Talk:Toronto Star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

I've deleted a reference to the Supreme Court of Ontario as, insofar as I know, there ain't no sich animal. If someone does know which court was involved, please update the article. Dhodges 23:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is actually two courts, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice according to the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General [1]. That said, I can't find any information that specifically states the "Ontario Supreme Court", however, information at the papers website states " So his trustees were given court permission to buy the paper in 1958, after promising to uphold its longstanding traditions." [2] I'm going to make a minor modification. --Uncle Bungle 02:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone is interested, there was a Supreme Court of Ontario prior to a re-organization. --Dhodges 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Toronto Red Star

Aside from that baying idiot Bill O'Reilly who referred to The Star as "The Havanna Times", when has the paper ever been called the "Toronto Red Star". It doesn't do well in a Google test. [3] --Uncle Bungle 02:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I could swear he said that about The Globe and Mail instead - Heather Mallick, non? Samaritan 04:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After re-watching The fifth estate titled Sticks and Stones, it was The Globe and Mail, but it was during an interview with Rachel Marsden. As such, I retract my acusation towards the man who cited the fictional Paris Business Review (while shouting down Ms Mallick?). --Uncle Bungle 12:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The question remains, The Toronto Red Star, still looking for a source on that. --Uncle Bungle 12:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know I've seen this paper referred to as the Red Star on the net and in fact, on the blogs that is its tounge in cheek name used by both progressives and conservatives. --rasblue 05:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
How 'bout this: Trista Vincent (1999). "Manufacturing Concern". Ryerson Review of Journalism (Spring): –. -Dhodges 08:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political position

There is an on-going edit war regarding the political positions of the major Toronto dailies, particularly the Star and the Globe. I suppose the simplest way to identify their respective positions is to look at their actual endorsements at election time. However, let me suggest that this does not necessarily reflect their over-all positions. The Star, for example, is often identified with the NDP because it is difficult to see how they differ from them when reading the entire paper. The simplest appoach may to put the least controversial assessment in the info box and discuss the precise position of the paper in the main body of the text. -Dhodges 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Who cares where the paper falls on the political spectrum relative to the United States? The paper may be said to be considerably to the right of Le Devoir (a Canadian paper), or other English-language papers in the world, such as The Independent. It seems to toe a moderate, small-l liberal line, representing the broad middle-ground of Canadian civic opinion (especially in the metropolitan areas). I really think that the language here needs to be substantially more nuanced. Fishhead64 18:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As a regular reader of both the Toronto Star and the Independant, I can emphatically say that the Star is the more Left Wing of the two. The Independant is a Labour newspaper, and it is the newspaper of the "Islington" intelligensia, but the Toronto Star goes beyond social democracy and into pure socialism. Examples being its support for the nationalization of the Canadian Oil Industry (among other industries), and its support of banning all private health care, even that which has never been public such as dental, optical, etc. rasblue 07:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Star has not supported the nationalization of the Canadian petroleum industry, or any other industry, since the 1970s - - unless I have missed an editorial that would likely be a much-discussed surprise. It has endorsed the Liberal Party far more often than the NDP in federal elections throughout the past 40 years. And it does not call for "banning" of private health care -- it simply resists the privatization of some aspects of a public-only system. It has not called for the "banning" of dental and optical care (to my knowledge), though I believe it has editorialized in favour of adding a public component to this. None of this makes it more than a "centre-left" or a "liberal to social-democratic" paper. --igby 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Igby, you are right. The Star has only endorsed the "virtual" banning of private health care. Since it was only in 2005, I still remember the Star endorsing Ontario's ban on doctors working in the private sector in OHIP covered services, even if the doctor does not have an OHIP billing number. As for nationalizing the oil industry, that doesn't mean it has to be outright owned by the government. If you remember the structure of the oil industry in Canada during the National Energy Program, it didn't try to bring everything under the Petro Canada umbrella, a la Citgo in Venezuela. rasblue 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I stopped reading the toronto star after 9/11 because it was too right wing. Am I alone on this one? Paskari 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Democratic

