Bad Journalism: Should it not Have Some Consequences?

September 18, 2009 19:34 +0000 | Activism Politics 6

I was walking to work one day when the headline from the cover of the Asian Pacific Post caught my eye: What do Hedy Fry and the Taliban have in common?. Mildly amused, I picked up the free rag and read it on the way to work.

If you're not interested in reading it, I'll save you the time. The editorial is outrageous. Even as a bigtime non-fan of the Liberal party as well as Hedy Fry, I found the article to be offencive in the extreme and said as much on their site:

I don't usually read your paper, but with a headline like that, I couldn't resist. Now after reading it, I'm reminded why I usually pass it by on the street.

Granted, this is an editorial, but could you possibly have conjured up more biased, inflammatory, and unsubstantiated propaganda? I don't even like the Liberals and I found this to be surprisingly offencive.

Of course the Liberals haven't done much better in recent years, but to compare Ms. Fry to a group of terrorists? Have you no shame? No integrity? You quote these people out of context and then proceed to put words in their mouths finishing it all off with claims that Ignatieff is "unpatriotic". Are you aspiring to the journalistic integrity of Fox "News", or just pursuing a new career as a Conservative Party speech writer?

The fact is that Harper *has* embarrassed this country on the international stage, most notoriously by abandoning our legal obligations to Kyoto, and continuously subverting the democratic process. Our reputation around the world has been diminished as a direct result of his actions and there's nothing wrong with the Official Opposition pointing that out.

Your actions on this issue however cross the line between editorial opinion and propaganda. They serve only to solidify your place as a fringe paper that no one with a modicum of intelligence would take seriously.

Anyway, I'm feeling vengeful. Mostly because I really don't think that this kind of thing should pass as "journalism" in any shape or form. I'm considering contacting all of their advertisers and including a copy of the editorial along with some comments regarding how this paper might reflect poorly on their brand in an effort to get them to pressure the paper to clean up its act.

The question I post to you though, is that immoral? legal? Right?

Comments

Andrea
19 Sep 2009, 2:24 a.m. |

So an article written by someone who wants a Senate seat with the Harper Gov't...

If it's illegal than I imagine Ms Fry's lawyers will be going after the paper (or they should - that's defamation of character)

Their advertisers are most likely Conservative too.

Ironically Harper hates Asians... at least that is how he is treating the Chinese.

As for is it right? Well here's the issue. It's disgusting. But unfortunately they found that it helps them win votes.. well the 10 people who will vote in the next election 5 may be swayed by that crap. And unfortunately since people don't complain enough about these tactics then no change will happen

Theresa
19 Sep 2009, 12:40 p.m. |

I don't think it's it is immoral or illegal to make advertisers aware of the context of their advertisements. Go for it.

NW
23 Sep 2009, 5:09 p.m. |

Rubbish, you are just offended by the headline.
The facts in the editorial speak for themselves.

It is fair comment.

Daniel
23 Sep 2009, 5:54 p.m. |

I suggest that you re-read the article. There are barely any facts in there while most of it is assigning words to both Ignatieff and Fry. It's journalism comprable to that of Fox. I'll let their advertisers decide though, thanks :-)

NW
23 Sep 2009, 8:26 p.m. |

And so where were you when the mainstream newspapers were referring to NDP leader as Taliban Jack?

Daniel
23 Sep 2009, 11:05 p.m. |

That wasn't much better, but was at least drawing a logical comparison. The nickname came out of his support for peace talks with the Taliban (a common position in many political circles now I might add), so the nickname, albeit in poor taste, was at least related.

In the case of this editorial however, the author linked Fry with the Taliban because they wanted to, using a made-up acronym for the inflammatory statement. It then went on to claim that: the Liberals don't support the military (ridiculous) and that they think that we shouldn't be proud of our country if the Liberals aren't running it (preposterous).

The editorial is biased crap steeped in the message that Conservatives are good for the country while Liberals are terrorists that hate Canada. Frankly, I'm surprised that I've found anyone who even remotely considers it to be an acceptable form of journalism.

Take a look at the facts friend. Harper has been alienating our friends around the world for years now. When he prorogued parliament, he made Canada the laughing stock of the planet, prompting papers in the UK and even the US to refer to us as a G8 Banana republic. He's withdrawn our support for Kyoto, siding us with the likes of China, India and the United States on the most important issue in human history. While elected on a platform of democratic reform in government, he erodes our democratic process as a matter of course by telling his MPs to block committee meetings and most recently appointing more people to the Senate in 12months than any Prime Minister before him. His actions embarrass this country and the Liberals are right to say as much.

The editorial on the other hand, has nothing to stand on. No facts, not even accurate quotes. It's propaganda, not journalism.