It's funny how groups on the political fringes make sweeping generalizations about newspapers being biased against them are quick to promote those newspapers' articles when they are in agreement. (Though, at least some admit they're "surprised" when a newspaper takes a public stance that is not, you know, evil)
Don't get me wrong: There are legitimate criticisms of CanWest news coverage, but they are almost always heavily exaggerated in the minds of the grassroots activists out there.
-
Recent bookmarks- Our new media world helped Konrad von Finckenstein change the CRTC, industry
- Live Sports Camera Positions and Responsibilities | Infographic
- Quebec Is Already Culturally Independent of Canada - NYTimes.com
- It's up to Adele if she wants to slim down – we should all be accepted as we are
- How Many Stephen Colberts Are There?
-
Feeds
Your critique is odd. You cite examples of organizations (which you call "fringe") giving credit to a CanWest publication for its coverage and editorial opinion on the Bennis issue. You appear to think this is inconsistent, because they attack CanWest on other occasions.
Would you prefer they attack CanWest all the time, rather than giving credit when credit is due?
There's a difference between criticizing a news outlet's stance on an issue because you disagree with them, and claiming that a news outlet is evil and biased against you because you disagree with them. One is a legitimate debate, the other is childish whining.
Ok, so you're saying "No One Is Illegal MONTRÉAL" has called CanWest "evil and biased"? Maybe you're right, I wasn't aware of that. If so, I'd expect them to recant before citing the Gazette. Why did they call them evil and biased in the first place? I find CanWest to be very one-sidedly pro-Israel, but other than that it seems like just your run-of-the-mill right-wing type of chain.