The TO star - crazy or not

kwtoxman

kwtoxman

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
I lived in TO for over a decade. Liked the star back then but more and more I find major left leaning politics agenda news going on with them. And it has gotten so bad I have lost all my respect for them overall. Not very neutral to say the least. FWIW I'm a centrist, some right leanings, some left leanings. It boggles my mind that I see much more neutral news coverage from the national post compared to the star.

What do y'all think of this? The recent EU trade deal is out. Seen lots of coverage on it. Pretty balanced news coverage overall, but it seems from this star article the deal is the devil.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...trade_deal_not_really_about_trade_walkom.html
 
Last edited:
kwtoxman said:
I lived in TO for over a decade. Liked the star back then but more and more I find major left leaning politics agenda news going on with them. And it has gotten so bad I have lost all my respect for them overall. Not very neutral to say the least. FWIW I'm a centrist, some right leanings, some left leanings. It boggles my mind that I see much more neutral news coverage from the national post compared to the star.

What do y'all think of this? The recent EU trade deal is out. Seen lots of coverage on it. Pretty balanced news coverage overall, but it seems from this star article the deal is the devil.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...trade_deal_not_really_about_trade_walkom.html
Click to expand...


They have to move paper so cater to the group advertising the most is my guess.
Maybe one paper leans left and the other leans right so they kinda start the papermill wars:D
 
kwtoxman said:
I lived in TO for over a decade. Liked the star back then but more and more I find major left leaning politics agenda news going on with them. And it has gotten so bad I have lost all my respect for them overall. Not very neutral to say the least. FWIW I'm a centrist, some right leanings, some left leanings. It boggles my mind that I see much more neutral news coverage from the national post compared to the star.

What do y'all think of this? The recent EU trade deal is out. Seen lots of coverage on it. Pretty balanced news coverage overall, but it seems from this star article the deal is the devil.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...trade_deal_not_really_about_trade_walkom.html
Click to expand...

I was exactly like you. Used to read them, now don't want to believe a word they say. I even mentioned it in a few of my posts earlier on. Look at the lengths they went to harrass Rob Ford
 
Its true, they went full retard.

Used to subscribe to their paper, now I can't stand it.

Globe and Mail is my choice for now.
 
Globe and mail's not bad but it takes about 5 mins to read now that some days it's as thick as a pamphlet. If I need a good laugh I read the Sun. Only problem with the Globe is Wente....she's a bit of a *********.
 
+1

Only time that I see the star now is if I slide in into the bottom of the bird cage.

kwtoxman said:
I lived in TO for over a decade. Liked the star back then but more and more I find major left leaning politics agenda news going on with them. And it has gotten so bad I have lost all my respect for them overall. Not very neutral to say the least. FWIW I'm a centrist, some right leanings, some left leanings. It boggles my mind that I see much more neutral news coverage from the national post compared to the star.

What do y'all think of this? The recent EU trade deal is out. Seen lots of coverage on it. Pretty balanced news coverage overall, but it seems from this star article the deal is the devil.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...trade_deal_not_really_about_trade_walkom.html
Click to expand...
 
The Star does good investigative journalism. If they are out embarrassing rich and powerful people or cities or institutions with difficult questions then one should ask, why aren't the other papers coming up with questions instead of cheerleading.

Free trade deals are no deal with disparate entities. International agreements and treaties means you lose the right to legislate standards. Take the gasoline additive MBTE. Canada had it banned as being bad for the environment. US company went to court said Canada's ban hurts the business of US company selling it. Ban overturned. If I recall, MBTE wasn't legal in most places in the states but those states didn't have to start using it. Only us.
 
Sunspark said:
The Star does good investigative journalism. If they are out embarrassing rich and powerful people or cities or institutions with difficult questions then one should ask, why aren't the other papers coming up with questions instead of cheerleading.
Click to expand...

I agree that the star does some good investigative journalism. But some of it is blatant character assassination (e.g. the fords, anonymous sources, etc) investigative articles, opinion pieces and editorials are a real stain on the paper.

I would say the star is good at local (read GTA and ON) investigative journalism but they have no competition. There are no other GTA newspapers that can come even close to them in size and thus capability. The other big papers that at time report about ON and toronto are national level. And no other local paper in Ontario has the size to compete either with the star.

I suggest you do more reading of the national papers if you think they don't do investigative journalism. I see lots. One of the more interesting pieces lately were the Doucet case and Supreme Court of Canada travesty, investigated and reported by the national post. There are many articles on this subject. Here are a few
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...-woman-who-hired-hit-man-to-kill-her-husband/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...an-who-claimed-spousal-abuse-in-hit-men-case/



Sunspark said:
Free trade deals are no deal with disparate entities. International agreements and treaties means you lose the right to legislate standards.
Click to expand...
Individual countries arbitrarily legislating their own standards are the main way they set up protectionism. EU has generally been the worst at this. The free trade agreement will do away with much of that, that is allowing for free trade without the interference of tariffs, discrimination, subsidies, quotas, etc. Getting a broader standard development amongst countries almost always helps. Think WHO, ISO, etc. With the FTA, as everyone here should know, there will be some winners and losers in specific industries, but overall the effect should be positive, especially for consumers, which all of us are.

