Walrus, L'actualité & Toronto Life lead magaward nominations
The finalists for the National Magazine Awards have been announced. Among the highlights:
• Cynthia Brouse has been awarded The Foundation Award for Outstanding Achievement for her exceptional contributions to the Canadian magazines community.
• The three finalists for the coveted award Magazine of the Year are AlbertaViews, Canadian Business and Spacing.
• The winner of this year's award for Best New Magazine Writer is Kris Demeanor, for an article entitled "Get A Real Job" that appeared in Unlimited (Jan/Feb 2008).
• The 3 finalists for the NMAF's fourth annual award for Best Student Writer are Canice Leung (Ryerson Review of Journalism), Laura Trunkey (Prairie Fire) and Chris Watt (Maisonneuve).
• First-time nominated magazines this year include Best Health, CARP, Canadian Running, Géo Plein Air, Kingston Life, Globe Investor and Worn Fashion Journal.
• 13 French-language magazines received a record 50 total nominations
From more than 2000 individual entries nationwide, the NMAF's 210 volunteer judges nominated a total of 341 submissions from 79 different Canadian magazines for awards in 36 written, visual and integrated categories. The results will be announced at the awards gala on June 5 in Toronto. Top nominated magazines were:
| | Written | Integrated | Visual | Total |
| The Walrus | 21 | 1 | 6 | 28 |
| L'actualité | 23 | 3 | 2 | 28 |
| Toronto Life | 18 | 5 | 4 | 27 |
| Maclean’s | 19 | 0 | 1 | 20 |
| Report on Business | 11 | 0 | 8 | 19 |
Explore | 15 | 1 | 0 | 16 |
| Chatelaine | 9 | 0 | 2 | 11 |
| Cottage Life | 5 | 2 | 4 | 11 |
| Maisonneuve | 5 | 2 | 3 | 10 |
| enRoute | 4 | 1 | 5 | 10 |
Other major nominated magazines: Swerve (9); Québec Science (7); More (7); Malahat Review (7); Canadian Business (6); Glow (6); Vancouver Magazine (6); Canadian Home & Country (5); Outdoor Canada (5); Prairie Fire (5).
French language magazines with multiple nominations included L'actualité (28) and Québec Science (7). Also nominated this year are: Revue Commerce (2), Clin d'oeil (2), Jobboom (2), Ciel Variable (2).
The individual writer with the most nominations was Chris Koentges with 5, followed by Valérie Borde, Gerald Hannon and J.B. MacKinnon with 4 nominations and Mark Anderson, Kim Pittaway, David Hayes, Jay Teitel, Don Gillmor and Sophie Doucet with 3 each. 18 other writers are nominated at least twice.
Three articles have been nominated for writing awards in 2 categories:
• "Sins of a Mother" by David Hayes in Chatelaine (Society and Investigative Reporting);
• "Requiem for a River" by Mark Anderson in Outdoor Canada (Travel and Sports & Recreation); and
• "Helen Koentges" by Chris Koentges in Swerve (Personal Journalism and Health & Medicine).
Photographers Natasha V and Stacey Haines are each nominated 4 times. Roger Lemoyne, Martin Tessler and Chris Nicholls each received 3 nominations for their photographic work. Among illustrators, Sam Weber, Dan Page and Kagan McLeod each received 2 nominations.
The NMAF will present Gold, Silver and Honourable Mention awards at the 32nd annual National Magazine Awards gala, June 5, 2009 at the Carlu in Toronto, presented by CDS Global.
For tickets and other information, including bio of outstanding achievement award winner, nominated student work and the text of the winning entry for the best new magazine writer visit www.magazine-awards.com.
posted by D. B. Scott at
10:59 pm
17 Comments:
Until the Canadian Magazine Awards follows what other awards competitions do with their judging it will never be a fair system. ALL major awards competitions (at least the respected ones) bring in judges from other countries who are unbiased. I am not complaining because I didn't get a nomination, I did. I am complaining because of some of the work that has been nominated should not be there as there is far superior work being done by other publications. I guess when your father's last name is Fulford it helps to sway a few votes. The NMAs are becoming as lame as the JUNOs. The talented people who continue to push the boundries and do interesting work are being left off the list while the same old people continue to win. I guess the saying The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer is true. The NMA Foundation should be ashamed of itself.
