To all the ‘journalists’ who are making it their personal agenda to slam the new local group ‘Citizens For Halifax’ : How about you get off your lazy ass and go to a couple of their meetings, or even call them to do some basic fact-checking? Reporting personal opinions and hearsay as facts is unethical and irresponsible journalism. It is also legally foolish to spew your misinformed tryst of slanderous and defamatory garbage about people who have the will and the means to do something good for the city. I guess the public shouldn’t expect much real journalism from your ad-rags after all.
This article appears in Jul 24-30, 2008.
hmm somehow I bet if some journalist had printed an editorial-love-fest about this group this personw ouldn’t be bitching….
ok first: how do you know dexter was the hardest to get ahold of? if the paper has a good relationship with him, then no, he’s probably one of the EASIEST. it’s called grooming- by not nailing him on every little blip, guess what, he calls back when you need him too. what I meant about the things changing- things do change. you write the article, file it and move on. write and move on. and overworked? underpaid? HELL THE FUCK YES. 90 per cent is NOT wire service. and it takes a whole heck of a lot more to get a story together than just makign a call and slapping it down. it takes longer, it’s more work, and it’s harder than most people think.no, I don’t work for the herald. no, I’m not even defending them- they can fuck up. they do fuck up. But I will point out things about this industry you probably don’t know, because I’ve noticed a trend at media bashing- it’s a nice little scape goat just to say the media is biased when actually there’s a whole heck of a lot more going on.take tim for example: the demographic who read the coast is a younger, more liberal, indy one. Most of them probably vote left. they listen to a certain kind of music. like to read bitches and savage love on thursday. the coast caters to that. they do not generally go after to older, more conservative crowd the herald serves.now do I think as the main daily paper the herald should ahve a slant? absolutly not. but the coast is a specialized publication targetting one portion of the community and helping to make sure the main one actually pays attention to stuff that often gets missed.and lastly: headlines are written by copy editors in big rooms like that. a lot of the time they just skim the story. or write it before the story is even written based on a three second convo with the reporter. and they are one of the many things that grab people- they’re supposed to be a little bit ‘bigger’ than the rest of the piece. media is subjective because it’s done by humans, not robots. try as they might, reporters have opinions, beliefs, and sense of drama and humour that will vibrate through their work. deal with it. worry when corruption is hidden or when governments and other groups start censoring.
ok…. look in the front section. Count the articles and tell me how many are service.A quick look at the website…only 2 stories in the front section are by staff. The metro section is almost all local, but entertainment, sports, all off the wire.
oh, another thing, watch how they ride the fuck out of rodney mcdonald. Granted he has fucked up a few things, but there isnt a politician alive that can please the public. However, why is it they always go to NDP for something when it is to critique the actions of Rodney? You would almost have no clue that there was a third party in this province.On the other side of the coin, the daily news rode Rodney like he was a Kentucky Derby winner. They bashed Dexter’s policies almost daily. If you look at the national papers, you can see who the National Post is pro and who is Globe and Mail is pro. If you dont think this is a pre thought out thing, then you must have never taken journalism.
we’re in an era of constant downloading of responsibility, while expecations for the amount of news and variety of news covered are increasing.papers would have to run with far far FAR more staff, full time staff too, if they wanted to avoid using the wire. know how many people work at metro? three that I know of full time, anda one part timer. imagine if you willt he amount of work involved in turning out a daily newspaper witht hat number of staff- finding stories, getting sources, setting up and conducting interviews, transcribing interviews (as everyone tape records now for accuracy), researching background, finding stats, writing said story in an interesting engaging and accurate way, editing the story, dumming the pages with ads, laying out the paper, editing the paper, putting in headlines, taking photographs, getting names for everyone single person in said photogoraph, writing cutlines (those things beneath the photo), and finally printing the damn thing.that’s a hell of a lot of work. and that’s not even taking into accoutn there are only 24 hours in a day, and reporters would occasionally like to eat and sleep and maybe have a life. they physically do not have the time or the ability to attend absolutly everything. and when it comes to things like sports and entertainment? a lot of that is etiher national things taht people here want to read about, but is logistically difficult to get to, or it’s specialized- sports reporting and entertainment reporting is a totally different bird than general reporting. and what’s so wrong with using things off the wire anyway? with a daily that’s fast turnover- you’ll notice most weeklies have far less wire content. they have more time to do the work. at a daily, to produce the entire thing, front to back all in house would require far more man power than most companies are willing, or can afford, to commit to it.
