On the news that Post Media has gobbled up Quebecor's English language Sun newspapers, Chris Selley wrote one of his typically snotty, derisive pieces on Ezra Levant and Sun News Network.
Chris Selley suffers from Levant Derangement Syndrome (LDS). He writes as if all he has watched of Ezra’s prime-time show is his most recent hilarious "outrage" (eg. bringing up the foppish Liberal leader’s parentage). It’s not that exposing Trudeau’s supreme unfitness for Canada’s top job isn’t important work but Selley has, apparently, missed the other 99.9% of Ezra’s excellent work including but not limited to:
Freedom (free speech, free enterprise, democracy and the rule of law)
Lib/left media (the Media Party) group think
environmentalism
the global warming debate
anti-oil fanaticism
fracking
foreign funding of Canadian radicals
“Occupy”, “Idle No More”, and other radical leftist “movements”
Islamicism and the war on terror
anti-Christian bigotry on the lib/left
China, Russia,
Putin, Ukraine ...
...
For a full hour show, five days a week, he covers this wide range of topics (often personally, on the street and in the field) with great wit and intelligence, interviewing knowledgeable, expert guests with skill, aplomb and respect. Selley and his LDS aside, let us hope and pray that Sun News with Levant, Lilley, Coren and many others continues and never, ever, falls under the management of a Media Party conglomerate.
Showing posts with label Selley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Selley. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Media Party circles the wagons in defence of crappy journalism
In yesterday's National Post there were columns by Andrew Coyne and Chris Selley discussing, in part, the journalism surrounding Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's alleged crack smoking. At least the focus is on the real problem - the media, instead of the steady stream of innuendo about Ford . But, to me, both columns are just more of the Media Party's circling of the wagons around their own, spinning their biases into a transparent rationalization of crappy journalism.
Towards the end of Coyne's column he says that the alleged Ford video couldn't have been faked because some alleged tech experts have said so. That's a highly dubious assertion. Such a video can indeed be faked, at least one sufficiently good enough to dupe gullible reporters on the prowl for dirt on Ford, who viewed it on a tiny screen in the back of a dope dealer's car, at night. The hard part about faking such videos is making them good enough to avoid detection on close inspection. Could this be the reason the video hasn't surfaced? This is precisely why the Star should not have published the story. They didn't have the video in their possession and were therefore unable to have it technically authenticated.
Coyne also yaps about the alleged sterling reputations of the Star reporters asking whether they'd risk them, along with possible "heavy financial losses", if they didn't have grounds to believe their story to be true.
Here's a clue for Coyne: why don't you review the case of that once reputable, highly acclaimed journalist DAN RATHER? You know, the one where Rather let his biases and enthusiasm for screwing George W Bush get the better of him when he published a smear based on a phony memorandum. Sounds very similar to the Star story on Ford, doesn't it?
Near the end of Selley's column he defends the Star's ethically dubious journalism:
Selley, like Coyne attaches significance to the reputations of the Star and its reporters. But there's nary a peep (by either) about the damage being unjustly done to the reputation of their victim, Rob Ford.
Towards the end of Coyne's column he says that the alleged Ford video couldn't have been faked because some alleged tech experts have said so. That's a highly dubious assertion. Such a video can indeed be faked, at least one sufficiently good enough to dupe gullible reporters on the prowl for dirt on Ford, who viewed it on a tiny screen in the back of a dope dealer's car, at night. The hard part about faking such videos is making them good enough to avoid detection on close inspection. Could this be the reason the video hasn't surfaced? This is precisely why the Star should not have published the story. They didn't have the video in their possession and were therefore unable to have it technically authenticated.
Coyne also yaps about the alleged sterling reputations of the Star reporters asking whether they'd risk them, along with possible "heavy financial losses", if they didn't have grounds to believe their story to be true.
Here's a clue for Coyne: why don't you review the case of that once reputable, highly acclaimed journalist DAN RATHER? You know, the one where Rather let his biases and enthusiasm for screwing George W Bush get the better of him when he published a smear based on a phony memorandum. Sounds very similar to the Star story on Ford, doesn't it?
Near the end of Selley's column he defends the Star's ethically dubious journalism:
"Journalistic standards are important; but are the ones that journalism schools are teaching still appropriate? Much of the criticism the Star itself has endured — speak to standards that non-mainstream outfits can very profitably ignore, while greatly furthering the public interest."Really?! How does publishing smear stories based on unverified, possibly unverifiable, videos "greatly further the public interest". No doubt Selley believes Ford is guilty - where there's smoke (generated by "reputable" journalists) there's inevitably fire. No evidence required.
Selley, like Coyne attaches significance to the reputations of the Star and its reporters. But there's nary a peep (by either) about the damage being unjustly done to the reputation of their victim, Rob Ford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
