Thanks very much for this response, ahm. I appreciate that you've taken the time to go over my claims and respond to them.
Reviewing CowboyLogic's posts - btw, a handy feature - this seems to be where the discussion regarding the Star began. These are the examples you refer to later
1 the magnet issue - was this when the mayor ran out of the meeting to plaster magnets on people's cars? i don't recall the star making exceptionally egregious hay out of it - i remember reading one reporter who was somewhat amused but also actually kind of concerned about the mayor (was that dale? it's weird how dale seems to actually care about the man he has to report on) - but my mileage probably varies from yours somewhat. i do remember twitter getting bent out of shape about it, but that wasn't the star, that was twitter
Granted, this wasn't egregiously unethical or anything like that, but, at the time, it was being made into a fairly big deal by the Star. However, it happened immediately before the crack allegations, which essentially snuffed the magnet controversy out.
I'm not sure if Dale was the one who wrote about it, but he was the one who initially followed the Mayor and filmed the encounter. As well, the Star was the one that broke this story to begin with, publishing several follow-ups, the attention culminating in an investigation (which has since been cancelled).
This wasn't a huge deal, but considering Ford was placing magnets on cars, making any deal out of it seems like making a mountain out of a molehill in my eyes.
2 i'll give you this one, because i just don't recall any article where that was the majority of it; sure, the star hasn't been the best in reigning in their inner editorial voice in some of their reporting, but they leave the objectionable stuff to their columnists. their reporting is far far more cut and dry. i'd love to see a link to an article in ye olde toronto star that is a reporter and not a columnist or editorial that mocks his worship's weight.
You're right, cracks about the Mayor's weight and appearance have appeared in columnist pieces and editorial cartoons, not reporters' pieces. I was thinking of Mallick, among others, when I mentioned this, so I apologize if I gave the wrong impression. It is an important distinction.
4 wait, so the star has published fiction, passed it off as reportage, and their ombudsman has yet to call them to task for it? hmmm, i may try to google this tonight because that is a serious accusation. i wonder how many major dailies in canada manage to get away with this kind of behaviour.
Yes, I do believe they have. The initial front-page story they published, which included allegations of Ford physically assaulting a kid from an unnamed source, was later dismissed by the alleged victim as not being true. At this point, the Star should have published a front-page apology, retraction or clarification. They didn't, and that was the beginning of Ford's long-lasting feud with the Star.
This report was also published during the mayoral campaign as Ford was gaining steam, which makes it really suspicious in my eyes. I think, at the least, considering that the implications of the article turned out not to be true, that a follow-up from the Star would have been the ethical thing to do.
5 i don't quite know how to address your point about the poll being 3 weeks late and the star reporting about it...it's so anecdotal. can you try to firm up your case regarding this point? maybe link to the story, because the reporter might have had a good reason to refer to a 3 week old poll.
I had the Star delivered at the time, so I know this from my own anecdotal experience of looking at the paper this morning. I'll try to see if I can find an archive or past issue to verify this, as part of what made it so unethical in my eyes is that it was front-page on the GTA section and seemed to imply that Ford was losing steam, which was just not true. I'll try to verify that on here.
6 nothing, in your opinion, matches or parallels the viciousness of the star's cartoons about ford? ever? anywhere? or just in toronto? or just in canada's major dailies? perhaps you could be a little clearer. i'll admit i don't like most political cartoons (too much berkley breathed in my early years has ruined me for what passes for humour and delight these days)
In Canadian dailies. I posted the Ford Follies earlier as examples. I even find them funny, but I do think a line has been crossed with them. They were a specially commissioned for the Star and depicted, among other things, Ford talking about "survival of the fattest," about to eat Margaret Atwood's stuffed body and sending a bunch of protestors (?) into a gladitorial ring to be killed. Also, doing a strip dance on a pole. They're all here:
http://www.davidparkins.com/ford.html
the thing i find frustrating (jeez i've lost my will to capitalize, again) is that i can accept that all of this signifies to ford supporters that the star cannot be trusted; but no paper or media organization is free from these kinds of mistakes, if not these ones specifically. none of them are perfect. some are worse than others. some are better. there's a general aggregate of news that is more or less trustworthy, i think. i try to read across the spectrum to achieve that. the star is part of that. that it is singled out for these faults, i think, is political spin just as the general latte-sipper's disdain for the toronto sun tends to malign them. because if the paper you dislike because it supports your opponent can be painted as not trustworthy then you reduce the spectrum and shift it in your direction. it's also a handy way of edging out your competition - "don't read the star because they lie, instead read us and let us sell ads to you". although, in the case of the sun, today's news is a little sad because if that was a tactic of theirs, it didn't work.
I actually agree with everything you said here. I not only read the Star when I get the chance, but also the Globe, Post and Sun, not to mention that I read The Grid and NOW Magazine every week. I really do think its important to read from a diversity of sources and across the spectrum: all the papers have their own strengths and weaknesses.
My point wasn't that the Star should be boycotted or ignored, just that I do think they have behaved unethically in some instances and that they have lost a lot of credibility as a result. I'd disagree that other papers are equally as culpable. I think the viciousness the Star has gone after Ford with is completely alien to the Globe, Post or even The Grid, although the Sun behaves in much the same manner often (and, as a result, don't have as much credibility as the Globe or Post command).
However, its the two incidents where I feel the Star attempted to mislead the public - the Ford roughing up a kid story and the three-week old poll being published - that are the most jarring, troublesome and offensive. In my eyes, the Star either did not attempt to accurately present the truth or actually attempted to mislead the public. That's really troubling behavior for a major daily. While the latter incident is my own anecdotal experience and wasn't publicized much to my knowledge, the former probably did go a long way to making people distrust the Star. It was reported on quite a bit and ultimately sparked the feud between Ford and the Star. In combination with some of their subsequent behavior, I do think they have lost credibility. When 50% of the public doesn't believe what a newspaper reports, that's not an outlier or fringe element...it's indicative of something much bigger.