I can't see the justification for calling The Star "liberal, Social Democratic." It has NEVER endorsed the CCF or NDP, Canada's only social democratic parties. In fact, it endorsed the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario in provincial elections for many years. Some of its columnists may believe a little socialism is a good thing. And over the years, reporters, columnists and editorial writers have flirted with NDPish ideas. But it's never taken the leap of an editorial endorsement. The paper is certainly not hostile to capitalism per se; it just seems to believe in a compsssionate, welfare state kinda capitalism. "Bleeding heart liberal" may be closest, but if flunks the NPOV test. And I supopose "Kumbaya liberal" is out of the question. But "liberal, social democratic" smacks of "little bit pregnant." What's wrong with just plain "liberal"?

Because "Liberal" is vauge. The Atkinson principles could be described as "socially democratic", and the paper's stances are often to the left of the (capital L) Liberal party. If you're using "liberal" in an American sense, it would probably be that, but I would conisder the paper's principles towards social democratic, which doesn't necessarily oppose capitalism. You do make some good points, however...perhaps "Left wing" would be better in the place?Habsfannova 19:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be comfortable in the least calling it social democratic, and I don't have a great feeling about left-wing.
I would be comfortable with liberal, centre left, and maybe progressive. The word reform or reformist, preferably lower case (!, but any ideological markings here should be lower case), and piped to reform movement (certainly closer to the mark than reformist), would also be appropriate to the newspaper's history.
In the alternative, I'm tempted to write up Atkinson principles, and just put that... ;) Samaritan 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that sounds like a great idea, just putting "Atkinson principles (see left)" or something to that effect. It would be a lot more accurate then a general ideological label. Habsfannova 21:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The newspaper supports the nationalization of the Canadian Oil Industry. The paper also supports a general increase of direct government control of the economy and of people essential needs. Have you ever, ever, read that the Star went against a union dickat no matter how outlandeous, or outrangeous? The paper is to the left of what we in the English Speaking media would consider social democrat. Maybe not by French media or Spanish media standards, but it is one of the most left wing major English newspapers in the world today. Even the Independant cannot comapre. rasblue 07:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not delete the label entirely? The whole issue is now dealt with thoroughly within the text of the article.

To keep it standard with other papers, I'd guess.Habsfannova 03:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Its amazing that people would even suggest the Toronto Star is a left of center paper, it is so pro isrealie , its not even funny.

[edit] Deliberate wikipedia vandalism by the Star

In the March 5, 2006 paper, reporter Kenneth Kidd wrote an article on Wikipedia vandalism, in which he revealed that he had deliberately posted false information to the article on True Davidson, just to see if anybody would notice (which nobody did, until the article was published.)

I find this appalling that a reporter for a paper that, you would think, prides itself on accuracy, would intentionally vandalize wikipedia, and have complained to their public editor. Would a note about this incident in the Star's wikipedia entry be appropriate?

No, IMHO. It would be self-referential and may even smack of special pleading. The reporter's action may be questionable. (OTOH, there is a long tradition of reporters of "testing the system": e.g. airport security, racial bias in housing, etc...) But in the grand scheme of things, The Star's Wikipedia article is just not that consequential. To devote even a couple of sentences to the incident would be to accord it unwarranted prominence. The Star has printed many important articles in the last 100 years or so. Do we really want this to be the only Star article discussed in the Wikipedia entry?


[edit] Left of Centre Characterization of The Liberal Party

I have deleted the "left of centre" characterization of The Liberal Party. I submit that this falls short of Wikipedia's standards of accuracy and fairness. Consider that: 1) in the most recent recent federal election, 64% of the electorate voted for parties further to the left of the Consservative Party 2) The Liberal Party has governed for about 80 out of the last 110 years. The Liberal Party "left of centre"? Nope. That would be the NDP. In the Canadian context the Liberal Party IS the center. What complicates matters is comparision to the U.S. where the center is much further to the right. Given the fact that the Democratic Party has lost 7 of the last 10 elections, it would be fair to call it "left of center." So the Canadian Liberal Party is certainly to the left of the U.S. Democratic Party. But...so what? That's beyond the scope of the article. If an adjective is to be applied to the Liberal Party, it should be "centrist." But it's far better to omit any adjective. Calling the Liberal Party "left of center" is misleading -- especially to international readers.

