Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Whopper of the week from the Star

From a Toronto Star article about their own lack of coverage on the recent resignations and turmoil at the Star, comes this beauty. (emphasis mine)

"The Star does not quote unnamed sources who make critical comments about others — and that's as it should be, since readers would have no idea who the sources are, nor if they had motive for mischief-making.

Excuse me while I wipe away my tears from laughing so hard. It is no wonder the paper is in trouble. Judging by what was written it looks like their own staff do not even read the Star, because if they did they could never have written the above BS.

What constitutes an unnamed source? This from the same article:

"They pursued the Globe angle, but unhelpfully quoted "sources close to the Star," "some sources," "a Toronto shareholder who asked not to be named," "a source close to Torstar," "a source close to one of the five families," "another source close to Torstar," "analysts," "insiders," — some confirming, some denying, friction at the board"

I know I have seen all of the above examples used in the Star in the past , and even a quick search today reveals plenty of examples of unnamed sources in recent stories as well. Oh the irony.

But then again I am not a member of a professional news organisation so what do I know.

Link to Proud to be Canadian.ca on the article


Joanne (True Blue) said...

And I sure can't say anything!!!

Ardvark said...

No more Star bashing? Ouch, that is not going to be easy since the Star does have a habit of serving up such tempting targets on a regular basis.