The media duststorm over the Rio Theatre being forced to give up showing movies because it got its liquor licence really has me puzzled.

Why? Because it was reported last October, when Vancouver city council endorsed giving the theatre a liquor licence, that it wouldn’t be able to show movies if it got the licence.

Several media outlets wrote about this. Here’s one story from the Georgia Straight and another from the Sun.

But somehow, when Rio owner Corinne Lea told everyone last week it was a “total surprise” to her that she wouldn’t be able to show movies, everyone went crazy over the story.

Just to be clear — I’d love to be able to have a drink while I’m watching a movie, so I’m not against the concept at all. My blog followers know that I wallowed in the overstuffed chairs of the Living Room Theatre in Portland last fall, swilling alcohol and watching movies I didn’t much care about, just for the pleasure of the experience.

But I don’t get why this story was a “surprise” or why it generated such media attention now, but not back in October. Is it just the fact that Councillor Heather Deal got into the act now, but she didn’t then? Or what?

I’d also love to hear an explanation for why the Rio owners didn’t just keep operating the way they had been. They were able to serve liquor at concerts by getting special-event licences for the nights they needed them. Then they were free to show movies the other nights.

I don’t know how much of a hassle it was to do it that way, but, simply as an interested neighbourhood person, I’d like to know how much of what has happened at the Rio came about because of the owner’s decision to choose a liquor licence over movies.

Okay, just felt I had to say that in advance of a great film festival that my pal Rod Mickleburgh and a couple others have organized at the Vancity Theatre starting Friday.

You can see the full schedule here. Come on down, all news junkies! Or anyone!

And, in honour of the occasion, I feel compelled to say that one of the weirdest things about working in the business these days if having to deal with the popular image people have that the mass-media industry is dying, if not already in the coffin. A popular image that is perpetrated by … the mass media.

(Recent low moment: Watching ‘Are You There, Chelsea?’ when her friend complains she has no money because “I studied journalism in university and now I’m working as an unpaid intern. Why did I study journalism?)

Which is all strange because what I see is a huge hunger for information — much more evident than it was when I started as a reporter back in 1983 — the increasing popularity of documentaries, the proliferation of incredibly interesting non-fiction books about topics no one ever dreamed of when I was starting out, and more.

Yes, the old business model of changing. The era when a particular type of news business had a monopoly is gone. Some news organizations are adapting well; others aren’t.

But the most encouraging thing I see is that the public seems to want news. Maybe not news as it was dished out previously, but news.

And there are young people who still want to find it. I teach in the Langara Journalism program, where we get a new crop of students every year who are actually passionate about discovering stuff and telling stories about it. They are also getting jobs in dozens and dozens of news outlets that are still functioning quite well, thanks.

As you’ll see if you come out to some of the films at this news festival, the news business changed a lot from the 1920s to the 1970s. (Just as it did from the 1840s, when most Canadian newspaperspapers were just organizing vehicles for one set of ranting political activists or another, to the 1920s.)

It’s changing again now. Sometimes I miss the old days a lot, when big, corporate, unionized newspapers dominated and we got to do whatever we felt like, because we knew people would buy our papers no matter what. (I tear up every time I watch the ending of State of Play, the recent movie with Russell Crowe and Rachel McAdams, when the presses start rolling, the papers start coming off and the trucks start getting loaded with them.)

But I — and many others — are also kind of enjoying this crazy, roller-coaster ride we are on where we’re exploring a new world, with our readers, through regular stories and blogs and tweets and everything else that comes along.

Thanks all for the previous comments on the billboard, which I’ll incorporate into a story in the future.

Now I’m looking for people who have feelings about our new glowing spaceship downtown, BC Place the building as a whole. Anyone? Email me or call please — see About for the contacts.

Metro Van chair Greg Moore definitely seems to be trying to set a new course for the region. For one, the directors are all heading out of the regional district to have a retreat in Chilliwack Jan 26 and 27 — the first I’ve heard of Metro ever doing something like this.

Second, it appears to be focused on some big-picture thinking. The invited speakers are architect Bing Thom, Vancouver Foundation vp Catherine Clement, and Metro Port Vancouver CEO Robin Silvester — people with strong stories to tell about the physical planning of the city, the social fabric of the city, and the economy of the city.

I presume there will be some discussion too about the kind of person who will replace chief bureaucrat Jonny Carline when he leaves Feb. 14. Whoever takes up residence at his desk will be a big part of whatever change Metro Vancouver sets its sights on.

There’s been much buzz in the development world about the news that Peter and Shahram Malek recently bought the property at 1550 East Hastings for almost $5 million, with what would appear to be a plan to develop it for condos.

