What the hell has happened to the only remaining Halifax daily???
Ever since the Daily News died, the other daily has printed an endless series of ill-informed tabloid articles that were clearly intended only to stir up shit among readers. They’ve gone way past reporting into having many of their articles present editorial opinions as fact, misleading readers all for the sake of controversy and sales.
From the plainly misleading article about the smell at the sewage treatment plant, which at the very end of the article acknowledges that it is NOT where the smell comes from, to the latest attack on the Tories for traveling to sell our province internationally (I’m no Rodent Rodney apologist, I think he’s a moron, but instead of focussing on the true fuckups the Tories keep committing, they focus on good business and make it sound seedy purely for the sake of controversy), to the silly ATV program, to the I-built–a-cottage-in-the-woods-and-the-government-wont’ pay-for-my-utilities whine-fest, etc, etc, all designed to pull at the heart strings and stir outrage of people who can’t think for themselves.
I’m ashamed to read this garbage and I have cancelled my subscriptions at home and at the office for all my employees (I’m not despot telling them what to read – i was paying for all the subscriptions).
We’ll read the Globe or the Post, which may have their own slants but at least maintain some integrity.
This article appears in Jul 24-30, 2008.
First, if you want to blame someone for a decline in standards, blame the media corporations who have very clear mandates as to what the content can and cannot be, which is filtered down through the ranks, not up. Bias comes from unhigh.secondly, it’s the summertime. slooow news time. so yes, some of the things that end up in the paper are a little more ahem stretched or fluffy than would normally be. also we’re leading up to election season which means instigating bickering between politicians= good time for journalists everywhere.besides, who are you to judge what is editorial, what is news, what is worthy to grace the pages? That always bothers me when people assume they know exactly what merits a story and what doesn’t, and clearly the media are idiots if they deviate from that. some people like reading features about poverty, and more importantly the reporters like writing that stuff- takes a break frome ndless court briefs etc. I’m not defending this particular paper. yes, in a perfect world, the media would be unbiased, report everythign that happens ever, and it’d all be rainbows and puppies. but it’s not a perfect world. Newspapers are there to make money- stirring the pot does that, particularily in an increasingly jaded and sensational world (I’ve heard too that increased conservatism, which goes along with economic downturns, leads to increased fascination with escapism, which tabloid journalism does in spades). news is a product and needs to be sold- especially newspapers now, thansk to the internet etc stealing a lot of their thunder. as well, journalists are people. They have opinons- gasp. and sometimes those leak out. they also have a life outside of work, so sometimes they miss events or news or whatever- which many people see as creating a ‘slant’ in the paper. and then there is only so much space to run content; page number is dictated by ad sales, so a lot of the time, content has to be cut for lack of space. but if you don’t realize this you just see a biased newspaper that doesn’t live up to your idea of what news should be.
I think the criticism was of the “on highs”, not of the journalists themselves. We know it is the bosses who set the standards and direct how the articles get presented. Asking “who are you to judge” is a bit misguided Hedgy – the customer is paying for a product and if the customer feels the quality of the product is failing, they have every right to judge. If they rely on this newspaper to be the one that covers news in a well-balanced way, and it starts to read like Fox instead, then they can and should judge.Judging what is editorial is not that difficult. If the article contains mass speculation and misleading verbiage that gives a false impression about the story, only to turn the tides near the end of the article and reveal facts that contradict the rest of the article, then it was editorial. Human interest stories also have their place, unquestionably, but when a real event are presented only according to the perceptions of bystanders, with little investigation of the actual event itself, then what you have is a “letter to the editor”, not a fact-based news article.If the story is that some residents complained that they don’t like their neighbour’s dog because they think it might have rabies, then call the article “Neighbours worried about possible rabid dog”, and then explore the facts. Don’t call it “Rabid dog terrorizing neighbourhood” and present the whole article as if the dog is actually rabid and biting people, then turn around at the very end and say “incidentally the dog, which was actually a cat, was tested and had no rabies. None of the neighbours were actually scared of it anyway; they were just wondering why it was meowing so much the other day…”
There’s a rabid dog roaming Halifax? We have to do something, Who’s with me?