When we refer to the political spectrum, we generally compare ourselves to all predominately English Speaking Countries. That would be the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Canada. Canada is the most "progressive" out of all those countries. Therefore what for Canada is the centre is left wing for all other countries. Even comparing France to Canada there is proof that Canada is more left wing than France. Canada's health care system has greater government control than the French who do not ban two-tier health insurance. In fact they encourage it. Also the nationalized liquor retailing system in Ontario would be blasphemy in France. rasblue 07:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous objective measures of where a party (or person) in terms of left or right. May I refer you to the article on the Political spectrum. Canadian Liberals are left of center and proud of it -Dhodges 13:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And the Conservative pride themselves on being right of centre. Thats what is so great with democracy. Nothing wrong with it. Just pointing out that the Liberals who pride themselves as being centrists had the centre of the spectrum shift from under them in the last election. rasblue 04:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't notice this discussion before my recent changes. I'd like to point out, however, that the party's leanings are entirely dependent on the reader's perspective - that is, where "centre" is defined. As rasblue pointed out, this has been shifting, but it is nonetheless a generic term that fails to encompass any significant position. That is, it fails to qualify whether this is fiscal, social, etc. Moreover, you'll find variance among party members (as you will in any party), so the representation is diffuse anyway - it should really be presented as a range of positions - the liberals may be slightly left to slight right-leaning, the conservatives are slightly right- to hard right-leaning etc. Mindmatrix 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prichard and Chun

I've asked for sources for this, and GoldDragon instead removed the {{fact}} tags. Don't do this. Here's a google search to start you off: [4]. Please use this to add relevant citations to the text. I'd expect at least the Toronto Star article that is mentioned in the text to be cited. Mindmatrix 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I removed the reference entirely. I don't think thre matter rises to the level of importance that merits inclusion. It's a tangent that disrupts the flow of the article. Sometimes, less is more.

[edit] I've flagged...

I've flagged some political opinions on the Star. I think they are a rather exaggerated, the Star is not a "socialist newspaper." If anything, it is painfully centrist Liberal. The article admits the paper has never supported the social-democratic NDP... other editors (above) have noticed this paradox . Any suggestions on to how best fix this? (frogot to sign -- Myciconia 02:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)--)

Cripes, there's quite a number of unreferenced and unsupported claims in the article now. I've removed the one about the "Red Star", since that's clearly a slag at the paper by the extreme right, mostly bloggers. See this for a sample. Mindmatrix 01:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cripes, yourself. Please remove the fanatically overzealous "citation needed" flags. They come close to vandalism. Let's go through the issues one by one.

1) The Toronto Star being left of center. Who can dispute this? Name the mainstream, large-circulation Canadian newspapers further to the left. The remarkable thing about the Star is that it leans left and still attracts the highest circulation of any peper in the country. The article does not say the paper is socialist, and takes pains to describe its position in some detail. The current wording was worked out after many iterations and much debate. So it's disconcerting to see a "citation needed" label slapped on.

2) The paper's editorial postions sometimes surprise readers. This is a reasonable conclusion any fair-minded reader would draw from regulary reading the letters to the editor page.

3) The source for information about the Star's editorial endorsements is the book "Rae Days" by Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom. It was published by Key Porter Books in 1994.

4) Crtitics descriptions of the Star come from rival newspapers, talk show hosts, and other forces of darkness. You may not like them, but they do exist.

The larger issue here, of course, is attribution. I think you've gone overboard. So let's have a reasonable debate on how far to go.

