Toronto Star Wins 6 Awards

[scribblet]

The political reporting award was a hoot, too bad bias in reporting isn't a consideration.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/809978--star-wins-6-national-newspaper-awards?bn

Toronto Star journalists have won six prestigious National Newspaper Awards for their work in covering the world in which we live — from the war in Afghanistan and its fallout to an ordinary Saturday night street brawl outside a Toronto night club.

Star photographer Steve Russell, who caught that brawl on Richmond St., was honoured with his second NNA, the awards founded in 1949 to recognize the best the country’s newspapers have to offer.

“The best of Canadian journalism was on parade and the Star newsroom was once again front and centre — a wonderful and rewarding testament to the paper’s deep and powerful journalism,” Star Editor Michael Cooke said after Friday’s awards were announced at the 61st annual NNA ceremony in Toronto.

[Smallc]

Haha, in the face of anything, you partisans persist, don't you?

[bloodyminded]

"Leftist bias in the news media" has become such a cherished reflex that it stops the accusers from even bothering to soberly look into the matter.

It can only be done with any sort of accuracy by looking at the matter institutionally.

Anyway, I guess we're to take it on faith that these corporations are Marxist, anti-corporate entities that don't "support the troops" or something.

And since such views and their offshoots actually comprise pretty wild conspiracy theories, it up to the conspiracy theorists to make their case.

They have so far utterly refused to do so, preferring instead to occasionally produce cherry-picked examples about specific reporter bias--ignoring context, ignoring scientific methodology...and even then the examples tend to be less than clear.

[BubberMiley]

Clearly there is a bias in the media--how could there not be? But it's also clearly on the side of corporatism.

It would be nice if there were a left-wing bias. That would indicate that money didn't always call the shots and that there was still some interest in the underdog. Unfortunately, money will always dictate the agenda.

Edited May 16, 2010 by BubberMiley

[bloodyminded]

Clearly there is a bias in the media--how could there not be? But it's also clearly on the side of corporatism.

It would be nice if there were a left-wing bias. That would indicate that money didn't always call the shots and that there was still some interest in the underdog. Unfortunately, money will always dictate the agenda.

You're right. Money and power are the primary parameters. I consider Chomsky and Herman's "Propaganda Model" to be an excellent standard for looking at the media. The five "filters" are: Ownership, Advertising, Sources, Flak, and Ideology (last of all). Further, they don't claim an inherent right-wing bias, either: it's about Establishment Power itself.

Edited May 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

It's the bias of those who graduate from journalism school, and eventually make up the institution known as the "press". I would say: middle class, slightly liberal, generally supportive of corporations though also suspicious of them... fair but given to biases as we all are...

[Shwa]

You're right. Money and power are the primary parameters. I consider Chomsky and Herman's "Propaganda Model" to be an excellent standard for looking at the media. The five "filters" are: Ownership, Advertising, Sources, Flak, and Ideology (last of all). Further, they don't claim an inherent right-wing bias, either: it's about Establishment Power itself.

Indeed and I agree. And the 'Establishment Power' would tend to be conservative by and large. But then again, only a leftist would bother to point this out.

But let's examine Russell's award winning shot of the bar brawl on Richmond St:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/809978--star-wins-6-national-newspaper-awards

Here we have a photo of 6 young, white, males fighting one another, at night, in the street. This photo - and the award it garnered - is a prime example of how the Star cannot balance its leftist photojournalistic bias by providing a similar photograph of 6 young black (or brown, or some shade thereof) fighting in the street. It makes young drunken white males look bad. It 'paints' a bad 'picture' of the recreational activities of young white males while not providing a counterbalance to this 'view.' Nevermind analyzing the aspect of their dress, I mean, one is even wearing a tie which suggests the oppression that the corporate 'suits' must endure not only in the media, but in the bars on Richmond St, especially when someone else calls them 'a douche.'

Yep, no doubt about it, the Star is biased and unfair.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Shwa

[M.Dancer]

It's the bias of those who graduate from journalism school, and eventually make up the institution known as the "press". I would say: middle class, slightly liberal, generally supportive of corporations though also suspicious of them... fair but given to biases as we all are...

The biases of rookie journalists are put into a crucible and by the time they are senior enough to be given a byline on an important story, there biases are left in the sock drawer at home....failing that they work for a nobody cage liner in south western ontario...or go into public relations..

