Sun, 12/21/2014 - 08:24

Posted by Belinda Alzner on November 26, 2012

Related: Rob Ford, the morning after

 

Comments

The Toronto Star covered the Rob Ford ruling with aphodisiacal delight, and devoted an entire sectionto this ruling, letting every report and/or columnist who was interested to contribute a story about it. This was  in addition the front page story. A bit of overkill and a lot of sour grapes.

Pathetic.

 

Another pathetic, biased mish-mash that reminds one of the sandbox.  Why is everyone falling over everyone else to be first in a universe where "first" no longer means anything - most certainly not in this instance, when the more important point is to be factual and complete???  Personally, I would prefer that the first article I read about an event such as this be just that, factual and complete, with editorial opinion and broad spectrum commentary (man in the street, other pols etc) to come.  The media landscape that has been created is going to make ADD/OCD sufferers of us all.

I should also point out that shortly after 10:30 a.m. the full text of Judge Hackland's decision was posted in .pdf format online, thus enabling anyone to read it, which made much of the twittering babble both irrelevant and annoying. 

When every media outlet is babbling and frothing and tweeting essentially the same 140 characters, who has an advantage?  nobody, of course; the only advantage will go to the medium that provides the additional factors - as above. 

J-Source and ProjetJ are publications of the Canadian Journalism Project, a venture among post-secondary journalism schools and programs across Canada, led by Ryerson University, Université Laval and Carleton University and supported by a group of donors.