[via Blue Like You]WHENEVER A REPORTER FOR THE TORONTO STAR MIGHT WISH TO ASK FOR MY THOUGHTS ON AN ISSUE OF THE DAY, I STAND READY TO RESPOND.
HOWEVER, AND DESPITE YOUR “EXTENDED DEADLINE” I WILL NOT ANSWER THE DEMANDS IN YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 16TH, 2013, WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE A CRUDELY CRAFTED, VEILED THREAT THAT I (AND OTHERS) ENDORSE AN EDITORIAL COLUMN WRITTEN BY TORSTAR CHAIR JOHN HONDERICH . . . OR FACE CONSEQUENCES IN YOUR EVENTUAL STORY.
YOUR LETTER IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT MIGHT BEST BE DESCRIBED AS CRUSADE JOURNALISM; A NEWSPAPER'S ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE ITS EDITORIAL WILL FAR BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF ACCEPTABLE JOURNALISTIC PRACTICE.
MR. HONDERICH IS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO HIS OPINION.
I WILL NOT BE BULLIED INTO COMMENTING ON THAT OPINION.
YOUR MANNER OF NEWS-GATHERING IS, I BELIEVE, AN UNFORTUNATE EXAMPLE OF THE DECLINE OF A CRAFT I ONCE PROUDLY PRACTISED.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
The T-Star's shakedown targets
Last month The Toronto Star's loopy chairman wrote to 70 Toronto "elites" in an attempt to intimidate them into denouncing Mayor Rob Ford (see Conrad Black's column). Today, The (loopy) Star published a list of responders (and non-responders) along with their comments. Many predictably went along with the Star's idiocy and dumped all over Ford as requested. But many others either didn't respond at all or told the Star to drop dead. Peter Kent's reply stands out (my bold):