I guess I'm just saying again, as noted in my original post, that the star article about the FTA being the devil is way way over the top.


Sunspark said:
Take the gasoline additive MBTE. Canada had it banned as being bad for the environment. US company went to court said Canada's ban hurts the business of US company selling it. Ban overturned. If I recall, MBTE wasn't legal in most places in the states but those states didn't have to start using it. Only us.
Click to expand...
Really? Very wrong. In reality, a Canadian company took the US to court through NAFTA to get a California ban on MTBE overturned (they manufactured MTBE). They lost the case. MTBE was banned through parts of the US before Canada as well. Some info here.
http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/when-good-fuel-additives-go-bad-mtbe
 
Last edited:
kwtoxman said:
Wow, crazy wrong there. In reality, a Canadian company took the US to court through NAFTA to get a California ban on MTBE overturned (they manufactured MTBE). They lost the case. MTBE was banned through parts of the US before Canada.
Click to expand...

That was my understanding. I thought MTBE use in Canada was almost nil except by Irving Oil for export only.

GC reports from 2006 say use was almost nil. The below is from a 2009 Report.

Current Status

In the United States during the early part of the decade, more and more states were banning the use of gasoline containing MTBE. As of 2007, 25 states had full or partial bans of MTBE, and some extend that ban to other oxygenates as well. In 2005 most American oil companies stated that they were going to stop using MTBE as of 2006.

The bans of MTBE in the US have had an economic impact in Canada. In 1999, Methanex, a British Columbia producer of methanol (a raw component of MTBE) filed a suit under NAFTA as a result of the California ban. They lost the case in August 2005.  It's interesting that in a similar NAFTA case by Ethyl Corporation against the Canadian government, Canada settled out of court and rescinded the ban on Ethyl's product MMT, another fuel additive.

Current information on MTBE in gasoline in Canada is difficult to find, most likely because it has been phased out. As of 2003 only one company was continuing to sell gasoline containing MTBE in Canada. As well, despite the failure of Canada's initial attempt to ban MMT, a manganese based replacement for lead in gasoline, in 2004 indications were that all oil and gas companies were phasing it out of their fuels (Sierra Club of Canada, 2004).
 
Last edited:
bakaboy said:
That was my understanding. I thought MTBE use in Canada was almost nil except by Irving Oil for export only.

GC reports from 2006 say use was almost nil.
Click to expand...

Not entirely accurate. You are correct that MTBE is no longer used so it is now out of the supply chain, and has been for a while. However,
In 1998, gasoline containing MTBE accounted for 10 per cent of the Canadian gasoline pool.
Click to expand...

You can read more here if you wish. I only looked at the executive summary. http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=C24EA637-1&offset=1&toc=show
 
Last edited:
When you are dumb you are a socialist and read the star.....when you mature and smarten up you don't read that crap
 
No paper deserves loyalty. They all have an agenda, albeit from different ends of the spectrum. Aside from an actual investigative journalism article, opinion and editorial columns are designed to either change or enforce your way of thinking, and that appeals to the partisan base that they rely on to exist.
 
I've been working in Toronto news media for almost 20 years, and in some influential positions. Yes, all outlets, print or broadcast have their own agenda. Some are driven politically. Some are driven by their advertisers. And all are heavily influenced by the crazy old White man who owns them.

I can tell you that every journalist I've worked with has strived to be unbiased, and just present the facts. The problem is, these days, editorials are being treated as hard news. You can thank the likes of Christie Blatchford and Rosie Dimanno for starting that trend.

Like anything in life. Treat everything you read, watch or listen to, in a critical manner. When you expect a potential slant, it becomes less offensive. These days, I'm actually entertained to see how a left/right leaning organization will handle a particular story. Just take it all in, and find the truth yourself.
 
Last edited:
1304cc said:
I've been working in Toronto news media for almost 20 years, and in some influential positions. Yes, all outlets, print or broadcast have their own agenda. Some are driven politically. Some are driven by their advertisers. And all are heavily influenced by the crazy old White man who owns them.

I can tell you that every journalist I've worked with has strived to be unbiased, and just present the facts. The problem is, these days, editorials are being treated as hard news. You can thank the likes of Christie Blatchford and Rosie Dimanno for starting that trend.

Like anything in life. Treat everything you read, watch or listen to, in a critical manner. When you expect a potential slant, it becomes less offensive. These days, I'm actually entertained to see how a left/right leaning organization will handle a particular story. Just take it all in, and find the truth yourself.
Click to expand...

