Keep it up Mr. Hahn!

Wow. I consider myself a left leaning liberal type, but this article won me over to Mr. Hahn on this case. All this whining about losing FOI scoops??? really do you not have a more noble cause to champion? Bottom line appears to be Mr. Hahn outfoxed you all!

Stanley, why don't you do an

Stanley, why don't you do an article on Mr. Hahn and his history before BC Ferries? It should be interesting on how the Liberals will react when Gordo is no longer around to protect Mr. Hahn. Prediction: Mr. Hahn will be gone before the next election (with a severence package that will make Goldman Sachs envious). Hmm, maybe just maybe, David would love to get fired.

great issue

I must admit -- Hahn has a point. Why should a publicly subsidized corporation be spending a million bucks to generate responses to media FOI requests.

And the media whining about losing scoops -- well, tough beans. If they post it all online and give it to everyone, they are serving the public --the media isn't the public, and never has been.

The real issue here goes well beyond BC Ferries and FOI requests. ALL information about publicly-funded agencies/ministries/departments should be part of a public register and available for everyone to see. Yes, there are cases where specific bits of info/data shouldn't be made public for privacy concerns -- but all the rest should be routinely available.

And as far as hampering investigative reporters? BS -- it just means they have to work harder and longer. That's a concept not very well understood in most newsrooms in the country, where instant gratification is the only motivating factor.

What's FOI again?

Oh yeah. FREEDOM of information.
I wonder over the years how many nuggets of information reporters got through FOI but the public never heard about because they didn't deem it "newsworthy". Or worse, that it was newsworthy but didn't follow their storyline.

News Media disappointed by mass release of information

Oh come on. Here the media is just being self serving and territorial. The point is this information should be freely available. this is just an example of Media secretiveness and information hoarding for their own agenda.

Grow up and deal with a new information environment. Quality journalism and hard work will always succeed and stand out.. worry about that instead of information control.

You can always sign up for the listserve and get the notice the same time as everyone else when you put in a FOI request.

Typical Yankee.

Kill the appetite for investigative reporting by making sure no one person gets the scoop. This incentive to be the first to reveal a story has been the drive behind all investigative reporting for centuries. Kill that and who would bother if they know someone else might get it out first. It is typically sleazy and typically Yankee.

Some of you just don't get how dangerous this is. There is now a stifling of good journalism and you guys want more of the same. Sheesh!

Hahn

One thing about the president of the ferry corporation -- he's not dull, and gives the Wall Street hedge fund (!) lots of copy!

nothing stifled

Skywalker sez: "Some of you just don't get how dangerous this is. There is now a stifling of good journalism and you guys want more of the same. Sheesh!"

Having practiced as a journalist for more than 40 years, I can tell you that you are correct about the concept of a scoop as a motivator.

But you are mistaken if you think this is an attempt to stifle the act. I guess I did most of my investigative work (not in BC I should add) before there was an FOI act. That meant hours and hours of reading available public documents, and coaxing people in the know to tell me what was going on, and to slip me those documents that supported it. It was never very easy, but you're right -- the satisfaction of the big black headline with your byline on the piece made up for that and the piss-poor pay you got.

What passes for investigative journalism now is to submit a broadly-worded FOI request and let the other guy do all your work for you. Wow, that's tough. As a taxpayer -- I resent that, because I'm paying their salaries to do the reporter's work.

My point -- and I believe this is where the media and the public should be championing the issue -- is to get to the point where the whole FOI/right to privacy legislation is redundant. In other words, push the politicians to create, once and for all, access to a public data base that can't be meddled with. Then an enterprising reporter who knows what she's looking for has an advantage. Woodstein didn't have an FOI to fall back on. Go after the government penchant for secrecy once and for all.

All the FOI legislation did was allow the pols to wash their hands he public accountability issue, and give reporters with nothing to do on a given day a way to mount a fishing expedition at public expense.

too smart for his own good?

Journalists are independent business people, they make a living uncovering stories!

If some stories are not hidden, what is there to uncover?

Hence jornalist begin to look for other scources of stories, and eventually BC Ferries will get no request for info, and can once again begin to hide their dirty laundry!

Excellent strategy Mr. Hahn, even if it is underhanded.

Yes, but..

How can we, the public, be certain that the FOI docs Ferries posts are "all" of what would have been been released to the media? How can we be sure that a word or paragraph here and there doesn't go "accidentally" missing before hitting the corporation's FOI tracker site?

Hmm....

Unless I'm missing something (and I am awaiting the follow up article), I'm not seeing how this is an issue beyond reporters.

There's also a couple of things that, as an amateur, but experienced, writer, I question.

First, the idea that reporters work on society's behalf. Of course, some do, but they represent a very small percentage of reporters in the industry--and it IS a for-profit, bottom-line oriented, stock-holder driven, industry...just ask the Turners, Aspers, Thompsons, Blacks, Hearsts (need I go on really?) of the world.

Independent journalists will always be around (as will be great investigative journalists, however rare a breed) and, I would suggest, these indie writers are as responsible for breaking major and important stories as any highly paid and trained corporate journalist--whistle blowers, perhaps even more so.

Second, the idea that there ever was a 'golden age' of journalism is to be ignorant of journalism's history. Yellow journalism is a term that is as old as journalism itself (circa late 19th century) and--then as now--represents the vast majority of 'journalism' you'll come across on a newsstand. So, the idea that the era, for example, of Woodward and Bernstein was somehow a purer, more honest (or whatever positive spin you wish to put on it), era is as disingenuous as it is naive.

To be clear: there are, have been, and likely always will be, great, honest, and courageous investigative writers; however, the ida that this is the singular domain of the so-called professional, or that there was a golden age, is completely nonsensical.

I think the truth is that professional journalists not only have a conflated view of their own importance (and an equal measure of willful ignorance of their real effect: so mythological it borders on delusional) but also are suffering from their own self designed and imposed archaic technological structure just as many other medias are realizing.

I doubt very (veryveryvery) much that there is anything even approaching honesty or integrity in Hahn's statements. But, this position as presented by reporters is, I'd argue, equally smoke and mirrors.

Like Assange's wiki leaks, and the whistle blowers, I look forward to more--not less--information. Hopefully, what we'll see rise from the ashes of media's ashes will be a more grassroots, engaged,and informed citizen-reporter.

I'd add three items to the

I'd add three items to the Hahn Technique and apply to the whole government.
1. Agency/gov't to post ALL FOI requests on receipt, including content and name of requester. This should shame some folks into not asking in the first place. It would also reduce frivolous claims.
2. WITHIN ONE WEEK, agency to decide whether claim is frivolous or not. If frivolous, refer to Commissioner for final determination. Post this information as well.
3. Eliminate fees.

See what happens.

Adjust to unforeseen results. But in the meantime, enjoy the uptick in respect which comes from transparency.

hmmmm

"Why would the freelance journalist, or weekly program or publication pursue a story at great expense that all media, including those with hourly deadlines, can access all at once?" Well yes, this is the very heart of the question, or to turn it around, we could very well ask why not? The reality is, as others have already pointed out, that the 'mainstream' (no longer really mainstream) media only wants to dig, and investigate, and uncover what makes money...and scoops make money, or used to. But frankly, the whole idea is as archaic as the old white guys running most of the newspapers. (Old white girls included.)

I should be clear that the idea of paying for FOI is repugnant to me, and antithetical to democracy, and furthermore I believe that virtually all information should be available. Naturally we do not want to disclose things about individuals that should be private,but it would make more sense for those acting on behalf of the government/crown corporation to have to put forward reasons for NOT making information available, to turn this idea around too.

The mainstream media doomed itself, in large part,because they could only be bothered to chase after 'scoops' - and ignored other very real stories. So much so, that the mainstream media is no longer 'the' go to place for news and stories. Most of us are reading a greater variety of news and opinions - not to mention better writing - in blogs, and online journals of all kinds, for gods sake, on facebook. We are never going back to the world of 'scoops' and scarce information.
One hopes that we are going forward to a world of deep analysis and brilliant writing. What the internet has wrought to date is far better than its predecessors.

Remember when the Queen of the North sank.

Who did Hahn call first to get ahead of the story? A government friendly BCTV reporter.