OF COURSE it’s a pre thought out thing. but maybe not in the way you’re implying. in my experience, lefty managers will hire lefty editors who will hire lefty reporters. they will all try to be balanced (note I did not say unbiased as that is impossible) but in the end, there’s a room full of lefty people deciding which stories get covered. they will be covered unbiasedly, but where that limited time an denegy gets spent will be dictated by that. same goes for conservative publications. as far as the always calling the NDP thing- who else are they going to call? politicans love to bicker, and it makes good stories. they may have called the liberals and gotten a middle of the road response, which is nto as interesting as the two extremes, and there simply isn’t the space to include every single comment by every single politician in every single piece.
ok, it seems you havent been into a newspaper lately. “. imagine if you willt he amount of work involved in turning out a daily newspaper witht hat number of staff- finding stories, getting sources, setting up and conducting interviews, transcribing interviews (as everyone tape records now for accuracy), researching background, finding stats, writing said story in an interesting engaging and accurate way, editing the story, dumming the pages with ads, laying out the paper, editing the paper, putting in headlines, taking photographs, getting names for everyone single person in said photogoraph, writing cutlines (those things beneath the photo), and finally printing the damn thing.”most of this, isnt handled by a reporter.
I know I know I’m beating a dead horse here…it’s just that peopel seem to have these huge expectations for the media. it’s a field with a lot of responsibility, and journalists take that seriously. but there simply is no pleasing some people; so before I blame the media, I’d be taking a good hard look at the people doing the complaining. are they upset becuase teh media reported something? or are they upset that something happened to merit a report?
who else are they going to call? There is two opposition parties. The NDP is huge favored by the chronicle. The metro/ daily news was huge PC. You would have no clue about the liberals as they need to be in power to get the print the other two do
didn’t we already cover this? homie, I’m in a newsroom right now. yes it is. in fact, if you go into smaller newsrooms than metro or the herald, reporters actually do MORE.what exactly do you think isn’t handled by a reporter? when were YOU last in a newsroom? I’m guessing never. and you just illustrated my last point: people have this fairy tale idea abotu what this job entails. and how easy it is. and how fast it is. but it’s not. so critize the events, critize the politicans, critize the quotes and the dough heads who make the news and the idiots who get worked up and say stupid stuff on the record. But don’t critize the person just doing their job to report the news to the best of their ability. I’m sure they’re very very sorry you disaprove. I’m really sure, after working yet another incredibly long day, they really care if yout hink they should have made one more phone call.
i know people have huge expectations…. i agree. My thing is to suggest that they are neutral is insane. They make sure they quote the same people, and get the same spin on shit. Media has always been like that. The most glaring example is CNN VS fox news. It is obvious who supports who.
could you please, please PLEASE read before you post? I already covered that- yes there are two parties, but one can be more interesting than the other because their opinions are more opposite. you can put the two views on either side and voila, story time.there is not space or time to give everyone space. if the issue concerns one group, they will get it. and someone who disagrees will also usually get space as well. but there isn’t time or space for those middle of the road stick up the ass opinions that straddle both sides- plus that would be a boring read.
no one is saying they are neutral. they’re balanced. that’s the best we can hope for. what’s your problem with that? viewers are getting more savy and media is getting more specialized- the days of the general newspaper and general tv news program are ending. now, if you want left spin you go here, right spint here. it’s changing. reporters try to keep up as best they can by remaining balanced, accurate, and clutching tight to their integrity. what more exactly do you want??? once again you appear to have some sort of perfect homie-world you crave. I’d like to see you spend one day in a newsroom and see how quickly you cave.