[Michael Hardner]

The biases of rookie journalists are put into a crucible and by the time they are senior enough to be given a byline on an important story, there biases are left in the sock drawer at home....failing that they work for a nobody cage liner in south western ontario...or go into public relations..

You need to drink some postmodern Kool Aid.

[M.Dancer]

Here we have a photo of 6 young, white, males fighting one another, at night, in the street. This photo - and the award it garnered - is a prime example of how the Star cannot balance its leftist photojournalistic bias by providing a similar photograph of 6 young black

That is absurd to the nth degree. What you are suggesting is:

..that a photo of opportunity(right place, right time) (and one that is dramatic, newsworthy and indeed is worth 1000 words)

be embargoed till another photog has the good opportunity to snap a similiar one of young black males fighting...

I can think of no greater desire for bias than what you suggest.

[M.Dancer]

You need to drink some postmodern Kool Aid.

You need to work in media for 25 years.

[Michael Hardner]

You need to work in media for 25 years.

In all seriousness, you can't say that "no" bias exists in an individual. Unperceived biases are what all of us carry with us through life. To say it's a liberal bias, western bias or whatever is perhaps too presumptuous, i.e. it's not for us to say that we are unbiased enough to comment on our own biases.

For an example of cultural bias, I often recall McLuhan's story of a media study years ago that showed a film to a distant tribe who had never seen films, nor even lived in western circumstances. The short film depicted some basic dramatic scenario, character discussion and whatnot. The point of the experiment was to record what that experiences of viewing the film were like from the tribe's point of view.

After the film, though, many of the tribe noted that a main point of the film was a chicken that had appeared. The academics hadn't even noticed the animal, but on review sure enough in a few frames there was a chicken in the background. Without having any cultural framework in film watching, this curious footnote stood out for the tribe - for some unknown reason.

Such is the case with cultural bias - it exists but it's vague. Why do we pay attention to the things we pay attention to, Harold Innes asked. There's no point in fretting about these biases, and especially unproductive to build conspiracy theories from the right or the left. But they're interesting and knowing that they exist prevents us from thinking that a vessel like The Star delivers stark factual information in every case.

By recognizing that biases exist, we can recognize that a paper such as the Star describes a certain type of Toronto middle-class truth that is useful to us much of the time but not all of the time.

Because I had the time to do so, I took this extended post to say simply... don't believe everything you read or disbelieve it either.

[M.Dancer]

In all seriousness, you can't say that "no" bias exists in an individual.

In all seriousness, I didn't say that at all.

Professional journalists (as opposed to columnists) strive to report facts without bias. It isn't that hard...you cover the mafia, you avoid words like grease balls, dago and sicilian scum...you cover the anti abortion movement, you avoid phrases like deranged right wing conservative religious wackoes (although if Henry Morgantaler is quoted saying that, that fair game...

And if you cover ottawa (and you are not a columnist), the job isn't easier but the same rules apply..You describe facts, you reach out for comment, you explain without the partisan rhetoric.

Are they always succesful? No...

And do we always notice the chicken?

Years ago we had a meeting with some people from the Star advertising department. They wanted to know how thay could attract more business advertising. They made their presentation, their readers were just as desirable as the Globe's...and they had more of them..but they couldn't get ads from merchant banks, risk management providers and such. So they finally asked my opinion. I said before they start trying to convince the market to advertise, they needed a business section that was about business. So we went through their business section, story by story. I can't remember the exact break down but something like 70% were personal finance one was a story about NAFTA focusing on the fear factor and the rest were about careers...Then we went through the ROB. There were stories regarding earning reports, a mining story, exports, economy, etc etc etc...

Yes there is bias...In the case of the Star, the editors were generally un interested in mundane things like new operations by placer dome...and it was reflected in who they hired to cover business....

[Michael Hardner]

In all seriousness, I didn't say that at all.

Biases... put into a crucible...

Professional journalists (as opposed to columnists) strive to report facts without bias. It isn't that hard...you cover the mafia, you avoid words like grease balls, dago and sicilian scum...you cover the anti abortion movement, you avoid phrases like deranged right wing conservative religious wackoes (although if Henry Morgantaler is quoted saying that, that fair game...

And if you cover ottawa (and you are not a columnist), the job isn't easier but the same rules apply..You describe facts, you reach out for comment, you explain without the partisan rhetoric.

Are they always succesful? No...

And do we always notice the chicken?

Years ago we had a meeting with some people from the Star advertising department. They wanted to know how thay could attract more business advertising. They made their presentation, their readers were just as desirable as the Globe's...and they had more of them..but they couldn't get ads from merchant banks, risk management providers and such. So they finally asked my opinion. I said before they start trying to convince the market to advertise, they needed a business section that was about business. So we went through their business section, story by story. I can't remember the exact break down but something like 70% were personal finance one was a story about NAFTA focusing on the fear factor and the rest were about careers...Then we went through the ROB. There were stories regarding earning reports, a mining story, exports, economy, etc etc etc...

Yes there is bias...In the case of the Star, the editors were generally un interested in mundane things like new operations by placer dome...and it was reflected in who they hired to cover business....

More telling is the 'fear factor' angle on their business stories. Somebody (not Bush_Cheney but it could have been) described the CBC as having the aspect of a nervous English teacher - always tut-tutting and worried for the future. This is what I think of our collective zeitgeist, in general.

I also remember your point about coverage of East Timor and the fact that the abuses that happened there, though reported, didn't stick in the public consciousness. There was some kind of bias programmed into us to ignore those stories, but to respond to the situation in South Africa (just for an example) more readily.

I think maybe the age is upon us where more of us start to consider Innis' famous question more often:

"Why do we attend to the things to which we attend?"

[M.Dancer]

Biases... put into a crucible...

Like I said, I didn't make the claim...instead I clearly if not figuratively said:

there biases are left in the sock drawer at home

Meaning they don't bring them to their offices..

More telling is the 'fear factor' angle on their business stories. Somebody (not Bush_Cheney but it could have been) described the CBC as having the aspect of a nervous English teacher - always tut-tutting and worried for the future. This is what I think of our collective zeitgeist, in general.

Let me add very succinctly, yea, whatever...

I also remember your point about coverage of East Timor and the fact that the abuses that happened there, though reported, didn't stick in the public consciousness. There was some kind of bias programmed into us to ignore those stories, but to respond to the situation in South Africa (just for an example) more readily.

Are we talking about media bias or media consumer bias?

On a related note, a very senior business editor was being pitched by a PR firm acting on behalf of an international service provider about a green initiative. Now this editor is quite plugged in to environmental affairs, conservation etc etc...when the flack had finished pitching his story idea, he said to the PR thingy, surprising himself even, that he might want reposition and re frame the story, the media fatigue of all things green was evident and he was afraid that it would bore the readers.

Readers only have so much patience. Whether it is east timor, south africa or green initiatives. Unless a story can be made interesting, compelling and some how relevant to the consumer, their eyes gloss over PDQ.

I think maybe the age is upon us where more of us start to consider Innis' famous question more often:

"Why do we attend to the things to which we attend?"

See above.

[Michael Hardner]

Meaning they don't bring them to their offices..

They do, however, bring their socks which came from that very drawer if you get my meaning. The Trojan horse of bias is what interests me. Media bias or media consumer bias is human bias.

My dad used to give me these puzzle books when I was growing up. Remember them ? I'm convinced they're a good way to grow your brain. Like the famous St. Ives' poem.

As I was going to St. Ives I met a man with seven wives,

Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,

Each cat had seven kits: kits, cats, sacks and wives,

How many were going to St. Ives?

As a ten year old, I got out my pencil and added 1 + 7 + ( 7 X 7 ) etc.... carrying my bias that I was going to be asked a question about arithmetic, when it's a straightforward question about comprehension. I actually learned that it's easy to fool people that way.

On a related note, a very senior business editor was being pitched by a PR firm acting on behalf of an international service provider about a green initiative. Now this editor is quite plugged in to environmental affairs, conservation etc etc...when the flack had finished pitching his story idea, he said to the PR thingy, surprising himself even, that he might want reposition and re frame the story, the media fatigue of all things green was evident and he was afraid that it would bore the readers.

Readers only have so much patience. Whether it is east timor, south africa or green initiatives. Unless a story can be made interesting, compelling and some how relevant to the consumer, their eyes gloss over PDQ.

That's why they call them news "stories". The story is a vehicle for learning that has never been surpassed in human history and we still rely on it. But it's not effective for everything. CEOs don't sit around cross legged and ask their officers "tell me a story about how marketing is doing".

They invented graphs, hiroglyphs and cuneform figures to get around some of these things but the humanity of the listener isn't easily dragged into these new ways of framing information. Those who "get" those ways can do quite well.

