The only "difficult times" with the Toronto star is that they are ripping people off, charging $4 for a Toronto Saturday Star paper.
Bring the price back down to $2 at the box and we're good. 
 

Charlie wrote:

As a Toronto Star subscriber for 35 years, until I canceled last year, I think one of their problems, among many others related to the internet, is the fact that they have effectively shut out 50% of their potential audience.  If you are not a woman, a feminist, or gay, or a recent immigrant, or indigenous, or all of the above, there is precious little in the paper of interest.  Even the sports section has turned into a drum to beat their progressive socialist agenda.  Hey, it's their business, but it doesn't make sense to alienate half the population when you're desperate for eyeballs.

And that's exactly what so troubled me in my original post. Their constant virtue signalling is fine, if that's your thing. But when it comes to their own bottom line, then it's perfectly OK to have mass layoffs, cut programs, take back perqs from workers, etc. etc. etc. But if some other multi-million dollar firm does the same thing, they're evil and they're deliberately hurting society's most vulnerable.

Sounds pretty two faced to me.

RadioActive wrote:

There’s no doubt that newspapers are increasingly in trouble, thanks to online news. So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that the Toronto Star, which is not immune to these difficult times, has had to make more cuts.
 
This week, they “temporarily” suspended their prestigious intern program as a way to save money. According to those who’ve been through it, it’s an amazing learning experience and one of the best in the country. But it’s no longer affordable. They’ve also cut the travel budget for reporters and the money allocated for freelancers. All this comes as Torstar prepares to release its fourth quarter results at the end of the month.
 
All this is unfortunate but a fact of life in the troubled media business. But I can’t help but notice how hypocritical the company is being. First, I couldn’t find a single article on this in the Star itself, although the Globe did a behind-the-paywall story on it. You can read a free one here. 
 
But second, and far more telling, is that this is the same uber-liberal paper that used endless amounts of ink flailing Tim Horton’s for cutting some worker benefits when the minimum wage went up on January 1st. Page after page of opinion pieces, editorials and articles followed the protests, the unions and the plight of the poor employees and how hard done by they were by losing these benefits – which, by the way, were not required by Ontario’s labour law.
 
So while I sympathize with those employees, let me get this straight – when Tim Horton’s makes cuts to save itself money in trying times, that’s mean and oppressive. When the Toronto Star is forced to make cuts for similar reasons, well, that’s just business.
 
You can’t have it both ways. Unless, it seems, you’re Torstar.

The situations aren't similar in the least. Tim's parent company makes profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is not 'trying times' at Tim's.. Torstar, meanwhile, loses millions every quarter.

Last edited by Don (February 16, 2018 1:24 pm)

Well, I would somewhat disagree. While I'll concede that the situations aren't identical, not all franchises make the same amount of money and I would contest the idea that they're all rolling up the rim in dough.

Where these cases meet, however, is that all businesses do whatever they have to in order to survive in a sometimes precarious political and economic environment, especially in Ontario. 

And while the Toronto Star has always prided itself on its vaunted "Atkinson Principles," I can absolutely guarantee you that Torstar board chair John Honderich is not living in some hovel trying to decide if he can afford to pay his taxes or eat dinner tonight. The Horton's franchise owners are doing what they feel they have to to survive a sudden hit to their bottom line. The Star is doing exactly the same thing. 

The actions of both are affecting some of their most vulnerable workers. In Horton's case, minimum wage workers. In the Star's, would-be interns. You can argue that one ls financially stable and the other isn't. But both are doing what's unfortunately necessary to stay in business. But only the Star is attacking Horton's for taking the same kind of save-money tactic the newspaper's honchos are doing without apology.    

Sorry, but to me that's hypocritical.