The picture I tweeted moments after the game ended.

“You were there?” Yes, right next to the first car on fire.

And then, wandering the downtown core, calling into the station as another car got swarmed, the police moved in, hundreds streamed down an alley, looking for what might happen next.

I’ve been thinking a lot the Stanley Cup Riot this week, not just because the playoffs started again, prompting more discussions on policing and crowd control.

Last night was the RTDNA Awards, where our CBC team was honoured with several regional awards for our coverage. So were other outlets in the city, so the acceptance speeches were filled with memories of what we all saw and felt that night.

I was excited for the playoffs last year. But 10 months post-riot? Not one bit.

My city transformed, for better then worse

Not green men, but green kids at what started as family-friendly playoff parties.

I was a fan of what was happening on the streets, much more than the ice. It rekindled a bit of that spirit from the Olympics, the year before.

Granville Street after the 2010 Olympics gold medal game, Feb. 28 2010.

During the Olympics, that was all capped off with the impromptu street party after the men’s gold medal hockey win.

That whet my appetite, and I’m sure many others, for another crazy but good-natured civic celebration.

As CBC’s Stephen Quinn recalled on the radio this week about the outdoor playoff parties: “It was fun, until it wasn’t.”

Smoke rising, bottles flying

And that turning point came around 8:02 p.m., June 15, 2011.

I was already outside the CBC with a television camera and other reporters, gathering comments from disappointed fans. Then, over the sea of people on Georgia Street, bottles started flying, aimed at the massive public viewing screen.

We saw smoke across the street, but didn’t see where it was coming from. We linked arms and pushed through the crowd, getting sworn at for our CBC logos. As we reached the other side, we saw that first overturned car, just smouldering.

I felt a wall of heat as it burst into flames.

That’s when I tweeted the picture at the top of this post. I didn’t know how to describe it. Do I name this, a #riot? Maybe, but this is just one car. Are these #Canucks fans? That debate continues today.

So I just wrote: “Georgia street right now.” It lacked keywords or hashtags, but it was true. And shared widely, with many adding comments: “sad” “OH MY GOD” “holy crap” “insane” “disappointing.”

It was a little of all of those things, especially disappointing. But also surreal.

Witnessing downtown that night, it felt like either that memory of happy Olympic crowds was make-believe, or this was. But they were both real, and now we have to live with it.

I had another go with the food price data, using one of the new tools I’ve been playing around with.

I still have a tonne to learn, and it seems like there is a lot of innovation in this area. No one tool is perfect but after reading a bit on the Guardian’s Data Blog I’ve been playing around with Tableau Public (for maps and interactive charts) and Google’s Fusion tables (for maps). Google Chart Wizard seems wonky to me; when I’ve entered data—even for a simple bar graph—it built the graph but not accurately. Probably I don’t know how to work it yet. As for the other tools, I’m learning as I go.

Anyway, here’s a second go at the food prices chart, with updated (to Dec. 2011) food price data from Statistics Canada. (Here’s the link to the newest data, which may have already been updated since I built the chart.)

Any more suggestions on data visualization tools?

Click through to see the chart…

Change in average food prices in Canada

The latest data available show food prices for each October for 2007-2011. So, I calculated percent change for the past year, and the past four years. Because the x-axis is so far down, I popped on a couple of the 1-year numbers to make it more clear.

Source: Statistics Canada, as of Dec. 3 2011

And income?

For most people, are not growing at the same pace. For example, in B.C. the average hourly wages went up 2.3% in the past year (not adjusted for inflation).

Some groups did much better: managers’ wages on average went up 7%, certain industries saw wages go up 12%. Others did worse: young workers (15-24) saw their average hourly wages decrease.

Some people also grow food to give to those in need.

This generally happens in December. It always makes me think of a day in November. In 2004, to be precise.

I was working as CBC Radio’s reporter in Nelson, and our assignment desk was expecting the annual report on child poverty in our province. So, I was asked to go talk to a family, with children, who were struggling.

An articulate and brave single working mom with a young son agreed to talk to me on the radio. She invited me into her apartment while she made dinner for the boy; I remember her stirring yoghurt into some organic macaroni and cheese to add a little more protein for him. She told me she got help from the food bank, at times, and healthy protein was hard to afford.

It’s not a dramatic story, but I think of them every time we talk about food banks. About one in three people who rely on food banks in B.C. is a child.

Food prices are on the rise too. That’s something we all sense in our grocery bills, but it’s really striking when you look at the numbers, especially for staples.

Here are changes in food prices, from Oct. 2010 to Oct. 2011:

• Potatoes – up 24%
• Carrots – up 20%
• Coffee – up 19&
• Flour – up 17%
• Eggs – up 13%

[Data from Statistics Canada, calculation by me.]

I did that story seven years ago and child poverty in B.C. is still on the rise, and the worst in Canada. We did the story again this past November. And next year?