Everything seems to be more opinion than fact nowadays. Is that because the columnists make the most money so everyone wants to style their piece that way in hopes of a future salary increase? Another excuse would be them trying to get the stories out faster and faster to beat the other media.
 
Sunspark said:
I apologize, it was the MMT case that I remembered. Ethyl Corp is now known as Afton and is still peddling MMT worldwide.

This URL is interesting, it is a report now old but still detailed, by a Canadian Senate committee on MMT: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/352/enrg/rep/c29-e.htm
Click to expand...

That was the old original position Canada took that caused the fight. MMT is interesting as it is essentially the reverse of the MTBE example. A US corporation sued under NAFTA because Canada was going to ban MMT as a gasoline additive. It had been in use for years and years. And unlike MTBE which had strong environmental and human health concerns, MMT was much more nebulus and debatable.

In the end Canada backed down and did not ban MMT. Was there a good reason to ban it? At that time (90's), it was very debatable, centring around the issues of health, environment, uncertainty and precaution. Canada chose not to defend their original decision and logic and backed away from banning MMT.

And it turns out that the health concerns over MMT aren't warranted. The weight of evidence from highly respected institutions have found and reaffirmed this.
The health hazards associated with manganese compounds emitted from vehicles operating on gasoline containing MMT have been debated for decades. In 1994 (reaffirmed in 1998, 2001 and 2010), Health Canada concluded that “airborne manganese resulting from the combustion of MMT in gasoline powered vehicles is not entering the Canadian environment in quantities or under conditions that may constitute a health risk”[18] and confirmed they were taking no action with respect to MMT. The 2003 NICNAS study ruled that the airborne concentrations of manganese as a result of car emissions from vehicles using fuel containing MMT posed no health hazard.

Additional health studies, overseen by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have been conducted in order to explain the transport of manganese in the body. These studies, the most recent available, published by the Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences from 2007 through 2011 and submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the framework of the Clean Air Act, show that the body’s natural mechanisms can handle a wide range of manganese intake, whether from inhalation or ingestion.[19] While these mechanisms can be overwhelmed if exposures to manganese are very high (as in the case of some occupational exposures), the testing confirms that the body can safely handle inhaled manganese at, and well above, levels observed when MMT is used in gasoline. The studies also indicate that MMT use is safe for the entire population including vulnerable groups such as infants and the elderly
Click to expand...

I'm lazy, but here is some reading on MMT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylcyclopentadienyl_manganese_tricarbonyl

MMT is not in gasoline any more in Canada as well.

Anyway, I don't see that the FTA has hurt how Canada legislates standards. If anything it has made the whole process held to a higher standard, because it has to be definsible in law, based on sound logic and reasonable principles.
 
Last edited:
Baggsy said:
Everything seems to be more opinion than fact nowadays.
Click to expand...

It's like what you see in a court of law. Facts and strong beliefs intertwined.
It's a shame to read 4 papers a day, not be accurately informed and not even know it. About events and subjects you have no control over. I view everything with a jaundiced eye. And continue to be blissfully uninformed. Does that strategy put one at a disadvantage in romper room shouting matches? I'm happy to report, no. That's a strong belief right there.
 
DJM said:
No paper deserves loyalty. They all have an agenda, albeit from different ends of the spectrum. Aside from an actual investigative journalism article, opinion and editorial columns are designed to either change or enforce your way of thinking, and that appeals to the partisan base that they rely on to exist.
Click to expand...

1304cc said:
I've been working in Toronto news media for almost 20 years, and in some influential positions. Yes, all outlets, print or broadcast have their own agenda. Some are driven politically. Some are driven by their advertisers. And all are heavily influenced by the crazy old White man who owns them.

I can tell you that every journalist I've worked with has strived to be unbiased, and just present the facts. The problem is, these days, editorials are being treated as hard news. You can thank the likes of Christie Blatchford and Rosie Dimanno for starting that trend.

Like anything in life. Treat everything you read, watch or listen to, in a critical manner. When you expect a potential slant, it becomes less offensive. These days, I'm actually entertained to see how a left/right leaning organization will handle a particular story. Just take it all in, and find the truth yourself.
Click to expand...

Baggsy said:
Everything seems to be more opinion than fact nowadays. Is that because the columnists make the most money so everyone wants to style their piece that way in hopes of a future salary increase? Another excuse would be them trying to get the stories out faster and faster to beat the other media.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with all of this. But as I said earlier, I find the TO star to be notably more extreme and active in their bias and agenda than the other major newspapers. Thoughts?
 
kwtoxman said:
I generally agree with all of this. But as I said earlier, I find the TO star to be notably more extreme and active in their bias and agenda than the other major newspapers. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

definitely. there entertaining to read in the short term as theres always some new scandal that they have made up or taken a fact and twisted it so badly that it sounds entertaining but when you are involved with what they are writing about and you know the true facts you realize quickly that a lot of it is made up or completely twisted to make an article out of it.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom