Comment 121519

By Henry (registered) | Posted May 14, 2017 at 11:56:45

Great post!

Galileo is not lurking in the Spec's op-eds. Berton parses the difference between fact-checking and editing while missing the bigger point. Galileo gathered empirical evidence to support his arguments. I've noticed their op-eds are increasingly filled with ad hominem attacks, false straw-men, and wild speculations that often cover self-serving interests.

A good editor would take care to ensure reasonable and relevant premises lead to well-reasoned conclusions. There is more than a few Spec’s op-eds that are little better than the ravings I read on social media at no cost.

On substantive fact checking, The Spec’s decline in actual reporting means its editors don’t have the details to assess op-ed claims. Example 1: The Spec’s lack of coverage of the Burlington Airpark story, combined with the Airpark owner’s self-serving op ed, created huge fallout for the airpark’s neighbours. Example 2: The Spec's lack of coverage of Burlington's school closure process over the past several months coupled with their reliance on unedited op-eds replete with groundless claims has only impoverished the community discussion; people are repeating the published and now authoritative bile because it was "in the Spec".

Comment edited by Henry on 2017-05-14 12:02:34

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds