Media Endorsement

[Hicksey]

What does it matter really? Anyone with half a brain can see who's slanted what way on any given given day anyway. It's not hard to surmise from the way they slant whom they support. I don't see how not saying it out loud is anything better than pseudo-neutral.

Let them say their piece.

What you are suggesting goes against their own Code of Ethics.

Read the Code of Ethics from this site Link to Society of Professional Journalists Webpage to see what I mean.

I perceive a huge media bias towards the Conservatives in this election, just as there may have been towards the Lberals in the last election and again, i think this is wrong and against their own Code of Ethics.

Look at the media today. How many of them are perceived as left/right wing rags? They obviously had to slant one way or the other to get those monnikers.

So, since when has ethics had anything to do with it. What's the difference between being slanted and lying about it and being slanted and being intellecually honest enough to admit it? I think he who admits his bias is of higher integrity than he who lies about it.

You're absolutely right! I take back what I said about agreeing with Rovik.

Tis true come to think of it. If it's against ethics, why would any paper want to be perceived as left/right-leaning?

I guess, it is about news reporting that a journalist had to be accurate and straightforward....but editorials and comments are a different matter.

The real problem in the media today is that the news and the editorial pages seem to be merging into each other. Editorializing needs to stay out of news stories. And we need less editorials trying to make news.

It's this merging that is the most dangerous. To the average joe, it's hard to see the one ends and the other begins.

[Rovik]

What does it matter really? Anyone with half a brain can see who's slanted what way on any given given day anyway. It's not hard to surmise from the way they slant whom they support. I don't see how not saying it out loud is anything better than pseudo-neutral.

Let them say their piece.

What you are suggesting goes against their own Code of Ethics.

Read the Code of Ethics from this site Link to Society of Professional Journalists Webpage to see what I mean.

I perceive a huge media bias towards the Conservatives in this election, just as there may have been towards the Lberals in the last election and again, i think this is wrong and against their own Code of Ethics.

Look at the media today. How many of them are perceived as left/right wing rags? They obviously had to slant one way or the other to get those monnikers.

So, since when has ethics had anything to do with it. What's the difference between being slanted and lying about it and being slanted and being intellecually honest enough to admit it? I think he who admits his bias is of higher integrity than he who lies about it.

You're absolutely right! I take back what I said about agreeing with Rovik.

Tis true come to think of it. If it's against ethics, why would any paper want to be perceived as left/right-leaning?

I guess, it is about news reporting that a journalist had to be accurate and straightforward....but editorials and comments are a different matter.

Media, be it paper or electronic are turning away from their ethical roots to gain readers or viewers. Media Sensationism and many of media's tendancy to lean left and right results in their sacrificing their objectivity and fairness. Today, it all about the gaining sponsors and the money, sad to say. And even news reporting can skew the truth one way or the other, all you have to do is look at the coverage of wars in recent history to see this is so.

[Rovik]

The real problem in the media today is that the news and the editorial pages seem to be merging into each other. Editorializing needs to stay out of news stories. And we need less editorials trying to make news.

It's this merging that is the most dangerous. To the average joe, it's hard to see the one ends and the other begins.

This is true and I see it happening in this election campaign sadly.

[shoop]

Here are some *highlights* from the Toronto Star's endorsement of the Liberals.

In the Star's view, the Liberals remain the better choice.

Despite Harper's appeal, there is reason to be skeptical, or at least cautious, about his shift toward the centre.

And while Harper campaigned from the centre, he will face much pressure from his base and from some in his caucus to govern from the right.

The Liberals remain better placed in Quebec to speak for Canada.

Endorsement is one thing, but flat out lying is another. There was no support for that Quebec sentence.

With the polls showing the Tories having *at least* double the support of the Liberals in Quebec it makes you wonder how far the Star will go in distorting the facts to support the Liberals.

[Hicksey]

Here are some *highlights* from the Toronto Star's endorsement of the Liberals.

In the Star's view, the Liberals remain the better choice.

Despite Harper's appeal, there is reason to be skeptical, or at least cautious, about his shift toward the centre.

And while Harper campaigned from the centre, he will face much pressure from his base and from some in his caucus to govern from the right.

The Liberals remain better placed in Quebec to speak for Canada.

Endorsement is one thing, but flat out lying is another. There was no support for that Quebec sentence.

With the polls showing the Tories having *at least* double the support of the Liberals in Quebec it makes you wonder how far the Star will go in distorting the facts to support the Liberals.

The Toronto Star may as well be a cog in the Media Arm of the Liberal Party. They've been such since I started reading newspapers and paying attention to politics. The only section I can read in it is the Wheels section. The only thing in there that is annoying is their constant demonization of the SUV. If you listen to the Toronto Star, SUVs run driverless and rampant through crowds of innocents and start wars in the Middle East. Its kind of comical really.