I’m not going to address every part of your response because frankly I do not have the time to spend on debunking everything you’ve said here.
But yes, that sentence you quote was indeed why I suggested that another editing pass would have been good, but you’ve also taken it out of context; the previous sentence mentioned the U.S., so the author clearly was trying to not repeat the same country name.
Anyway the point is that this article is not merely a rephrasing of another one, and does in fact add additional context. I don’t like PostMedia either, but this thought-terminating cliche of blanket mistrust is ridiculous. Grain of salt, absolutely. But I rarely hear people complain when an article aligns with their existing political bias.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a news organization to do their jobs and have basic journalistic standards. And when they fail to do so, there’s no reason to to share their content when there’s articles available on the same subject from news organizations that do have journalistic standards. We’re in an era of misinformation and distinformation and articles like the postmedia one just promotes a general ignorance of media literacy. People think it’s normal for news articles to not indicate where they’re getting their information from and think discrepancies between media sources is due to political bias. If we demand all media sources indicate something about their sources then the scammy click bait crap not doing so will be more likely to trigger alarm bells for not doing any due diligence.
Postmedia’s laziness is just normalizing the degradation of journalistic standards and that creates distrust in media. Their unwillingness to pay real journalists or pay licensing fees to wire services like Reuters (who will pay real journalists) is siphoning off scarce funds away from journalism. They’re a cancer on news journalism.
As I noted in my initial response: the article has links in it.
Anyway putting all that aside, I’d be interested to know what you think we should do regarding the F-35s. Would you be upset if Carney went ahead with the purchase?
I’m not going to address every part of your response because frankly I do not have the time to spend on debunking everything you’ve said here.
But yes, that sentence you quote was indeed why I suggested that another editing pass would have been good, but you’ve also taken it out of context; the previous sentence mentioned the U.S., so the author clearly was trying to not repeat the same country name.
Anyway the point is that this article is not merely a rephrasing of another one, and does in fact add additional context. I don’t like PostMedia either, but this thought-terminating cliche of blanket mistrust is ridiculous. Grain of salt, absolutely. But I rarely hear people complain when an article aligns with their existing political bias.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a news organization to do their jobs and have basic journalistic standards. And when they fail to do so, there’s no reason to to share their content when there’s articles available on the same subject from news organizations that do have journalistic standards. We’re in an era of misinformation and distinformation and articles like the postmedia one just promotes a general ignorance of media literacy. People think it’s normal for news articles to not indicate where they’re getting their information from and think discrepancies between media sources is due to political bias. If we demand all media sources indicate something about their sources then the scammy click bait crap not doing so will be more likely to trigger alarm bells for not doing any due diligence.
Postmedia’s laziness is just normalizing the degradation of journalistic standards and that creates distrust in media. Their unwillingness to pay real journalists or pay licensing fees to wire services like Reuters (who will pay real journalists) is siphoning off scarce funds away from journalism. They’re a cancer on news journalism.
As I noted in my initial response: the article has links in it.
Anyway putting all that aside, I’d be interested to know what you think we should do regarding the F-35s. Would you be upset if Carney went ahead with the purchase?