“dumming the pages with ads, laying out the paper, editing the paper, putting in headlines, taking photographs, getting names for everyone single person in said photogoraph,”not the job of a reporter.a lot of papers have a resereach department. We are talking about major papers, not the small ones. My first job here when i moved and wanted to try to work in a new field was working for Transcontinental. I saw first hand how the paper is put together. I was priviledged enough to see the downtown offices that put the Daily News together. Each night, i was there at deadline time, when the paper was sent from lower water street, to bayers lake. I had the sweetest job. It was for 6mths as the hours were killer for me. I did get a good grip on what the regular regimen was. Not saying they didnt work hard, but dont give them credit for all that shit that you listed. Most of that was covered by people who’s specific job was what was listed
in this case, i would like a paper that doesnt favor one party or the other, that isnt going to happen. With the daily news gone, there is nothing close to balanced in this city. Now, you said there is two parties and one can be more interesting, however you get one paper that makes the same story sound one way, because it shows one parties persepctive, and the other shows the same article with a differnt perspective. Examples of bullshit reporting, lets go back to it, Celine dion. Are you seriously going to say the media wasnt to blame for that? They would publish shit at a 10:1 ratio people that didnt want Celine Dion to play in the park to those that did. The Chronicle sorta stayed away from it, but the daily news was all about the hate. If you dont think that 30k would have been there to see Celine, you are tripped out. The medias old lots by showing a lopsided view of this.Here is something you could have done, you could have callled at the time and guessed that the editor of the daily news liked classic rock. that is all that was ever mentioned to play the commons. It was rare to see any younger bands mentioned, or anything that would have lured the 16-24 crowd. Just the usual, Eagles, Magraw….. etc. There was a man stadium tours that could have made it this far.
9 hours now kids. Would you just hook up and have hot angry sex already?
Some people think they can just drown out all competing voices by loud repetition. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn’t necessarily make it, ya know, true.What do ya know, people have different opinions.
hey tim…. did you have lunch with your buddy darryl?or hey, why not tell us how you have the alternative to how our money should be spent.
I’ve never met Dexter, or talked to him, or exchanged email with him.I criticized the NDP for their non-action on the climate change front. Does that count?
i was kidding dude. You just seem to favor him over rodney. But like you said, its your paper, we should get our own if we want to post opinions. Just busting your balls bro. Curious, have you managed to come up with a cheaper way to replace the venues that we would have got from the games? I wanted to hear your way, because you seem to have rejected other suggestions. (that isnt being sarcastic). I would like to hear the alternatives. If you can suggest the way they and the costs they come up with werent affordable, you must have an alternative.
But to answer your, well it wasn’t a question, whatever it was: *I* shouldn’t get to decide anything about how money is spent. We all should, collectively. That’s why we have elected representatives, to have a lookee at the budget, decide if it’s worthwhile, tweak it as necessary, spend it in a collectively responsible manner. Democracy, what a concept.Of course you’ll disagree with that– people have different opinions! But what really gets me is why do we even go through the motions of having the legislature approve a budget if the governing party can just ignore it and have 75 percent budget overruns and the like. If we’re going to have a spoils system, they should just do away with the legislature entirely, I think. It’d be more honest.
no no, i agree with democracy, but there comes a time where our elected officials should be told entrusted with what we need to doThis is what was done in other parts of our country and it worked out for them. Calgary games wouldnt have transpired if they went about it the same way as you would suggest. First off, i am not an accountant, to suggest that me or you totally understands the concept of how all this intricate shit was to work and how the depth the feds contribution was going to go isnt something that we are all privy to.I think our elected officials are acting in our best interest in many cases. This is one of them.
I’m going to hijack this one last time then I’m out.First, there shall be no angry sex, hot or othewise. not with homie. ever. I doubt he’s ever had sex, frankly, picturing him as I am as a basement dwelling trekkie living some sort of double life in which he desparatly wants to be ‘cool’ online, and is exceedingly bitter that he’s not. secondly, a lot of reporters take photos. and edit. and layout. even at big places. but there is no point arguing with you as clearly you know better than me, who you know, would actually know.in general, you are usless arguing with. this could go on for weeks, and you’d enjoy it far far too much. and so, from now on homie, you are the big annohying ghost I shall not read.
The facts alone would be just fine, thank you very much!
the way facts are expressed is subjective.w ords carry value judgements, all of them do. also, the trend of late in the media is to dedicate a piece or a section of a piece to one side, then switch- so give it time.also I’m curious OP: was the sladerous and defamatory garbage in the text, or in quotes? if it’s in quotes your beef is not with the journalist. even if it’s in text: was it in an opinion piece, a column, or a news story? and what was so defamatory about it? waht to one person, like yourself who seems fairly passionate about it, may seem biased, to another is not- you may be readinb ias where there is none. and I would never, ever ever call journalists lazy.
this city has two papers that are HUGE bias in the way they report shit. To the coast’s credit, they post shit in the “to the editor” that directly disputes articles written.I made mention about an article that attacked politicians about tickets for the hockey championships. The article made sure to ask Darrel Dexter about what he did, and then went on to make it look like other politicians were keeping thiers. Upon posting that in here, we had a few posters actually call our politicians and we found out where they went.The first article was on the front page. 2 months after the games, an article about the size of a credit card was about how many politicians gave the tickets to charity or kids hockey programs. Nice of them to make city hall look like it was ripping us off, but then when it came time to correct, the bitches hid that shit in the paper.
