Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Brussels Post, 1978-12-13, Page 2Some ground rules Photographers and reporters have their own lives to lead. That's something some people are inclined to forget when wanting pictures of their local organization, club or sports event. Of course it is part of a reporter's job to cover these events. And those who work for the Post try their best. But it is not always convenient for a reporter to stay around till the end of a meeting to take photos. He or she may have other work commitments elsewhere and might also like to have some time off, after a full day at work followed by an evening photo assignment. We know it may be your group's party but the photographer is there to work, not to spend a social, time. So it is best if photos of events you'd like covered by the Post can be set up ahead of time and the reporter notified at our office at least 48 hours before the event.. It would also be good for someone to meet the reporter at the door at the agreed upon time to show him or her just what you want photographed. Reporters don't mind covering these events. What they do mind is being kept waiting, until the meeting ends to get pictures or being told about the, event the night it is being held. If clubs and organizations take into consideration that time is important to the reporters and photographers covering their events it will make us happier and you'll get more news in the Post. Just to sum up the ground rules forphotoCoverage as wesee them from our end. We welbome your comments at any time. Call the Post to ask for a photographer at least 48 hours before your special event... if it's on a weekend a week ahead would be better still. Agree on what time the p13'oto is to be taken (we'd prefer to come pefore or early in your meeting or would you like to run out at 10:30 to take a photo?) Have someone in your group meet the reporter it the door and show him or her what photos you'd like taken. Let the photographer take the photos and quietly leave. You wouldn't arrange to have a caterer get dinner at 7 p.m.andkeep her waiting until 8 p.m....please extend the same courtesy to the people from the Post. We'll guarantee you'll see the results, better photos and news of . your group, from happier people who work here. Rowisit.s ONTARIO WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1978 Serving Brussels and: the surrounding community, Published each, Wednesday afternoon at lirussels, Ontario By 'McLean Bros. Publishers Limited Evelyn Kennedy - Editor Pat Langlois - Advertising Member.Canadian Community Newspaper Association and Ontario Weekly Newspaper ASsociation C A Subscriptions (in advance) Canada $9.00 a Year. Others $17.00 a Year. Single. Copies 20 cents each. *CNA , - 'f*i M150 4Brussels Post Optimists float Behind the scenes by Keith Roulston WE'D RATHER FLY -- That May have been thd Brussels- Flying Club's motto but for the Santa Claus parade they had to be content with being pulled alOng on a Wagon. (Photo by Langlois) Nothing is surer to get one into an argument (with the possible exception of book banning) than the pros and cons of relaxed liquor laws in Ontario. The CTV program W5 last week had a startling show on the liquor trade, particularly dealing with the use of topless waitresses and bottomless dances to stimulate consumption of alcohol and beat the competition in what thas become a huge increase in the number of licensed establishments in the province. That, together with my reading recently of A Clearing in the West by Nellie McClug and her arguments against liquor tended to make me focus my own toughts on the whole situation recently. As ususal it brought more questions than answers. Oh there are those who have all the answers to the liquor question but I think they're pretty short sighted in their solutions whether they be advocating outright banning or throwing the doors open even wider. There's little of a temperance movement background in my family for that matter, a record of consumption that would gladden the heart of a government agent collecting liquor taxes. Wine and the odd bottle of something stronger come into our house- hold and I see no reason to st op them. But I must confess, unfashionable as it may be, that the growing prominence of booze in our society causes me some concern. What brothers me is that drink is supposed to be something one does as part of enjoyment of something else, not as an end in itself. Bars are included in places of entertainment to add to the pleasure, just one more little convenience. But now it seems to more and more be becoming a case of the tail wagging the dog. The bar is becoming more important than anything else. When Theatre London decided to rebuild the old Grand Theatre a survey was done of patrons to see what they wanted in the new building. The answers were oberwhelming in two areas, Patrons wanted comfortable seats and a bar. If you go to a fashionable restaurant the food may seem expensive but the chances are that the thing that's really keeping the place in business is your tab at the bar,. Most musicians these days earn their living by working in bars, being the carrot that draws people into the barroom So they can, drink. The drinks are what pays the musicians. Even then bar owners are switching more and more either to discos Or to topless waitresses and exotic dancers, partly because they are cheaper btit also partly beeause people tend to drink more while watching, parts of the female anatomy bob about. We've got a lot of expensive new arenas and community cnetres around these days that are paying their bills by the revenue turned in by the bar. It seems impossible these days to do anything without there being alcohol included. Theres even been a big outcry because they can't serve booze at baseball game in Toronto, making the city the only one in the major leagues without beer sold in the stadium. And the only theatres in Canada that make money are those performing cabaret; where the audience is willing to pay enought by buying drinks to pay the cost of production. If they were asked right out to pay enough in the price of admission to pay the full costs of the show they'd probably say no, but they're quite willing to pay less to get in then spend enough on drinks to make the show profitable. And then of course there's our govern- ment, the biggest benieficiary of all (next to the liquor companies) from our new penchant for booze, booze and more booze. In a time of declining revenues those liquor taxes look pretty good to governments. But what's the answer? I don't know. Nellie McClung and her temperance reformers thought that banning the pro- duction and sale of alcohol could solve the , problem but we know now, after the prohibition debacle that that won't work. I recall even as a youngster going to local dances before the days of bars at dances and seeing drunken brawls far worse than anything we have today. The men would disappear from the dance to "have a quick one" out at the car. Unfortunately that's exactly what it was: too quick leading to easy drunkeness and plenty of unpleasant- ' I remember too the days when alcohol wasn't as easy to to get as it is today when there used to be bootleggers in every corner of the township. Ob 'viously just making it hard to get didn't make people drink less, it just added a criminal element to the procuring of drink. Obviously the only real answer is convincing individuals to drink less or not at all. Let's face it, booze is really a pretty unnecessary part of our lives. It's also a pretty expensive unnecessary part or our lives. We'll scream about the high cost of food but still drive down the Brewers Retail and load up the trunk every Friday night. Sure We could get along without it and be better off for it financially, mentally and bodily. Trying to get people to make the big decision, however, is far easier said than done.