I don't want this to become a debate club, there are opinions here that need to be either sourced, removed, or perhaps put into better context. Myciconia 02:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going try work on this one edit at a time. First, the line: Today, the Star remains to the left of centre in the Canadian context -- precisely how far to the left, especially compared to other papers, is hotly debated. This is an editorial-style comment not suited to wikipedia, as it pushes one view (POV) when there are many others. The Star does not consider itself a newspaper catered to the "left of centre" and, as has been pointed out, has never supported the left-of-centre NDP. The issue of "hot" debate over how leftist the paper is, is therefore misleading as it suggests everyone accepts the authors initial POV. Phew! Myciconia 02:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just put it as a Left-Wing paper; Liberal's too vague. By the way, you might want to ask for semi-protection before the "edit war" begins. 16:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War Looming?

This is rapidly turning into a dialogue of the deaf, and I fear an imminent edit war. It is not helpful to slap [citation needed] labels on a story and then write "I don't want this to become a debate club" when supporting evidence is produced. Let's de-escalate, please.

First, consider the Atkinson Principles (linked to in the article)

The Star certainly considers itself on the left, and is proud of it. FWIW, tt is further left than any other Canadian newspaper. Now, this may amount to nothing more than a wishy-washy sort of do-goody reformism that is utterly exasperating to those even further to the left. But that still counts as left of center. The fact that the paper has never supported the NDP is not a paradox that needs to be "resolved" by deleting the initial reference to the paper's overall relatively leftish tilt. A more detailed acount of the paper's politics follows later in the article.

Similarly, the reference to "The Red Star" should not be deleted from a list of how critics characterize The Star simply because the source is far-right bloggers. Sure, the label is unfair and extreme. But it is one of the things said about The Star. Let's not leave things out becuase we disagree. That's POV. The idea of NPOV is to include a wide range of views, in some sort of context. Why not leave it to readers to decide about the fairness of "The Red Star" label? Are we afraid they'll reach the "wrong" conclusions?

Reasonable people can disagree with the Star's political stance, but consider again this statement:

Today, the Star remains to the left of centre in the Canadian context -- precisely how far to the left, especially compared to other papers, is hotly debated.

The words are carefully chosen and fully justified. Again: The Star is further left than any other Canadian paper. And some people hotly debate how far to the left the paper really is.

The sentence should therefore stand as written and the [citation needed] label should be removed.


The article could use some citations for its editorial stance, although I would suggest a few general references instead of citing each and every assertion. --Dhodges 13:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's an edit war looming; rather, some editors want to see justification for some of the claims made. I agree that the Star is left-leaning, at least socially/culturally if not economically. However, there's no reason to include terms like "Red Star" until such time that they are used a bit more commonly. It's the same reason we don't list Scarlanka as a nickname in the Scarborough article. What a bunch of bloggers say is pretty much irrelevant. 69.195.98.203 15:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this sounds suspiciously like the start of a reasonable debate that is the basis for compromise. In writing the article, I consulted Thomas Walkom's book about Bob Rae, cited above. It contains a section on the history of Toronto Star editorial endorsements from the 1970's to the 1990's. I also consulted "J.E. Atkinson of the Star" by Ross Harkness, University of Toronto Press, 1963. Finally, I carefully read almost every word of every issue of The Star for over one year. I did the same for The Globe and Mail and The National Post.

Suggestions for what lawyers call a "global settlement": Delete all {{Fact}} tags. Add the Walkom and Harkness references at the end of the article. Delete the Red Star reference. Delete the sentence about "critics also target formulaic sob sister stories" because it cannot be specifically attributed.

Are we done yet? Please?

Of course not! The issue here is over political editoralisation, which has no place on wikipedia. If you like, I can put up a request for comment over this policy issue. Myciconia 19:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. So much for de-escalation. The goal posts are shifting and the unwarranted {{Fact}} tags remain while allies are sought for a false premise. All this is done in the name of avoiding "politcal editorialization." Irony abounds. We seem to be gearing up for a full-scale fight...when there is precious little in dispute. I have provided the requested citations, and no one has disputed them.