one’s news, one’s not. also, it’s a space and time thing. there are other things going ont hat are more important, or require more space. or hell, I don’t know, sometimes journalists ‘gasp’ have opinions! and try as they might it may leak out a bit in the words they chose or in the stories they pitch or in the length of articles they write! or maybe the editors have an opinion,a nd that dicates the placement and space! and maybe dexter was the only politician to get back to that reporter before deadline- that happens. so it came off that way.seriously, ther eis no evil media consqiracy to piss you off.
Like every trade, there are good journalists and bad journalists. Asking that journalists do some basic fact-checking before publishing articles (whether they be editorials, opinions, ore news stories) is quite a basic request that any good journalist would agree on.
sure, but my point was that sometimes the facts just aren’t there. or the facts are incorrect or incomplete at press time. but those deadlines still have to be met, so off goes the story, even if only one politician could be reached in time. and sometimes, a quote is just too good to pass up. you never answered my questions: where was the offensive material, and what was it? I’m just curious. If it’s in a quote? that’s just a journalistic spasm of delight- people with strong opinions are golden, and if they say it, the press can run it.
i called hedgy, the editor expressed that he didnt see it that way. We then had the discussion here about said article. As for one being news, and the other not. It isnt news when you continually go to dexter for quotes and never really grill him, but ride anyone politician. How is it news to make it appear as though politicians are keeping and hoarding tickets when in fact there was NO truth to this. It was enough of a story that in letters to the editor, many were appalled. It is obvious to see that the herald is pro-dexter and calls out many others…..the herald takes many shots at certain politicians and does so without ever showing the other side. If you refuse to accept this, you are clearly blind. When the daily news was around, they took shots galore at the NDP.
oh…. a space and time thing? The article was HUGE on the front page and the headline didnt really match what the bulk of the article was about. It went on to mention the price they could have paid, that they didnt know what others had done with the tickets. If they paper had bothered to call, like myself and a few others did here ( i forget the spryfield girl that found out the kiwanis group that got the tickets) actually found out. The people they said got the tickets werent correct, and ALL that had recieved tickets had made the donations over a week and a half prior to the article going to print.
well sure, that’s going to happen. I’m not justfying it, I’m just saying it happens and people need to accept that the media is human. and the media does have a game to play- if dexter is the big gun who pops up a lot, is a valuable source, of cours eyou’re not going to piss him off when you don’t have to. you’re going to save that for when he really deserves it. does that mean you don’t present the facts and make as much of an effort as possible to get balanced content? yes. but does it sometimes get a little titly? sure.also, YOU may read something as biased, someone else may not. YOU may read something as being presented a certain way, not grilling hard enough, or misrepresetning something…but maybe that wasn’t the intention. maybe it’s in the details, maybe it’s in the editing, maybe it’s in the word choice, I don’t know. what I’m saying is that that perception is a big part of colouring how you see something, but, as you said yourself in other posts, that perception is all on the reader, not the writer.
There have been a few posts the last few days about the recent spate of lazy, non-factual, op/ed articles posing as news in our local Daily. I truly believe that the standards at that outlet are failing. It has become increasingly sensationalistic and less investigative.Hedgy, as you know I LYSOTC, but it does seem that on the issue of journalism and newspapers, you are always ready with a million excuses instead of your usual unflappable criticism. I wonder if you were / are / intend to be a journalism student?
how do you know the paper didn’t ‘bother’ to call? you called way after the fact- that reporter may have tried, actually probably did. that person may have not picked up the phone, gotten back to them in time, or said anything relavent. or maybe didn’t want to commetn at all. or maybe repeated other people (hence why put it in?). Space adn time? sure that first story, there was time and space to run it. it was the biggest story of that day. a week or wahtever later? it wasn’t anymore. news changes quickly, people get bored quickly, and the media has to move on. just because it was splashed on page one the first time around doesn’t mean it will happen again.and maybe, just maybe, the information given to the reporter was accurate at the time. that’s the trouble with news, especailly print; it takes a bit for updates to ahppen. so when it was written, when it was published, when you bought that paper, that story may have been correct to the best of the people involved knowledge. later, the story may have changed- the job of reporters, in daily environments, is to report news as it happens. they aren’t correcting themselves if later the story develops in different ways, or new facts are revealed tat may contradict previous ones. do you hope it doesn’t happen? sure. but does it? all the time.what I’m saying here is mostly people are VERY quick to judge the media, and even quicker to proclaim that they could hav eclearly done a better job, because obviously the reporters and people involved were lazy, biased etc etc adn you (universal you) has the best interpretation of what happened and the best way to express it. doubtfull. and I’d like to see you try.