I have to stress, a scientific background is not necessary — anyone can ask the same kinds of questions. But, for me, the muscles I exercised in science help. I imagine it would be similar for someone with a background in economics or the law, who can skip a couple of steps en route to finding interesting information in those fields.

Meltdown in the media

Still from an animated graphic showing 'exposed' fuel rods. (CBC)

I remember waking up to a news that the nuclear fuel rods were “exposed” and in danger of melting down. I was tasked that day with explaining to our audience, an ocean away, what that meant.

Step one: what does “exposed” mean? Many of the early reports were not explaining that bit, leaving the audience to wonder whether the nuclear fuel was exposed to the outside world—meaning the reactor was totally compromised. So what was happening?

The officials were slow to release information, the aerial shots were not clear, and I had no idea what the inside of a nuclear reactor looked like (despite growing up in nuclear towns).

So, I needed the help of people who know about nuclear reactors, would pick up their phone, and be willing to talk to me. Happily, I found two: one at UBC’s TRIUMF laboratory, and one a former neighbour (and nuclear engineer) at the Hanford nuclear facility in Washington State.

They explained that “exposed” meant the water that is supposed to be covering and cooling the rods inside the reactor was boiling off. Unless they could be cooled, the rods could create so much heat they’d melt the metal holding them apart, and fall, and keep getting hotter. A complete meltdown was possible, but considered unlikely. The impact of a meltdown would be mostly local; the fuel would literally be melting out of the reactor onto that site. Very different than an explosion.

The situation was not good. But it also wasn’t yet as dire as it had sounded. The rods were still inside the reactor, the reactor’s containment vessel was still in place, but possibly leaking. We created graphics to show our audience what was going on.

Here are videos with my stories from that week (March 14 | March 15). If you prefer text, here’s a good explainer from Richard Black, the BBC’s smart Environment Correspondent.

Numbers in context

Putting radiation levels in some kind of familiar context. (CBC)

These risks are unfamiliar, which tends to make them more scary. The challenge is to put them in context.

I compared the radiation exposure at the plant to things people are more familiar with. I dug up charts and checked them with experts, and found that the radiation had been very high, but fell to a level between a chest X-ray and CT scan. (Note, I mispronounced millisieverts.)

None of these “digging” examples are particularly sexy, or investigative exposés. In fact, as I learned more, the story became less sensational, but more true. And I think our audience has an appetite for that.

A behind-the-scenes look at the talk I'll take to class

Here’s a sneak peek at the Prezi I made for the talk.

It’s not that rare to be a reporter with a background in science; we have a few in our local newsroom. But it’s still uncommon enough that when people I encounter on the job learn I studied biology, they’re surprised.

Many ask whether it was my plan all along to learn about science, then report on it. (Not at all —I really thought I was going to be a biologist).

And, I often hear, “Oh that must really help you on scientific stories.” (Absolutely! But not in the way you might think.)

Bring on the data!

The fact is, the facts I learned don’t help me much. Even if I remembered every nephron and neuron I scribbled down in a final exam, my information is more than a decade out of date.

What’s important about what I learned is it gives me the faith that even complex things can be understood, and it’s my job to make sense of them, and use that information to critically evaluate what people tell me.

A three-spined stickleback. Image from Dolph Schluter's lab, where I once measured fish tails.

Being unafraid of numbers and spreadsheets is good too. I learned Excel spending many hours volunteering in a lab measuring millimetres of stickleback tails. Now on the job, I use a spreadsheet at least once a week to sort data and make calculations.

How do you know that?

The focus of my talk is evaluating sources of information. Scientists and journalists work in very different ways — it’s always fun to shock first-year students with the kind of deadlines I operate under — but we both have to think critically about the evidence a claim is based on.

I’ll be encouraging the students to ask: “How do you know that?” Should be fun.

Ready to go on air in Sparwood, B.C. (Dan Rodenbush)

Look at the title: “Is TV News Journalism Salvageable?” It presumes a thing broken, that may or may not be rescued from the alley before the garbage truck comes.

But, I went, because I find it a luxury to step back from the daily panic of doing, and talk about doing better. Maybe there would be talk instead of sanding and refinishing, or a fresh coat of paint.

One new path

Kai Nagata was headlining, with a critique of TV news, and why he quit his job when he felt more like part of the problem than the solution. He’s a very engaging speaker, but I bristled when he took some cheap shots, mocking CBC News and CTV’s Investigators (one of whom was in the audience) for having flashy graphics. As I said on Twitter, if you’re going to criticize TV news, don’t start by dogging new investment in enterprise and original storytelling (something CBC is also putting more local resources into).

Still, he made solid points analyzing one of his own previous stories, describing how he hadn’t the time or freedom in that job to do the journalism he wanted.

So, he’s now sleeping in a tent in his parent’s backyard, working on a solution—networking online and across the country to talk about new models of production and distribution. And let me be clear: I don’t take umbrage with that, or with anyone taking risks to tell stories they care about.

Is that it?