My response should be understood in this context: I was and have been a judge in this competition and served for several years on the NMAF board, including a term as chair.
The process is always evolving, but it seems to me to be impractical to have out-of-country judges for such a large and diverse awards program. The argument might be made that the number of awards and entries should be limited, but that would seem to make it even less likely that what you call "superior" work would be selected.
Judging is in part arbitrary and a matter of opinion. Running a program on a shoestring, as this one is, requires a large contribution of volunteerism. Anyone who has judged in these awards can attest to two facts: you can only judge things that are entered, not what ought to be; and when the process is finished and the votes are tallied, what's remarkable is how much consensus there is. Oh, and one other fact: everybody thinks they could do it better.
Hi DB, I need to agree with Anonymous. A perfect example of an organization that does a far larger awards book with far more categories is the ADCC (Advertising & Design Club of Canada). The awards show is just as diverse, probably even more so as it includes everything from web design to TV commercials to editorial design. All judges are from out of country and the organization works on a shoestring budget. Maybe the NMAs should get in touch with the ADCC and talk to them about how to run a fair contest.
Having just chaired an awards program I agree with D.B., everyone always thinks they could do better.
There is a sigificant difference in measuring visual impact (which can even be done using PDFs if judges are out of market) and expecting judges to read and evaluate editorial material that may be impenetrable to them if they have no cultural context. ADCC would not be the right show to esteem except in the case of the visual entries.
Perhaps a return to the rules where judges received entries that the folios, byline and other identifying marks were removed is the way to go.
I for one am looking forward to the show, as ever.
Joyce...that is a very naive comment. Anyone who knows anything about design, or should I say, good design knows that the words/context are just as important to the visuals and vice versa. Therefore your comment "which can even be done using PDFs if judges are out of market" is way off base. And seeing that you probably don't understand how the ADCC judging operates I don't think you are in a place to make such a comment. They actually fly the judges in for a weekend to do all the judging. Maybe if the NMAs cut back and only gave $500 for a gold and $250 for a silver they might be able to do something like this.
And in response to this comment "expecting judges to read and evaluate editorial material that may be impenetrable to them if they have no cultural context" is a little silly don't you think. A well written article is a well written article no matter what the context. Also a well written article shouldn't require deciphering...are you saying that only Canadians should read Canadian magazines as they are the only ones that could understand their context...very narrow minded.
@LJN Actually, I do understand how the ADCC judging works, having reviewed their process and many other national and international shows before judging began for the Advertising Club of Edmonton's awards this year. Take for instance the One Show, in New York, where they evaluate or screen for shortlisting by PDF. True story!
I'll grant you that a good article is a good article, but whether an article accurately conveys the facts of the issue it is covering is an element of evaluating excellence. This could be something more difficult to do if the judge has no context. (My point.) DB's point is the better one, that it is impractical, at least for the written categories.
As I understand it, the judging of visual and integrated categories is done in person by a small jury who convene in Toronto and evaluate every piece. Unlike the written categories, which each have their own jury and are done by conference call. This I know from a seminar attended a few years back while Christian Bellevance was president, if I am mistaken on current practice, I stand corrected.
Count me on the 'jury of our peers' side of this argument, even if I have to concede that this question of bias will be a perennial one.
Remember the Pepsi Challenge?
More people prefer Pepsi to Coke in blind taste tests, but when you tell the same people what they're drinking before they taste the product, they end up preferring Coke to Pepsi. Similarly, if you pour the same wine into two glasses and tell a person that one glass contains a $10 wine and the other a $100 wine, the majority will state a strong preference for the more expensive wine.
Is the NMA board naive enough to believe that bylines and magazine titles don't sway the judges?
