a tool for delivering news. Still, the report showed that respondents' use of social media as a means to access news is not as common as visits to a publication’s website, or even searches of the web—not yet, anyway.

While people are turning to their smartphones or tablets to consume the world's goings-on, there are still a large number of people who depend on their laptops or desktops to do this. These individuals may welcome the more novel ways to receive the news, but that doesn’t mean they'll forget about the old ways altogether. As the report said, “[T]heir news experience widens and deepens.” 

 

An article that appeared on Poynter earlier this week reported that according to the survey, 70 percent of Americans still turn to their laptops and desktops for news coverage, and 23 percent get news on at least two kinds of devices—with smartphones and tablets becoming a more popular way to read. It also noted that only nine percent of Americans get news from social media.

In regards to Facebook and Twitter, the former was shown to be a greater source for news than the latter, with seven percent of people getting news from Facebook “very often.” The study found that Facebook users follow links posted by family and friends, whereas Twitter users are getting these links from other sources like journalists and publications.

The bottom line is that the way people consume news do is constantly changing. For news publications, this means targeting all areas by producing more practical websites, constructing smartphone apps, and getting involved in social media. Stated more simply: get creative.

Any day is a good day when Geraldo Rivera opens his mouth on camera.

Rivera, perhaps best known for revealing how much Al Capone's vault sucked, gave his take on Fox & Friends last Friday about Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teen who was shot and killed by a self-appointed neighbourhood watchdog because he looked "suspicious."

"I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies," Rivera said. "I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as George Zimmerman was."

 

You hear that, parents of dark-skinned children? You cut that out, with your ethnic sweatshirts and attached head-coverings. If your kid gets shot, 50 percent of the blame will be on their clothes. Were they wearing dark colours? Gang colours? Baggy jeans? Fanny pack? Makeup? Hijab? Turban? Short skirt? No bra? Six bras? There are consequences, you know.

Natalie Matutschovsky, a former Ryerson image arts student and Time magazine's current senior photo editor, is flying in from New York to give a guest lecture for the IMA Student Lecture Series this Thursday, alongside Jason Logan, the creative director of all Rogers' publications. 

Before joining Time as the associate photo editor in 2010, Matutschovsky headed photography for The Walrus, of which Logan was the founding art director. She was also the photo editor of Modern Painters and Culture+Travel, as well as the senior photo researcher for The New Yorker. 

 

Freeloaders, it’s time to pay up. That’s the message being sent by The New York Times, anyhow, as the paper announced yesterday it was changing the number of free articles visitors to the website could access each month. 

 

When the paywall was first introduced in March of last year,the Times said that visitors to the paper’s website could access up to 20 articles per month free. This number has now been decreased to 10. When the limit has been reached, users can pay $15 per month for web and mobile access, $20 for web and tablet access, and $35 for access to all three.