As to blackie's comment, I think he's wrong. This is the world we live in and FOI shouldn't be but is required. Hahn is trying to ensure that all reporters even the useless ones to lazy to dig up a story that makes their people look bad will be able to know what others are doing. They have time to dig in their defenses or start saying, "The story has no legs". Just like in the BC Rail case. I can't believe there are folks who makes excuses for this clown.l

I think the "alternative" media......

....such as the Tyee would continue to post stories - if only because the information still has to get to the general public, which is not generally going to peruse all the publicly released FOI requests and information.

Well Mr Hahn

You might think it's silly, but I'd really like to know exactly 'who' you do send Christmas cards to every year - especially if BC Ferries is paying for the cards, the printing and the postage.

I noticed you made sure you called Keith Baldry in the middle of the night when the Queen of the North sank...I suppose your close 'personal' relationship with him isn't affected by the fact of whom 'he' works for...

I reckon you sent him a Christmas card too, eh?

If you really 'believe' in transparency and accountability Mr Hahn you could actually do something about it.

I guess THAT hasn't occured to you either.

Goodness Gracious!

Poor journalists, their FOI scoops made redundant, their careers irrevocably ruined... how will they find information without a discrete, formalized application process?

Brings to mind the stories I've read about Mexican journalists in Juarez, where journalists are murdered yearly in double digits, or the Phillipines, where a busload of journalists and activists were killed recently and where I read how one journalist had her husband drive her to work daily with two guns and a hand grenade ready.

Where there's a will there's a way.

Wikileaks, anyone?

It may be that reporters have to change their tactics to get good stories, but I think the wikileaks deluge is pretty much demonstrating that knowledge is better out than in.

What is more concerning is Hahn's ridiculous view that taxpayers are subsidizing pesky varmints who make silly requests. Why doesn't BC Ferries just, as a matter of course, put everything online and let us decide what matters? Again, as wikileaks demonstrates, the world doesn't stop turning just because information is suddenly free.

If everyone stopped protecting their turf so assiduously, transparency and accountability would go up for all of us. And hello, we'll still need reporters to do the investigating and put the story together for us. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm too busy to keep an eye on David Hahn - but I'm glad someone does!

To play the Devil's advocate for a moment...

Patents give inventors a head start, the ability to recoup their investment in an idea and profit by their ingenuity. We could argue over the length of time that a patent should remain in effect, but the ability to reserve those rights for any period is a powerful incentive.

(Some) journalists put a lot of effort into teasing out stories and the head start afforded by the secrecy of FOI requests enables them to justify that effort. If the request is immediately published, they're essentially working for the competition.

As much as it might seem that this is a step in the direction of information freedom, the result will be the exact opposite. Journalists and the outlets they work for need to make a living and if they can't count on a small window of exclusivity (all of this information gets out eventually), they'll just give up.

It might feel clever to have discovered that - AHA! - journalists are more interested in the almighty dollar than in the public good, but then you're just falling into the trap that Hahn has set for you.

Hahn can't have it both ways

Journalists and media companies are unlikely to pay the FOI fees if the information gets released to everyone. The net result will be that stories will go unreported. This is what Hahn is clearly counting on.

Those of you who are making this about reporters are getting sucked into Hahn's line of reasoning. I don't care about the reporters but I do care about finding out what goes on inside these organizations.

Either eliminate FOI fees or give reporters who pay a certain amount of exclusivity. You can't have it both ways.

And while I'm on the topic....

FOI laws have had the unintended and unwelcome effect of disadvantaging public organizations relative to private ones. If politicians are being embarrassed by the way that public organizations are being run, one simple effective way to permanently fix the situation is to privatize. No more FOI.

As a citizen, I'm more entitled to information on what the Ministry of Forests is doing up in Prince George than to what a private company is doing half a block from where I live. I can see much more information about BC Ferries than I can about a company I hold shares in. That doesn't seem right to me.

FOI is a fine idea but it needs to be applied more evenly on a basis of what might affect me, not simply on a basis of whether an organization is public or private.

exclusivity?