In the U.S., major magazines are thrilled to receive three or four nominations. In Canada, they get 10, 20 or, if you're the Walrus in 2008, 50-plus. What's the primary difference between the competitions? Yes, there are more magazines in the U.S. than in Canada. More important, I think, is that U.S. entries are stripped of marks that would allow the judge to identify the writer/illustrator and magazine title. This, like the Pepsi Challenge, minimizes the unconscious bias of association that informs the opinions of our very human judges. Furthermore, it reduces the likelihood that judges will use bylines and titles to pre-screen the entries they've been assigned to judge. Does anyone really think that all judges who receive a pile of 50 feature-length stories give each and every entry their full attention? Surely, some and perhaps many judges give short shrift to the story by Joe Blow in order to free up time for that piece written by [insert name of any Walrus/Toronto Life writer here]. Surely this issue has been raised at NMA board meetings. Why the resistance to such a simple yet beneficial change to the judging process?
Anonymous, RE: The Pepsi Challenge, you make a GREAT point about the bias concerning the judging.
Although, it does take away from the people who have been nominated and the ones who will win when we raise these important issues.
I doubt you'll find anyone from Toronto Life complaining, even if your criticism is legit.
To all you anonymous people: so what you're saying is that all the judges (and NMAF board members) are either inept or unethical (to quote: "the NMA Foundation should be ashamed of itself"). Really? Have you looked at who these judges and board members are? Give your heads a shake. You, with your smug, ignorant comments, have slandered a very talented and professional group of people who have done nothing other than volunteer their time and efforts to help celebrate and reward Canada's creative community. Really, if you have all the answers why aren't you volunteering to help?
Dear Anonymous (the one slagging the other anonymous posters): Don't paint us all with the same brush. My "Pepsi Challenge" point is not meant to call into question the ethics or acumen of the judges. Rather, it is simply to make the point that it is nearly, if not totally, impossible for any judge to form a completely objective, unbiased opinion of any work if they know who created it and/or whose imprimatur it was published under. If you doubt me, then look up the list of "cognitive biases" at Wikipedia and you'll come up with numerous biases that could conceivably apply in the judging of any awards program, and several that almost certainly apply. If you still doubt this argument after learning more about an issue you might have forgotten from Psych 101, then go ahead and deny a century's worth of scientific study and stick with your idealistic notion that NMA judges are infallible. Oh, and consider retracting your "smug and ignorant" comment as well.
Though it seems this is a private fight between a couple of commenters, one interesting question concerns fairness and objectivity in the NMAs. I would be the first to say that it is impossible for judges, vounteer or otherwise, from Canada or otherwise, to be entirely objective. That's why there are three-judge panels in each language and a bilingual panel overlaid on that.
If I recall correctly, entries used to be "blacked out", with bylines and folios removed, but that was discontinued since most knowledgeable and widely-read judges knew at least what magazine they were from and often who wrote them despite the precautions.
It is impossible to prove one way or another that magazines who do far superior work are being ignored without knowing if they have even entered. It is possible to say that you have to enter to be considered and that those enter get 100% more nominations and medals than those who don't. Equally, those who enter a lot of times in many categories tend to get quite a few nominations and to win more often than those who do not. If criticism were to be aimed anywhere it would be an economic one -- in which some magazines can't afford to enter at all or to enter only a very few pieces. And yet there have been instances in the past when a magazine enters only one or two pieces and wins a gold.
I concur with those commenters who say that the critics have a clear option in this: offer to join the volunteer board, bring your influence to bear on judging criteria and demonstrate your principles by being a judge yourself.
D.B., I provided further comment on this issue a couple of days ago. Are you going to post it?
I would, but have not seen it. Nor is it in my spam filter. Repost comment if you will.
Thanks for the opportunity to re-post. Given that I am delaying preparation of my tax return to provide my comment, I will keep this post brief.
- You say, "Private fight between a couple of commenters." In fact, there are more than two of us involved, and I'm the Pepsi Challenge guy who has not participated in any name-calling in this conversation. My point? I feel that I'm adding to what should be a PUBLIC discourse on an important issue.
- You say, "It's impossible for judges to be entirely objective." I agree. You say, "That's why there are three-judge panels..." But if all the judges are subject to the same bias, there's a great likelihood that they will swing the same way. How so? Most judges would have a similar notion of Canada's better magazines, so, if there is bias due to knowledge of an entry's origins, those judges would be more likely to score entries from those same magazines higher.