I see your point how the tags put the article in a poor light. I have made an edit that covers the main concerns I have stated above, without taking anything away from the material in the article. Myciconia 06:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the rewrite cannot stand. It throws off the balance of the whole article. Merely saying The Star is to the left of its principal competitors robs the article of context -- especially for international readers unfamiliar with Canadian politics. In its quest for fairness, the rewrite downplays the relative leftism of The Star. The Star is the daily newspaper furthest to the left in Canada -- and probably North America. More broadly, The Star is to the left in the Canadian political spectrum. As stated previously, this may be a do-gooder sort of reformism that exasperates those even further to the left. But that doesn't change reality. Tne article goes on to mention centrist tendencies (occasional support for Conservatives, some surprising editorials, avoidance of angry rhetoric by columnists, etc...) But none of this makes much sense unless first counter-balanced by the central reality -- The Star is a left-leaning newspaper (or at least as left-leaning as mainstream, commercial papers get.)

Once again, I urge restoration of the origianl text: Today, the Star remains to the left of centre in the Canadian context -- precisely how far to the left, especially compared to other papers, is hotly debated.


Finally, I have restored the reference to "the people's paper." Both reference books consulted refer to it. The Star used to proudly proclaim the phrase. It no longer does. But detractors do -- which is what the article says. The detractors include columnists at rival papers and bloggers. And, please, let's not revive the "bloggers don't count, especially if we don't like them" thread.

The star being "leftist" is not a concrete fact. Unlike european papers, north american papers do not devide on political lines. Furthermore the star has never gone so far as to back the (moderate) provincial or federal NDP. In pov situations like these, wikipedia follows its responsibility to inform the reader and let them come to their own conclusions. Myciconia 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the last comment. But it doesn't follow that the original language shouldn't be restored. We need to see things in a North American context. That The Star is among the furthest to the left among North American dailies is beyond dispute. See the Ryerson Journalism Review article referenced above. As written, the article is skewed. Restoring the original language restores the balance and allows readers to draw their own conclusions.


Are we sure that the Star endorsed the NDP? I think I remember reading that it did in a Broadbent biography, but I am not sure. MS123

No, The Star has never endorsed the NDP. But it came close to doing so in the provinical election of 1990. (Source: Thomas Walkom's book "Rae Days")

[edit] Bias

how come there is no section for bias? this is a news paper, and every paper has to have some for of bias Paskari 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Competitive position

Oh this is just cloying and annoying, this boasting about metro Toronto's population (which is 5.1 million by the way, not 5.5 million; check the Census please). This entire first paragraph appears to be just one more lame attempt to boast about how big metro Toronto's population is. Please; this kind of Chamber of Commerce clap-trap went out in the 1950s.

Did you check the Wikipedia entry for the New York Times? They certainly don't need to boast about the population of metro New York.

And if metro Toronto really was a "competitive" newspaper market, it would have more than 4 newspapers. Either that or, with 4, it would be "competitive" if the population were much smaller; it's one or the other, you can't have both.

Can't the first paragraph be written in such as way that it does not appear to be another marketing vehicle to make Toronto look big and important? It's rather juvenile, the way it reads now. Again, use the New York Times Wikipedia article as a reference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldpress.org

Whilst I tend to think that holding off on any description of a paper's political affiliation without a specific citation is silly, I question the use of Worldpress.org as a reliable source . Heck, they still list The Canadian magazine as a supplement to the Star. -Dhodges 12:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left of Centre?

If the Toronto Star is left of centre, why does it support the Liberal Party? Why did it support Toronto amalgamation? Why did it support market value assessment? Why does it run the same news stories from the same wire services that every other newspaper does? Why did it oppose Quebec separation? Why does it have neoconservative columnists who support the war in Iraq? Why does it support the war in Afghanistan? Why did it support the cold war? Why does it accept advertising from big business? Why is it owned by big business? Why has it been hostile to trade unions? Why did it support Canada's anti-terrorist legislation? Why did it send a supporter of the war in Iraq to cover the war in Iraq? Why did it show the summary execution of a suspected Taliban member on its front page, and praise the Northern Alliance? --74.15.53.121 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)