As my Globe story notes, this is just a little more than a year after their Olympic Village development was placed in receivership and less than a year after the city took all their known commercial assets, 32 properties in five municipalities with a net value of $45 million.

(It’s also after they had their interests in the Evelyn Drive property in West Vancouver and the Alexandra development on Bidwell taken over by others.)

Some see it as a sign of resilience in a long-standing company that has produced good work. Others are somewhat startled.

Residents around BC Place started complaining about the exceptionally bright, big digital sign that went up on the building last fall.

I thought maybe the unhappiness would eventually fade away, but the residents have formed an informal lobby group and Councillor Geoff Meggs got a motion passed unanimously at council this week asking PavCo to comply with normal city regulations about the sign. (There are two others that also generate some complaints, but they were there before and will be removed as other development happens around the arena.)

It’s just one more example of the kinds of conflicts that Vancouver has more of than other cities as it mixes residential and commercial uses to a much higher degree.

BC Place assistant general manager Kathy Delisser, who appears in my Globe story on this, notes that usually signs are welcomed in areas like the one BC Place is in — an entertainment zone — as a sign of liveliness in the area.

But Times Square is not so fun when your living room faces it.

The last time Vancouver changed its council schedule was back in the 80s, when Gordon Campbell decided that evening council meetings were a blight, keeping everyone around until beyond midnight.

He moved council meetings to 2 p.m. Tuesdays and introduced a new rule that only allowed speakers at committee meetings (held on Thursdays during the day). There was a lot of carrying on about that, with people saying he was destroying democracy by holding meetings during the day when fewer people could get time off work to observe the proceedings or hang around forever waiting to speak.

Now, a new change. Council meetings will be at 9:30 on Tuesdays. Presumably not the same problem observing, as we can all watch on our electronic gadgets now. Committee meetings (the previous three committees now consolidated to two) will now be held Tuesday afternoons and Wednesday mornings.

This is apparently all being done so that councillors can get to Metro Van meetings, usually held Thursdays and Fridays, without having to miss a city meeting or be hung over from the previous day’s debate festivities. As well, it will allegedly reduce the time senior staff have to spend waiting around at the end of the day to see if they’ll be called on to answer questions.

Any thoughts on whether this will improve or worsen your life?

This just out.

And the agendas are posted for the first meetings, with new and old players jostling to score a hit.

- New NPA councillor George Affleck is going after water meters because: “Whereas …  It would appear that the net result of universal metering is that all households will pay an extra $80 a year for water,” it should be studied more

- Offensive tackle Geoff Meggs is going after the provincial government for its megawatt billboards around BC Place, threatening that “the City requires a clear action plan by PAVCO to bring the signs
into compliance with City standards and processes, failing which the City will
seek further remedies to reduce neighbourhood impact.” Which is odd, because before Christmas, everyone was saying there was nothing they could do to bring the province to heel.

- Newbie Vision councillor Tony Tang is tackling the perennial problem of city bureaucracy, with a motion asking:

THAT staff be directed to undertake a review of City regulations and permitting
processes, with the goal of supporting local businesses through updated
regulations, improved speed and greater efficiency of processes; and
FURTHER THAT staff specifically review the permitting process related to home
building construction, and provide recommendations for achieving a turnaround
benchmark of six weeks for all home construction permits.

Good luck all, we await the results of your efforts.

The city that Vision Vancouver has tried to make as bike-friendly as possible has been trying to get a bike-share system here for two years (remember when there was talk of a trial during the Olympics, using Montreal’s Bixi’s on loan during the winter?) but still doesn’t have one.

This is going to be the year there’s a decision though. As I note in my Globe story today, Councillor Raymond Louie says there will be a decision, one year after the first request for expressions of interest went out, on what to do next. It’s not clear where next is issuing a request for proposals or simply deciding on one of the proponents.

I understand there was a meeting at the city with all of them Dec. 20 and the bidders feel as though the city has enough information from everyone to go ahead and choose someone for the contract without further ado.

And that will mean whoever wins will get to pioneer a solution for the messy problem of how to run a bikeshare program in a city (and province) with a mandatory bike-helmet law. Only two of the 480 cities that have bikeshare programs have a similar law: Melbourne and Brisbane. In the bike world, it’s well-known that their bikeshare programs are struggling, many believe as a result of the combination of the law and a failure to come up with solutions.

Locally, a consortium of non-profits and for-profit groups and companies has come up with a pitch under the name of Bikeshare BC. Their bike-and-helmet people, SandVault, have invented a helmet-rental and -sanitizing machine. Other companies apparently are coming up with their own Goldbergian solutions.

It will be fun to see what the ultimate solution is. And I’m sure we all look forward to the reasoned debates in this city about where the loading docks should be and how much sidewalk or road space they should be allocated.