NB Telegraph-Journal | Opinion - As published on page A6 on August 2, 2006
We stand by our balance
Recently, certain individuals have attacked the Telegraph-Journal's credibility in interviews on commercial radio. Our reputation as balanced reporters and editors is what recommends us to readers as a source of information and a forum for opinion. So we'd like to take this opportunity to address the accusations.
We think they're completely out to lunch.
It's easy to toss around allegations of bias. It's more difficult to back up the opinion with an argument based on fact. We're challenging our critics to do just that - because the facts are on our side.
Maybe they didn't trust the Telegraph-Journal's coverage of the LNG tax deal? The jury that picked the finalists for 2005's Atlantic Journalism Awards did. Reporter Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon made it into the top three for her exposé of how much more LNG projects in other jurisdictions are expected to pay in taxes. The Telegraph-Journal's coverage revealed Common Council's eleventh-hour tax concession for what it was: a hasty decision, made under duress with inaccurate information.
How about our coverage of the controversy over where to put the LNG pipeline? Since the utility corridor through Rockwood Park was identified as the preferred route, the Telegraph-Journal has published 38 letters on the topic - 10 in favour of running the pipeline through the park and 28 opposed. A number of letter writers opposed to the park route have had their opinions published more than once.
Commentaries on our opinion page have followed a similar pattern. The Telegraph-Journal has published just one commentary presenting the arguments of the pipeline company; it was written by Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline President Doug Bloom. But we've published three full-length opinion articles raising objections to the pipeline or the Rockwood Park route, one a direct response to Doug Bloom's article.
People who claim the Telegraph-Journal is denying the pipeline's opponents a voice must not be reading the newspaper on a regular basis. If they were, they would know writers critical of the project have been given the lion's share of ink on the subject.
Those who accuse this newspaper of a "lack of balance" in coverage seem to be upset about something else: our editorial opinions. They'd like you to believe the Telegraph-Journal is trying to silence opposition to the pipeline, so they can explain away why our editorial board doesn't find their arguments convincing.
There's a simpler explanation: those opposed to the pipeline have offered few strong arguments for blocking the project.
If the pipeline debate were governed by logic, opposition would have been dominated by the concerns of residents in Milford, whose one road in and out of their neighbourhood will be bisected by construction. But it hasn't been. The most heated debate has concerned Rockwood Park, and that debate has been emotional - led by protesters who are opposed to the LNG terminal and its tax deal, period.
We've reported the protesters' comments and published their opinions, and we'll continue to do so; but we haven't heard anything to change our editorial board's opinion about the value of the pipeline. It's not a question of balance; it's a matter of judgement.
The Telegraph-Journal's editorial agenda is no secret: we're pro-growth and pro-development. We believe the LNG terminal makes economic sense in a city eager to grow, and that the pipeline revenues could be used to improve Rockwood Park. Given the potential benefits - and the fact gas pipelines already run under busy city streets - we do not understand the opposition to placing the LNG export pipeline under the park's clearcut utility corridor.
At the end of the day, the National Energy Board will decide on the pipeline route, not the Telegraph-Journal or Councillor Ivan Court. We believe we've covered the LNG issue in a fair and balanced manner. We welcome anyone who disagrees to discuss their complaints with us, or to call the Atlantic Press Council, toll-free, at 1-800-363-2800.
But when it comes to our editorial position, we reserve the right to form our own opinions - and we won't be bullied into changing them by people making soft, unfounded accusations of bias.
9 comments:
That is a well written, strong, and accurate article.
And I hate that paper.
Thats the most hilarious thing I've ever read. Is that paper run by high schoolers or what? For those like the above, read it again..
"Our reputation as balanced reporters AND EDITORS is what recommends us to readers as a source of information"
Then that lovely comment at the end..."we haven't heard anything to change our editorial board's opinion about the value of the pipeline. It's not a question of balance; it's a matter of judgement. The Telegraph-Journal's editorial agenda is no secret: we're pro-growth and pro-development."
For those who missed media studies in school, the writer ADMITS that he was lying in the first paragraph. Their editorial board, oops, I mean "the Irvings", AREN"T 'balanced' at all-its a 'judgement call'. Therefore critics are quite correct to make their charges.