There’s a rabid dog roaming Halifax? We have to do something, Who’s with me?
All I meant was that sometimes the public’s perception of what is news, and how it should be presented, is scewed that’s all.Not everything is news, first of all- I think a lot of the time when people complain about bias they actually mean they don’t think certain things are getting enough attention. but most of the time that’s not a concious decision to ignore something- it’s a matter of space and time.and as far as the writing, reporters try to be balanced and fair. but they’re still writers. telling a story. without some sort of build up or drama, who’d read the story? it should be facutal and fair,b ut it can’t just be a list of who what when where’s and why’s or no one would read it!also, maybe what sometimes comes across as bias is actually a reporter trying to talka bout something beyond the facts. So using your dog example again, maybet he story was actually more about reactions of neighbors to pets, and paranoia about disease or whatever. so it doesnt’ matter as much if that dog actually HAD rabies or actually bit someone- the story would be about the fear that he could, and the writer could paly it up.All I was getting at really is I think people are way to judgmental about the press, without fully understanding what goes on within the media. it’s one of those jobs everyone thinks they can do, which is just not so.doesn’t mean you can’t choose to show your opinion with your dollar- it’s totally valid not to buy a paper or whatnot because you disagree with soemthing in it. i just got the vibe though that the OP was condemning an entire instituation, one fo the last independants in Canada btw, because of a couple of stories he or she thought didn’t reach the standards they, as someone who is NOT in the media, felt they should.
I think the OP was less about bias than about fluff. I know when I read or watch the news I want to hear some facts about what is really happening, not just some slack-jawed yokel’s ill-informed opinion of what they think, maybe, possibly, might be happening because they remember something similar from 1979. I know there’s always SOME of that, but I would like to see it either supported or refuted by some explanation of what really is happening based on investigation. We humans love to bitch and moan and complain and speculate and gossip, and 9 times out of 10, our guesses are wrong.
yeah but first, nothing but the facts ma’am makes for a pretty boring read, you know?also a lot of the time that ‘investigation’ is incredibly time consuming or just not possible, either on deadline or at that specific time, particularly in the daily news environment. it’s why you’ll usually see more indepth factual coverage in magazines and weekly or monthly papers, where they ahve the space and the time to give you all the background and talk to multiple people and let a story develop. in a daily environment, you probably only have like 3 seconds of actual fact, and if it’s just breaking there’s nothign else available, especially in hard news stories taht involve politicians, police, or any sort of officials- they release things in bits and pieces and carefully crafted statements after stories have cooled a bit.so the rest gets filled with supposition, reaction, emotions and feelings.that’s not fluff it’s just how stories get told. frankly, I think if everything was done with no supposition or ‘fluff’ there’d be all sorts of peopel in here bitching about how bland and boring news coverage is.
yeah but first, nothing but the facts ma’am makes for a pretty boring read, you know?also a lot of the time that ‘investigation’ is incredibly time consuming or just not possible, either on deadline or at that specific time, particularly in the daily news environment. it’s why you’ll usually see more indepth factual coverage in magazines and weekly or monthly papers, where they ahve the space and the time to give you all the background and talk to multiple people and let a story develop. in a daily environment, you probably only have like 3 seconds of actual fact, and if it’s just breaking there’s nothign else available, especially in hard news stories taht involve politicians, police, or any sort of officials- they release things in bits and pieces and carefully crafted statements after stories have cooled a bit.so the rest gets filled with supposition, reaction, emotions and feelings.that’s not fluff it’s just how stories get told. frankly, I think if everything was done with no supposition or ‘fluff’ there’d be all sorts of peopel in here bitching about how bland and boring news coverage is.
i didn’t say no fluff, just fluff supported by some facts. if it’s only fluff i might as well read the Daily World News