maybo wrote:

Excellent read.
But I think the decline got a huge push when newspapers decided to implement their editorial leanings in everyday coverage.  At one time, opinion was limited to columnists and the editorial page.  Now the slant is everywhere.   

I'm 100 per cent in agreement with that one. It's hard to find non-biased news coverage anywhere.
 

i would freely agree that american newsnets have taken sides and pander overtly to their constituents. 

i would, however, object to canadian and world media bias.  my opinion is that generally, in our country, we can still rely on media to offer an independent view of our own politics and/or world view.  yes, we have our issues, but they mainly revolve around funding, more than accuracy or bias.

The inclusion of paid shills on "news/talk" radio notwithstanding, i stand by our media for the most part.

RadioActive wrote:

This is such a timely thread for me, because I was just discussing this with a longtime newsman friend of mine a few weeks ago. My point then, as now, is the subtle but increasingly obvious editorial stances that are starting to creep into general assignment newspaper reports – most especially the increasingly hysterical tone being taken in the Toronto Star.
 
I recently read an article there about – who else? – Donald Trump. The lead sentence said something like this: “After the disastrous election of Donald Trump to the White House, protesters took to the streets to express their opposition to the new president.”
 
Now, you may believe Donald Trump is the devil incarnate. You may hate the man. Or you could be one of his biggest fans. Whatever your stance, you can’t and shouldn't support that opening line.
 
The problem with the sentence is the word “disastrous.” That does not belong in a general assignment reporter’s story. The author is not a columnist. Her opinion is not supposed to be part of the copy. Instead the lead cut line should have read, “After the election of Donald Trump to the White House, protesters took to the streets to express their opposition to the new president.”
 
Correct. Factual. No opinion offered and you’re encouraged to draw your own.
 
It’s a completely different meaning without that loaded word, and there’s no excuse for either the author or the editor allowing it to go through. I’m seeing this all the time, especially in print. It’s very disturbing and it’s exactly why trust in the media is eroding at an alarming rate.
 
Reporters should report. Columnists should opine. Editors can editorialize. And never the twain should meet. Those of us who’ve spent time in the news business would be wise to remember this at our own peril. As it is, I’m wondering if it isn’t already too late. 

You could also say:

"After the controversial election of Donald Trump to the White House, protesters took to the streets to express their opposition to the new president.”

His election was in fact "controversial" but saying it was "disastrous" is an opinion and does NOT belong in general news copy. 
 

Last edited by Dale Patterson (February 5, 2017 1:24 pm)

Dale Patterson wrote:

splunge wrote:

i would freely agree that american newsnets have taken sides and pander overtly to their constituents. 

i would, however, object to canadian and world media bias.  my opinion is that generally, in our country, we can still rely on media to offer an independent view of our own politics and/or world view.  yes, we have our issues, but they mainly revolve around funding, more than accuracy or bias.

The inclusion of paid shills on "news/talk" radio notwithstanding, i stand by our media for the most part.

You haven't read the Toronto Star or the National Post lately, have you? 
 

I choose not to for the benefit of my own mental health.

splunge wrote:

Dale Patterson wrote:

splunge wrote:

i would freely agree that american newsnets have taken sides and pander overtly to their constituents. 

i would, however, object to canadian and world media bias.  my opinion is that generally, in our country, we can still rely on media to offer an independent view of our own politics and/or world view.  yes, we have our issues, but they mainly revolve around funding, more than accuracy or bias.

The inclusion of paid shills on "news/talk" radio notwithstanding, i stand by our media for the most part.

You haven't read the Toronto Star or the National Post lately, have you? 
 

I choose not to for the benefit of my own mental health.

Wise decision!

darcyh wrote:

Also fake news or stupid news. Another example sometimes reported as a top story: The London and District Health Unit has issued a cold warning. The temperatures will get cold, then they feature some expert telling us we should wear a coat and gloves. It's winter in Canada. Do we need to be reminded that it's gonna get cold. If I was in charge of the newsroom I would not even run this story.

I wonder what they are teaching in journalism school these days?

If I may be so cynically bold, I can certainly comment on this last point based on my own experience. Yes, you’re absolutely right about the idiocy of some of these “make sure you wear a warm coat because it’s going to be cold out” stories. But there’s a reason they run and it lays bare some of the necessary absurdities of working in a newsroom.
 
I know. I’ve written more than my share of these horrible yarns over the years. Why do we do it? The fact remains that for better or worse, bad weather is always one of the biggest stories any local newsroom in Canada will cover. People are like moths to the proverbial flame over anything meteorological, even though once you tell them the weather is bad and it will be better tomorrow, there really isn’t much more to say.
 
Yet I can tell you without equivocation that whenever we put up a bad weather tale on our TV station’s website, the numbers go through the roof. Hundreds of thousands of page views every single time, almost without exception. I recall one year when a mostly run of the mill snow storm was the most viewed story on our site for the entire year and it wasn’t even close to anything else. (And then there was that rare double play – a murder committed in the middle of a snowmaggedon. Man, it didn’t get any better than that one as far as numbers were concerned…)
 
Well, we may be idiots, but we’re no fools. If there’s an audience for bad weather stories, we’ll give that audience as many as they seem to want. But unfortunately, once we tell you it’s going to be cold, with 20 cm of snow, and that it’s being caused by an Arctic air mass that’s been traveling from the North Pole for the last two days, and that it will last for the next 48 hours, there really isn’t anything else to say.

True, school and school bus cancellations, traffic accident updates and power outage information is vital, but not every snow event has these and the emergencies tend to end fairly quickly after the initial morning rush. But a one paragraph story isn’t much of a story.
 
So as a result, it gets padded out with seemingly idiotic advice you’d never write in otherwise. And out come the “wear your heavy parka, check on your elderly next door neighbours, here’s where the warming centres are, the “how are the homeless coping in these conditions?” sidebars and of course references to previous storms from the past that were better or worse than this one. Not to mention how far behind the CAA is for battery boosts and the like.
 
And still people come to read it, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we write it, the more eyeballs look at it. The more popular it is, the more stories get filed and the more filler is used to pad them out. And on and on it goes. So yes, while it tends to be a big story because nasty weather affects everyone in some way, it’s really not a long story. But it often winds up being one since so many people seem to want to read about it.
 
That’s the reality and like it or not, it will continue until climate change turns Canada into a vacation hot spot. Until then, make sure you wear your heavy parka and take your raincoat and boots for that big ice storm tomorrow. You can be sure there will be a lot of verbiage written about it. How much of that is actually useful information remains to be seen.

We used to call these type of stories "Playing Mother."

This has nothing to do with this thread - except the weather references - but it might make a lot of us feel better on the eve of another snowstorm. While walking the dog yesterday, I passed a house in my neighbourhood and couldn't believe my eyes. Hopping on the front lawn was a robin. Yes, the traditional first sign of spring thing.

Hmm, maybe Wiarton Willie was right after all... 

I can assure you I'm definitely NOT Conrad Black. I don't have his knowledge, I don't have his money and as of this posting at least, I've never spent a day in jail! (Although they could be breaking down the door any minute so...)

Those who want to read his commentary can find it here. 

Fjiri wrote:

  some of his work was posted this very day 

He appears as "Wheels Editor Emeritus".  The Star dusted its Wheels staff (with the possible exception of Jim Kenzie).  Former regular Star staff automotive writers are showing up as being from "AutoGuide.com" also in the GlobenMail Drive and National Post Driving.      It's a digital age.    Homogenization.
 

BoredOp wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

And there are typos galore. "The city issues extreme cold weather alerts are issued when temperatures are expected to plunge to -15 C or colder." I have too many "issues" with that sentence. 

Then there's this:

"To report a weather-related health problems, Torontonians can call the city at 311." Either lose the "a" or lose the "s" on problems. Otherwise, it's grammatically incorrect. 

I'm not normally a stickler for this kind of thing, but this is a perfect example of a story that's not really much of a story, which is, essentially,  it's cold outside! But that's not enough for a decent yarn, so it's padded.

I hate to admit it and I'm not being hypocritical, but I've done it myself too many times to count. One of the dangers of a one-fact story.

Problem is, those sentences have no typos in terms of spelling. Since most living breathing editors were fired in favour of "running a spellcheck", these grammatically incorrect sentences will always make it through that "editorial net". A human editor is required to catch every other nuance of writing.

There have been "grammarcheck" programs/apps for years. One would think that software specifically developed for journalists and news gathering organizations would be available by now.

splunge wrote:

Sunny --- There have been "grammarcheck" programs/apps for years. One would think that software specifically developed for journalists and news gathering organizations would be available by now.

That's an absolute cop out.  Good Grammar is grammar. Using software as a crutch is only displaying the ineptitude of the writer.

Things' ain't grammer or nice riting dun good 'cept if people no how to talk good. lol rotfl, 

It's not an excuse for bad grammar, it's a tool. Like spellcheck, a good dictionary or a thesaurus. Their purpose is not meant to enable bad writers. Without an editor or proofreader, even the best of us can make the odd spelling mistake or grammatical error.

Here's a perfect example of what this thread has been talking about. This story was published on Tuesday in the Toronto Star, authored by one of its music reporters. Now whether you like Donald Trump or despise him, I'm not really sure this is the most credible thing to be putting on the pages of a major newspaper's website. 

Like many things to do with the Donald, it contains no actual proof of anything and simply quotes a fairly dubious source who "heard" something from other completely unidentified sources. I'm almost positive that the Star would never consider publishing this if it was about anyone else (except maybe the late Rob Ford.)

So read this and tell me - is this responsible journalism or simply another chance to criticize someone they hate? I'm not a fan of Trump but honestly, I thought the people at 1 Yonge St. were better than this.

Moby says Trump administration being blackmailed by Russians