- Furthermore, judges have to argue for their selections, and many will feel like they are being judged by their fellow judges on their ability to judge. With that in mind, a judge knows there's little risk in giving a high score to an entry from a respected/intellectual/multiple award-winning magazine, and it probably requires less effort that selling your fellow judges on an entry from an unknown magazine/author/illustrator/photographer. In fact, if you pick the story from The Walrus, people will think you're smart. By the same token, people keep all those unread philosophy, poli sci and English lit textbooks on their living room bookshelves so as to impress their houseguests.
- You say, "Entries used to be blacked out...but most knowledgeable and widely-read judges would at least know what magazine they were from..." This meant that some of the judges — namely, the knowledgeable and widely-read ones — could have been biased by their knowledge of an entry's origins. But not all of the judges would have been so knowledgeable and widely-read. (And given that many judges come from fields other that magazine journalism, it stands to reason that a minority of judges would have seen any given entry before.) So, how does the NMAF fix this problem? By ensuring that EVERYONE knows who's behind each entry, thus universalizing the possibility for bias!!!
- Why would the board make such a decision? It's not as if there is any harm in continuing the practice of blacking out entry info, unless someone got brain damage from overexposure to Sharpie fumes. I would even suggest that entries be provided to judges in manuscript form, so that judges cannot identify the source of an entry through their familiarity with the design elements of various publications.
- You say, "demonstrate your principles by being a judge yourself." I can't see how being a principled judge in a process with built-in bias would help, unless I were to insist on receiving blacked-out manuscripts. Well, at least one judge would be free of unavoidable biases.
- You say, "offer to join the volunteer board." Call me insecure, but that would smack of desperation. And given the composition of the current board, I think I or my magazine needs to rack up a few dozen more NMA victories before I qualify.
First, I am sorry to have implied you were one of the rude ones (though some might say that calling judges biased is not exactly complimentary)
Second, I want to be clear that it has been many years since I sat on the board, so I am not privy to the conversations that have taken place there and am not speaking for the NMAF.
Third, I have been a judge, frequently, and we'll have to agree to disagree about the process. We don't "argue for our selections"; there is a conference call AFTER we've submitted our marks to ensure that no worthwhile candidate might have been overlooked. I haver personally never felt intimidated into changing my vote on any candidate, though I may occasionally have been persuaded to reconsider one or two.
Finally, the only way that change has ever happened at the magazine awards -- any many very good changes have taken place over the years -- is that concerned individuals put themselves forward. As far as I know, the selection of board members has absolutely nothing to do with how many awards they've won, more with obtaining a range of experience from across the industry and across the country and in both languages.
First, I am sorry to have implied you were one of the rude ones (though some might say that calling judges biased is not exactly complimentary)
Second, I want to be clear that it has been many years since I sat on the board, so I am not privy to the conversations that have taken place there and am not speaking for the NMAF.
Third, I have been a judge, frequently, and we'll have to agree to disagree about the process. We don't "argue for our selections"; there is a conference call AFTER we've submitted our marks to ensure that no worthwhile candidate might have been overlooked. I haver personally never felt intimidated into changing my vote on any candidate, though I may occasionally have been persuaded to reconsider one or two.
Finally, the only way that change has ever happened at the magazine awards -- any many very good changes have taken place over the years -- is that concerned individuals put themselves forward. As far as I know, the selection of board members has absolutely nothing to do with how many awards they've won, more with obtaining a range of experience from across the industry and across the country and in both languages.
No, calling judges "biased" would not be complimentary in most contexts, and an earlier commenter in this thread incorrectly equated it with questioning the ethics of the judges. In the context of my argument, judges become biased through no fault of their own. It's basic human psychology.
As for the judging process, there remains the potential for bias creep during the independent scoring stage. As for the idea of arguing for one's selections, I overstated the case. It has been a long time since I've participated in NMA judging, and that was only on a couple of occasions as the facilitator of the conference calls. Based on that experience, I stand by my assertion that there is some debate, and that people require less convincing of the merits of an entry from a "good" magazine and are more willing to argue in favour of an entry from a "good" magazine.
Agree to disagree. On to my next tax return...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home