In fact, these clowns are SO stupid they actually PRINT their culpability:
"If the pipeline debate were governed by logic, opposition would have been dominated by the concerns of residents in Milford,"
How many were even aware of this? How often did the newspaper address this fact? Virtually never that I saw (but somebody should go through and check). Perhaps there would be a little more 'logic' had the paper done its job and actually reported on this fact.
As for the media studies comments, there are hundreds of ways that 'bias' is present. We've been through this before, but location of articles in the paper, sources, choices of letters, omissions of facts and editorial slant all play a part. The paper doesn't mention ANY of those.
Just as an example, if you have a front page story from a respected source (who can still be biased-or you can just edit what they say) with a photograph, thats far different than posting a 'letter to the editor' on page four written by some nut (who may still have an excellent point).
They don't even mention the basics, how many STORIES were critical of not just the issue, but its implications. Just because you print a good story hidden in the back pages that you win an award for, if you only run it once, then it has limited effect.
Not only that, Irvings Press are well known for simply touting the 'pro-development' line. If you happen to keep featuring stories and slanting them towards companies that may benefit from the natural gas line, then that's hardly fair and objective.
However, there is a BIG difference between 'credibility' which is what is addressed at the outset, and 'denying a voice', which is what is claimed later in the article. If I'm complaining that you aren't credible, its BECAUSE you are 'pro development' and because the entire paper is skewered toward that 'high growth no matter what' agenda. Of course we know WHY that is, the Irvings make huge profits off it. That isn't the same as silencing the opposition. For one thing not everybody reads the letters to the editor, and many more only read the frontpage.
All these things enter into bias, which leads to not being credible. None of those are even addressed in this little gripefest.
And the fact that an editor of a newspaper addresses critics by saying "we think they're out to lunch" just about says it all about the level of journalistic integrity. That kind of remark wouldn't even be printed by a reporter, let alone an editor at any other newspaper in the country.
Not to mention the fact that it doesn't seem to have dawned on the editor and owners that newspapers are supposed to be objective, and not have 'an agenda' AT ALL.
In the woodstock bugle you have a hate spewing editor in dr lipshit.
The Telegraph Journal will always be in a pro growth and development position as defined by their corporate agenda and also by their public relations companies. I read (free copy...)this paper everyday not to be informed but to see how poorly the paper Does it's job.
I hate media bias but in fairness the Telegraph is probably one of the least biased outlets we have in New Brunswick. They're right in their editorial that they run letters from all sides of an issue. They DO take different political sides on various issues unlike the other Irving paper, the Times and Transcript which is pro-PC all the time no matter what.
Still, if the TJ is taking a little heat and thinking about bias, that's a good thing in my book. At least they'll take a look at their stories with a second glance. Now if we could only get CBC and the T and T to do the same.
Look Charles, even real it's not just the Irvings...
Blogger jailed after defying court orders
You also better watch out for this... It's the next evolution of cyber bullying: Blogger who criticized Maine tourism office faces lawsuit
I don't think I've met a person who reads it for its value, but only because it is the only game in town. Hopefully that will change as the next generation gets away from the habit of reading newsprint in favour of online stuff.
The worst thing about the paper is what it doesn't cover.
That's not really anything new up above. They are called SLAPP lawsuits. The conservation Council was slapped with one for a letter to the editor about Belledune, ironically, the lawsuit didn't mention the newspaper that printed it.
Those links above only tell part of the story, the problem is not 'the power' of blogs, but the power of the state-namely, litigation.
The only province that has protections against SLAPP lawsuits is British Columbia, so it isn't a bad idea to set up a PO Box and set up a site with a BC company.
Of course Charles has little money, but court cases can be designed for other things, like tying up all his time. In a way Charles is fortunate that he often makes outlandish remarks, so there is no claim to 'objectivity', which means its almost like satire. If Charles was ever taken to court he could quite easily claim the whole site is satire or parody, which have special protections in law.
But there is no doubt that this is the latest example of how 'free speech isn't free'. A woman in Waterloo had a website with pictures of developer infractions which were checked by the government, yet she still got sued by the developer just because she 'made them look bad'. In fact they didn't even say any of it wasn't true, they simply said it may hurt their business.
These people know just how horrific the legal system is. They have money so don't deal with it, but know that people will eventually buckle under the pressure.
It's ironic that people keep talking as if government were the biggest opponent of free speech-not even close. This is a brave new world, somebody should get a copy of the BC law and make it an election issue.
Post a Comment