If journalists can't rely on exclusivity, perhaps we can look forward to better writing, with deeper analysis. In the end, journalists are read because of their writing and research skills.

The Globe and Mail paid to get a 'scoop', in requesting release of some information from the Basi/Virk trial (they hired and paid a lawyer to do this for them, something out of reach of the ordinary citizen)and promptly informed us what we should think of this very selective information.Now, I personally believe they wrote their own death warrant right then and there...but let me ask you, did the Globe and Mail gain any credibility? Any reputation for stellar reporting? Good writing? The point was to sell newspapers.

As G West and others have pointed out,the wealthy, the connected have had access to breaking information that both enabled them to make money, but also - with emphasis! - to put their own spin on that information. It is simply not acceptable, and now that there is an alternative, it will not be accepted. It would behoove journalists to hone their skills: to provide fresh perspectives on old problems, another point of view (we weary of the same damn pap repeated in publication after publication),and - imagine! - a departure from the pop culture ethos of what passes for journalism in quite a few places I won't name.

The point is, that change has happened, and while the masters of spin such as David Hahn might manipulate information in any way that suits their agenda, we, the citizens of a democracy, are under no obligation to accept it.

greed

Hahn displayed a dubious amount of arrogance when recently asked about his exorbitant salary. He said he wouldn't have done what he has if he was paid any less. Well I know there are hundreds of former long time employees of BC ferries that wish he never took the job. Does anyone really think things are better ? The Fast food sucks to say the least longer waits huge price increases with far more to come. Broken down ferries tens of millions sent to Germany for ferries that are no better than the much maligned fast ferries and which in fact will cost more in the end. No folks the only thing better about the ferries is the pay for the top few execs.

@Vivian Lea Doubt

Why would any journalist do investigative reporting on BC Ferries when they know that their poking around will alert others? Give your head a shake. This is intended to cool any poking around in Hahn's private fiefdom.

Oops! Sorry Vivian Lea

That last post was directed at Ricky. I got interrupted.

It can all blow up in the man's face.

Just keep pestering him and sooner or later things will be back to normal only journalist will then have to wait twice as long for the info. Oh, wait, that's not normal, is it?

1. Hahn knows he is out of a

1. Hahn knows he is out of a job if the government changes.
2. He prefers to steer the questioners rather than have them do FOI's.
3. he claims he will be leaving in two years so no longer hiding things is OK

As an example, if I may:

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/03/rodney-king-20-years.html

@Skywalker

What Hahn intends and what is good for the voters and taxpayers of BC may well be two different things, but respectfully I would suggest that you might look at it from a different view.Ultimately, if everyone has access to the same information, then the political spin that any particular news organization might want to put on that information is irrelevant.It will be irrelevant because inumerable others will be able to read, analyze, and argue for other points of view.
Hahn is simply doing what he does best, in my view, and it looks like he may succeed in getting investigative reporters up in arms. But whose agenda does that serve? For me personally, I am going to read those journalists that serve up useful and important information...whether they are 'first' with that information belongs to an age when 'newsboys' hawked papers on city streets. This age demands 'better' rather than 'first', in my opinion.

RE: skywalker: Um....

HOW would this do so..?

It may, as the article mentions, dissuade SOME journalists for trying to gain FOI due to alerting competitors; however, it isn't as if a journalist--or ANYONE not associated with BC Ferries (or, for that matter, any associated with them)--is going to feel 'threatened' by Darth Hahn..?!?

ANOTHER thing missing from this article is the FACT that many up and coming journalists make their name via the very route of uncovering what established journalists are afraid too.

You think they'd be 'worried' about what Hahn would do to them..?

...as if ....

;-)

@blackie

"The real issue here goes well beyond BC Ferries and FOI requests. ALL information about publicly-funded agencies/ministries/departments should be part of a public register and available for everyone to see."

I couldn't agree more. The public is the owner. The public has a right to the information. It should be stored digitally like all other information is these days and accessible via the Internet - not a hard concept really. Anything less is BS.

wcullen

I don't think Hahn cares about FOI in any other case than BC Ferries. That is what he is trying to steer journalist away from. It is a way of saying, "I'll screw with any journalists with the temerity to poke into MY domain".