I think The Star has its place, and its kind of comforting that it fails in the way it does (such as your example of being unable to put on a 3 piece suit and be a business paper) but it's also aggravating in that constantly sounding the alarm about certain things (American encroachment, this or that kind of impending natural disaster, and of course the youth are being spoiled by the internet/dungeons and dragons/heavy metal/drugs/rock and roll/the hula hoop ) reinforces that nervous teacher mindset that prevents us from thinking about things in new ways.

Eyeball's idea to monitor bureaucrats 24/7, as well as my idea for all money to be trackable... they're crazy ideas let's face it. But there are new ideas coming all the time that address how we define ourselves, and how we can govern ourselves better with new media. Whatever they are, The Star will be against them.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[M.Dancer]

My dad used to give me these puzzle books when I was growing up. Remember them ? I'm convinced they're a good way to grow your brain. Like the famous St. Ives' poem.

One

[scribblet]

The Toronto Star admits is it a liberal-progressive paper and follows it's ideals and mandates of the Atkinson Princples... so at least we know where we are at with the Star. It's a no brainer, Other papers might have some modicum of responsibility but the Star follows it's own lites.. LOL

[M.Dancer]

The Toronto Star admits is it a liberal-progressive paper and follows it's ideals and mandates of the Atkinson Princples... so at least we know where we are at with the Star. It's a no brainer, Other papers might have some modicum of responsibility but the Star follows it's own lites.. LOL

• A strong, united and independent Canada

• Social justice

• Individual and civil liberties

• Community and civic engagement

• The rights of working people

• The necessary role of government

http://www.thestar.com/atkinsonseries/article/542441--the-atkinson-principles

Pretty much the same mantra of every mainstream party in Canada

[Shwa]

That is absurd to the nth degree. What you are suggesting is:

..that a photo of opportunity(right place, right time) (and one that is dramatic, newsworthy and indeed is worth 1000 words)

be embargoed till another photog has the good opportunity to snap a similiar one of young black males fighting...

I can think of no greater desire for bias than what you suggest.

It is absurd! I need to find the code or icon to indicate text that is tongue-in-cheek or deeply sarcastic.

[DrGreenthumb]

Indeed and I agree. And the 'Establishment Power' would tend to be conservative by and large. But then again, only a leftist would bother to point this out.

But let's examine Russell's award winning shot of the bar brawl on Richmond St:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/809978--star-wins-6-national-newspaper-awards

Here we have a photo of 6 young, white, males fighting one another, at night, in the street. This photo - and the award it garnered - is a prime example of how the Star cannot balance its leftist photojournalistic bias by providing a similar photograph of 6 young black (or brown, or some shade thereof) fighting in the street. It makes young drunken white males look bad. It 'paints' a bad 'picture' of the recreational activities of young white males while not providing a counterbalance to this 'view.' Nevermind analyzing the aspect of their dress, I mean, one is even wearing a tie which suggests the oppression that the corporate 'suits' must endure not only in the media, but in the bars on Richmond St, especially when someone else calls them 'a douche.'

Yep, no doubt about it, the Star is biased and unfair.

Are you joking or just out of your mind? In media stories as well as in prisons, people of colour are WAY over represented in proportion to the crimes they commit. For example just as many white people as Asians grow and sell pot, but the media stories predominantly report the names of the vietnamese, who are also targetted more for enforcement and tend to recieve a lot more prison time than their white counterparts.

[M.Dancer]

It is absurd! I need to find the code or icon to indicate text that is tongue-in-cheek or deeply sarcastic.

oops

[Edward]

This will undoubtedly piss some of you off, but I always thought Chuck Klosterman nailed it on journalistic bias in newspapers.

[Michael Hardner]

This will undoubtedly piss some of you off, but I always thought Chuck Klosterman nailed it on journalistic bias in newspapers.

Quoted:

Are media outlets controlled by massive, conservative corporations? Well, of course they are. Massive conservative corporations own everything? Are most individual members of the media politically liberal? Absolutely. If talented writers honestly thought the world didn?t need to be changed, they?d take jobs in advertising that are half as difficult and three times and lucrative. So ? in theory ? all the long-standing conspiracies about media motives are true. But ? in practice ? they?re basically irrelevant, at least in the newspaper industry. There is no way the espoused Aryan masterminds who run the world can affect the content of any daily story; they usually have no idea what the heck is going on with anything in the world, and certainly not with what anyone?s writing about. I worked in the Knight Ridder chain for four years, and I never got the impression that the CEO read anything, except maybe Golf Digest.

Not sure why this would p*ss some of us off - we basically have said similar things on this thread.