The Toronto Star should live because checks and balances are needed. I read the National Post and the Toronto Star, and with my eyes open as I watch Fox New and CNN. All of them are all "fake news" and the "truth" as per their inferences and the conclusions that I arrive at.
Torstar Sold
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
I almost agree with what you say. You're correct in your first paragraph. Most people here are basing their reasons for the sale on their political leanings and not the facts. All media are dying and it's been this way for at least 20 years. Younger people are just not buying newspapers (or watching cable news) anymore. I have always had a Star subscription but I never read it. I have it because my wife still enjoys reading it over breakfast. I prefer to go to online websites to get all viewpoints, right and left. My children read newspapers if there's nothing else in the dentist or doctor's waiting room.
I have a problem with what you say about it becoming a leftist rag. The other three Toronto papers are right wing mouthpieces, the Globe a bit less than the other two. I recall a time when all four Toronto papers had a fetish for accuracy and balanced reporting but that's not the case now. People read papers and/or watch cable news based on their beliefs, not the accuracy of the outlet.
The Star has always been centre-left (not a leftist rag) and has billed itself at "the people's paper," but it's sale has nothing to do with that. Whether or not it changes its viewpoint remains to be seen.
https://www.canadalandshow.com/political-donations-made-by-new-torstar-owners/
My thinking is that the new owners will continue with the Star's outlook on the world. Why compete with the Sun, Post and Globe who are all barely hanging on?
And, by the way, debating the editorial outlook of newspapers is a moot point because no one votes based on a media outlet's editorials. At best, they reinforce a person's beliefs.
I have a problem with what you say about it becoming a leftist rag. The other three Toronto papers are right wing mouthpieces, the Globe a bit less than the other two. I recall a time when all four Toronto papers had a fetish for accuracy and balanced reporting but that's not the case now. People read papers and/or watch cable news based on their beliefs, not the accuracy of the outlet.
The Star has always been centre-left (not a leftist rag) and has billed itself at "the people's paper," but it's sale has nothing to do with that. Whether or not it changes its viewpoint remains to be seen.
https://www.canadalandshow.com/political-donations-made-by-new-torstar-owners/
My thinking is that the new owners will continue with the Star's outlook on the world. Why compete with the Sun, Post and Globe who are all barely hanging on?
And, by the way, debating the editorial outlook of newspapers is a moot point because no one votes based on a media outlet's editorials. At best, they reinforce a person's beliefs.
I don't think the major newspapers have changed much over the years, really what's changed is the public has been told not to trust the media.
None of Canada's newspapers publish anything 'fake', liability and editors make them more cautious if anything.
Editorial commentary has been the same with the star and globe for decades.
If you're smart you get news from a variety of sources for comparison.
If you think its all fake news you set the stage for massive corruption, where any government can call 'fake news' on any reports of corruption, as they do to the south of us.
To me, the Star is a very left of centre newspaper. I call it a leftist rag because, to me, that's what it is. (And I consider myself a small L liberal - I am of the opinion that Paul Martin was the greatest Prime Minister we ever had (because he was running the country for all the years Jean Chretien was in power. Just to give you some context.))
I have a subscription to the Globe and Mail and have had so for 20 plus years. I have seen it move from a centrist newspaper to a definitely left of center newspaper over that period of time. In my humble opinion. The only columnist the GM had who was more on the conservative side was Margaret Wente and she hung up they key board (sadly) almost a year ago. Eric Reguly, Cathal Kelly, Andrew Coyne and (sometimes) Lawrence Martin make it worth the while.
The National Post is definitely right of center and I will read their website for the likes of Rex Murphy and Conrad Black (in small doses).
The sun is just a joke frankly. More a silly populist rag than anything else. A newspaper that reminds me of a bunch of loogins sitting in a bar drinking beer right out of the bottle, eating chicken wings and bitching about the government.
But getting back to the Star, interesting article in the Globe and Mail today that the families who owned controlling interest in the Star sold out for a pittance. 20 years ago, their share was worth 300 million bucks. Yesterday, they sold the farm for 6 million bucks. Ouch.
They better learn to code.
We are better off with citizen journalists than newspapers dictating what is and isn’t news. They all have their angle and while I’ll miss a couple of their writers, I’ve found the Toronto star to be largely an insulting paper with their political agenda over the past few years.
Sure they broke the rob ford story, sure they opened up the abuses of policing at the G20 but in the end their efforts didn’t matter since both those stories didn’t change anything.
Oh god don’t lump me in with those guys.
The other media has gone through this fragmentation of being the king of the hill and the assumed “voice of the people” to being busted into little pieces as people tune out and find their information elsewhere. It’s the newspapers turn. Papers have been counting on the nostalgia of readers memories to keep them afloat. There is barely any media outlet out there that isn’t biased. They all compete for clicks instead of content. That’s the way of the world now.
In 10 yrs traditional newspapers will be studied in history books as “a quaint industry that died out, like the buggy whip makers.”
I’d bet money on it.
People are hilarious when condemning the bias of media they don't like. The star has a bias; so does everyone. They have that bias because it appeals to the bias of their readers. As long as they don't lie, I'll take it for what it is. I have no issue if people discuss their bias but (in this case) condemning the majority of the media because they aren't right wing enough for you is silly.
Also funny to see people claiming that the Star losing money is because of that bias rather than the exact thing that has happened to every print media company in the last two decades.
Star specific, they've done a good job with some of their investigative reports but I find their day to day reporting nothing special. I also think them changing their online access to subscription based was the same as strip clubs raising covers because they weren't getting enough customers; short term actions that only accelerate the problem.
Also funny to see people claiming that the Star losing money is because of that bias rather than the exact thing that has happened to every print media company in the last two decades.
Star specific, they've done a good job with some of their investigative reports but I find their day to day reporting nothing special. I also think them changing their online access to subscription based was the same as strip clubs raising covers because they weren't getting enough customers; short term actions that only accelerate the problem.
This is the most accurate assessment I've ever read about the state of journalism, not only in Toronto or Canada but everywhere. The sale of the Star has nothing to do with the way it covers news or who it supports in an election. It's all about the owners jumping from a sinking ship that's bleeding money.
You're correct that the Star's coverage of daily news is nothing special. It's because the Star has done major cuts to its staff over the years, just like every other media company in Canada. As Rosie says: "We pay veteran reporters to go away, losing all that wealth of knowledge and experience."
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/09/17/elimination-of-copy-editors-has-been-disastrous-for-newspapers.html
You're correct that the Star's coverage of daily news is nothing special. It's because the Star has done major cuts to its staff over the years, just like every other media company in Canada. As Rosie says: "We pay veteran reporters to go away, losing all that wealth of knowledge and experience."
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/09/17/elimination-of-copy-editors-has-been-disastrous-for-newspapers.html
this from somebody who get his news from hamas linked websites, hate sites funded by Unz, and websites funded by foundations set up by elite families like the rockefellers
Lets hope not.
Real papers can afford the kind of investigative journalism that helps route out corruption.
From tow truck drivers to politicians.
Without that, everything slowly gets more corrupt.
Papers are also held to liability laws whereas youtube commentaries aren't.
The law forces them to be more truthful.
Speaking of the Star being a bunch of idiots, I found this headline the other day on the Star's website:
(Mostly) white covidiots at Trinity Bellwoods Park think the rules don’t apply to them. They’re right
Now imagine if a white reporter wrote a similar column but wrote in whatever colour other than white. He or she would be tarred and feathered and then hanged drawn and quartered.
But somehow the Star thought it was OK to print this kind of crapola.
(Mostly) white covidiots at Trinity Bellwoods Park think the rules don’t apply to them. They’re right
Now imagine if a white reporter wrote a similar column but wrote in whatever colour other than white. He or she would be tarred and feathered and then hanged drawn and quartered.
But somehow the Star thought it was OK to print this kind of crapola.
Naw, it’s ok to make white people punching bags. It’s trendy dontcha know?
I wonder what kind of “white” they mean? It’s nice to see the Star running articles that are blatantly racist without any accountability.
Way to go ��
Some people will argue that only white people need to tan. Ok, I kid (I think).
Anyway, you'll notice in my King Street thread I did not say anything about the color of the shooters and shootees (is this a word?). Also, I did not mention the color of the woman who fell from the balcony in the balcony thread.