But the discussion that followed left me disappointed, because it turned so cynical, despite the smart people assembled on stage. [It would have helped if there was someone who currently works in TV news participating; the organizers had tried to find someone but were not able to.]

There was acknowledgement from a couple of panelists that there are some good people in TV “working their guts out” to tell important stories. But little talk about how to get more of that.

Instead, we heard blanket criticisms of the industry, repeated references to “cat up a tree” stories, and the crowd applauded the panelist who thought TV news should die. It felt more like a discussion called, “Is TV News something we can roll our eyes at and dismiss?”

Now, take this all with a grain of salt; I work in TV news. I’m not saying it’s perfect, nor am I in a position to critique or defend the industry or my employer. But at the very least, if you’re going to host a discussion called, “Is TV News Journalism Salvageable?” surely there’s a more interesting and intellectually challenging answer than “no.”

I have some ideas I’m working on, to loosen some of the logistical shackles on my own televised journalism. More on that later, I hope.

Maybe you have ideas too. What do you think would improve television news? Tell a reporter what you think would make it better. Genuine suggestions, not sneering please.

• Acid Oceans: The other climate change problem
• Saving Sharks: Connecting the Asian fin trade to Canadian waters
• Branding Nature: Selling and saving the seas

Basking sharks have huge mouths, the better to filter plankton with. (Chris Gotschalk/DFO)

But I didn’t have a context for why overfishing sharks would be any different than other types of overfishing. I also wasn’t sure whether this was something that affected sharks off Canada’s Pacific coast, or if it was only a problem other places.

It turns out, yes, overfishing sharks is different, and yes, the fin trade around the world affects endangered sharks here. I connect the dots with the help of patient scientists, to tell a tale about endangered basking sharks. That piece also aired across Canada on CBC Radio.

The second International Marine Conservation Congress starts in Victoria today. Scientists, policy makers, resource managers, and NGOs are here to share science on our changing oceans, and ideas on how to save them. It’s only been held once before, 2 years ago in Washington, D.C. What I find so interesting is the goal is not just moving the conversation forward by publishing papers in the scientific literature — but also by crafting recommendations that let science inform public policy.

I’m here to report for CBC Radio — you’ll hear me talking to Stephen Quinn, host of On the Coast, and Grant Lawrence, guest-hosting All Points West. I’ll be on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday at about 5:40 or so in the Vancouver area and 4:50-ish in the rest of B.C.

Changing oceans

It’s not easy to decide what to cover. The program is huge, covering invasive species, overfishing, aquaculture, planning, and many more issues. I’ll be looking for stories that mean something to a B.C. audience.

One piece will be on climate change and ocean acidification — there is a lot on it at this conference, and a topic I find really interesting. We know the pH of the ocean is changing as it absorbs excess CO2 we’re dumping into the atmosphere. It seems to already be causing problems for the shellfish industry in some coastal areas. But it’s not clear just how the complex systems of the sea will respond to these changes — or how this threat stacks up against others.

Still deciding on other topics. I’m excited—and a little bit daunted—to dive in.

* update: This may or may not be an internet myth based on a band name. I was just chatting with a journalist publishing a book on sharks, and she’d never heard it. Nevertheless, a lovely word.

Another kind of feed, from the animal kingdom (Photo by tomsowerby on flickr)

But here’s a path I wonder about sometimes, that Darren just reminded me of by mentioning “churnalism” — a derogatory term for practice of rewriting press releases and calling it news.

To be clear, I’m not saying I hope this is where we’re heading, I’m musing out loud about something I find partly ominous. I also see it as a possibility if certain existing traits of the current news environment thrive and outcompete others.

Follow your own news

What if mainstream media organizations gave up on covering anything that came written well in a press release? As in, if there’s enough in the release that “churnalism” could be practiced, it just isn’t.

The public would still get the information that’s available from the big institutional sources of news by signing up to those institution’s feeds. Instead of reporters tasked with checking whether there’s anything new from the Delta Police or Vancouver Coastal Health, the people who want to know what those bodies have to say pull the information in themselves. Aggregators would emerge (probably from the news media and elsewhere) to curate feeds for people who aren’t interested in doing that themselves.

This is something we already see, a bit. Celebrities talking directly to fans via social media to bypass critical coverage. PR people with more followers than the reporters they pitch.

What, role, then, would journalists play? One possible path (and my hope, in this thought-experiment) is that by curbing time spent on these easy tasks, newsrooms running at full-tilt would have more time to do the hard stuff, like finding more stories someone hasn’t already told, or more thorough information to tell them better.

It’s like that often-retold tale about the jar with sand and rocks, meant to remind us that if you fill your days with little things there’s no room for the big priorities. This would be a switch to more rocks, less sand. I’m happy to say I’m seeing some shift in this direction at CBC right now.

The other possibility is newsrooms would just keep shrinking, and more former reporters would go work for the feeds.

Okay, there’s one dodgy idea. I wonder what cool experiments might already be underway, when it comes to picking battles. Where do you think the news is going?