Also let’s not contradict ourselves from that other conversation about the written word can be interpreted. The responsibility for perceptions is indeed on the writer just as much as on the reader. We can’t tell Homie that he is responsible for how people react to what he writes, but that that journalists aren’t responsible for how what they write is interpreted.
oopds “about HOW the written word can be interpreted”
blushes. shoot my cover is blown! I’m not a student, but let’s just leave it at that, ok?OK taking a breath and stepping back from my defensive podium: yes, I agree, the chronicle horrid has slipped since the daily news shut down. one newspaper towns are never good. media conglomeration is never good. people get complacent, and stuff starts to change.but please, don’t blame the journalists. for the most part thye’re just overworked, underpaid, over caffinated people trying their very best. I’d blame management, ad sales, editorial, and the copy editing basement monkies. I’d blame columnists who generally are older journalists who have fought to get out of the pit into cushy columns, and now can wax poetic however they like- and are often now doing it on pages other than the op ed. and I’d blame a change in what peopel want to read; as the world gets darker and scarier and more depressing (hello resession!) people want opinion, conjecture, scandal and fluff. and media is now a product to be sold.and now I’m spent 😉
yeah, I was being sarcastic and ironic with that one (RE: interpretation of written word). didn’t come across as well as I’d hoped.
yeah i think we acknowledged the other day that it’s the heads / directors who set the bar, and its probably the editors who give sensationalistic headlines to what may be fairly innocuous articles. and that it’s ok to report some perceptions along with the facts. word on the street and all that. but that it’s important to make sure the facts shine through wherever possible.in the case of that sewage treatment plant article i think very very few readers would walk away concluding that the smell wasn’t coming from the plant. even though the article did bury that little factoid in there somewhere, most of it seemed aimed at implying just the opposite.i haven’t read this “tickets” article that is being discussed but it sounds like a similar thing. i will now go read so as to be able to back my perceptions up with facts 😛
the media is hardly something that is even CLOSE to being subjective. Tim is a prime example. While good at putting his facts in, if you bother to read the letters to the editor, he is callled out all the time for the spin he puts on the shit he writes. like was pointed out in that thread that called out the editors of the paper, the articles all same to have that same pro-ndp spin.Curious, how in the fuck is it accurate at the time, when it took two minutes to call more than just one member of city hall? TO act like they had no idea what others were doing but calling up the HARDEST member to get hold of, for a quote is fucked. Try calling Dexter’s office yourself. Bet you dont get hold of him. Then try at least 5 others, you will get hold of a few of them. As far as blaming the journalists, they get just as much blame as the editors. Over worked? In this city? Come the fuck on, 3/4 of the paper here in town is information researched by other media outlets like Reuters and AP
ok sorry my sarcasm detector wasn’t on. there hasn’t been much non-literal discussion going on today LOL
another HUGE example of fucked up jouranalism was the Roddenheiser treatment of the Celine Dion thing. His article was about how he wouldnt go to see her, but many here would have loved to seen here and that would be great for the city, but the headline was so negative that it got back to her husband and the actual part of the article that seemingly welcomed here was negated by the giant negative headline.
I’ve gotta go, but quickly: there’s a difference (in scale, money, and process) between the Canada Games and the Commonwealth Games. I don’t know of any real opposition to the Canada Games, because of its relative (to the Commonwealth Games) low cost, and there was certainly no need for secrecy of bids and the like. There’s plenty of time to plan the venues, etc., and certainly no matter what the cost, there should be (and probably are) business plans justifying the various venues. There is no reason whatsoever those plans can’t be public, and for the legislature to okay the expenditures.And, I highly suspect that the Canada Games budget is only maybe half the $12.5 million. Even if all the Canada Games expenditures make sense (but if so, why the secrecy?), it looks to me like the fund is just being used as a slush fund for political purposes. It annoys me. If a curling club needs money to upgrade its facilities, a perfectly reasonable thing, then put it in the budget and have everyone approve it. I don’t see why that’s controversial.
No fun!LOL
sorry jammie, but it has to be done. stands up. I’m hedgy, and I’m a troll addict.I’m therefore going cold turkey on the troll front.
Best of luck.
Curious Tim. You want this and that, have you ever lived in a city that has hosted the games or made bids for events of the scale of Olympic games or Commonwealth Games? Yes, i dont think you have. Take for example the Olympic game bid by Toronto. It wasnt run by the city of Toronto. In case you seem to think it was, it wasnt. It was entrusted to the brain powers that have spent thier whole lives in the industry of bringing things like that to the city of Toronto. There wasnt public debate over every little thing.http://www.gamesbids.com/english/archives/toronto.shtmlTHen i would like you to look at this.http://www.gamesbids.com/english/archives/toronto2.shtmlTake a look at the people on this board. They are among some of the biggest visionaries of canadian sport and politics. Now many of these names dont mean shit to you, but they were entrusted with the money of not 1 or 2 but three levels of government. IN order for the federal government to have even wanted to toss millions of dollars contributed by Canadians for something that would have really only benefitted the citzens of Nova Scotia, the reputation of those that would be in charge of the doling out of that federal money were CLOSELY scrutinzied by the government. It isnt like they are just going to pass on that shit to the games commitee and hope they run it right. Those people are respected for what they do. They are elected to do a job. I am all for democracy, and democracy is where we elect people to do things for the collective. What is the point of voting people in, if we have to vote for everything they do? Me and you arent people in the know. It isnt our job to be totally in the know. We didnt spend our whole lives dedicated to being in the know. We both have various opinions on this, however the fact remains, the position you are in is influential in the sense that many people listen to some of the shit you spew. You are an excellent fact finder, it is unfortunate that you dont just report the facts as they are. You present them in a manner that backs up your opinion. Please do not take this as an insult. It wasnt meant to be.
4. Thou shalt not flog a dead horse, kick a dead dog, or otherwise belabour the same point over and over in every thread until everybody else wants to stab you in the eye with a fork.
Wow. Seems this bitch has hit a nerve with some. 48 comments and counting. I wonder if this will appear on this week’s paper.To Hedgy: you asked about an example of the offensive material. One such example comes from Rick Howe’s column on Friday, July 25. After a full column of trashing Citizens for Halifax, he concludes with a warning to readers: “Some of its (CFH) message will be positive. Get involved. But do not forget the unspoken motive of those behind Citizens for Halifax; an effort to hijack the city’s agenda for their own self-serving interests.”http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/index.cfm?sid=155673&sc=611Canadian law defines Defamation as “Written or Spoken injury to a person or organization’s reputation”. For those who don’t know, written defamation (includes Newspaper articles and Radio broadcasts) is called Libel. Oral defamation (spoken defamation with no permanent record) is called Slander.In his statements, Rick Howe is clearly harming the reputation of this organization and ‘those behind it’. According to The only possible defenses for his libel in this case are: a) he was speaking the truth, or b) he was making a fair comment.Seeing as there is no quantifiable proof to what Rick is claiming, he can’t claim that his statements about CFH are truthful. The only protection he may have is if he can prove that he made the defamatory conclusions as part of ‘fair comment’. This is a Grey area in Canadian law. The Canadian Bar Association describes ‘Fair Comment’ as: “We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest, based on fact, and not malicious.”The emphasis here is that the comments should be based on fact, hence the call for journalists to remember the importance of fact-checking when attributing ill-motives to an organization’s character and reputation.I’m not a lawyer, and I’m sure a veteran media personality like Rick Howe is well acquainted with the laws of defamation. In this instance, some will agree that he is dancing a very fine line.The Defamation Act of Nova Scotia can be found at http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/defamatn.htm.Cheers!
well you just said it- it appeared in a column. that’s editorial, commentary on news. In that situation, it was a fair statement and he’s allowed to make it. You may not like it, but it’s not lazy journalism- it’s an editorial opinion. Also, most big newspapers have a team, or at least training, to make sure that commetns that appear in columns and editorials are not libelous or slanderous. meaning even if someone was offended by it, 9 times out of 10 it will have gotten through the legal hoops.
“You may not like it, but it’s not lazy journalism- it’s an editorial opinion. ” says hedgy….”But do not forget the unspoken motive of those behind Citizens for Halifax; an effort to hijack the city’s agenda for their own self-serving interests.”that isnt an opinion. He didnt think there was an agenda, he didnt suggest he thinks there might be, or it would appear there is a hidden agenda….. it states there IS a hidden agenda