labradore

"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Friday, May 07, 2010

How to spot a plant (V)

Tony the Tory from Garnish writes to the Western Star.

Well, if that alone doesn't tip you off, how about this?

Recently, The Western Star published an unsigned article stating that the premier should resign.
Right off the top: the Eighth floor is utterly fixated with the "unsigned" nature of the editorial.

(Correction: they are fixated with the fact that the editorial, with its heretical questions, was ever published in the first place.)

The masthead editorial. Unsigned. Like every masthead editorial in every serious paper.

Obsessed.

Cf. a comment that appeared on the Star's site itself within hours:

Craig from NL writes: Why would this paper print an editorial criticizing the Premier without requiring someone to put their name on it?

Who wrote this, for all we know it has been written by Lorraine Michael or Yvonne Jones or a doctor or someone else who has a vested interest in Williams quitting.
Posted 23/04/2010 at 11:29 AM
Or comments on the follow-on coverage on the CBC, like this:

Craig in Torbay wrote:
Posted 2010/05/04at 10:25 AM ET

I still think it is ridiculous that the Western Star would publish an editorial piece criticizing the Premier and not have the guts to put the authors name on it.

This is a nothing story.
Or this:

Craig in Torbay wrote:
Posted 2010/04/23at 9:49 AM ET
So we have an unsigned editorial suggesting that the Premier retire? Could it be possible that it was written by a LIBERAL?Why would a news paper print something in it's editorial page criticizing the premier without requiring the author to put their name on it?

Seems fishy to me.
this:

Blackstone wrote:
Posted 2010/04/23at 9:53 AM ET
This is a non-story. If we don't know who the author of the editorial is ("anonymous"), then we cannot even speculate as to the person's motivation or political allegiances.
The longer Danny chooses the stick around, the luckier it is for our province.
this:

chellam wrote:
Posted 2010/04/23at 10:09 AM ET
The decision to retire will be made by Williams himself or the voters of Newfoundland, thank you very much.
I'm surprised this is a 'story' at all. A suggestion for Williams to retire from an UNSIGNED newspaper article! Shows just how frantic the Liberal element is in light of Williams continued popularity.
this:

student111 wrote:
Posted 2010/04/23at 10:38 AM ET
Wow Yvonne Jones is even going as far as to write anonymous editorials in newspaper now.
this:

Eraxion wrote:
Posted 2010/04/23at 10:46 AM ET
What's the true motive of the person (or persons) who wrote that editorial? What are they hiding?
this:

DonLester wrote:
Posted 2010/04/23at 11:03 AM ET
The day Danny Williams retires is the day we are in trouble if Michaels or Jones ever became Premier. ( Oh what a horrible thought.) As for the a-hole who wrote that stupid article, why did he/she not have the guts to sign their real name if they truly believe in what they wrote ????

or this:

Chris08 wrote:Posted 2010/04/23
at 7:16 PM ET
It would be a disgrace to say this is a newspaper. What kind of rag publishes this without the name? This could have very easy been Yvonne Jones or Roger Grimes for god sakes. And why the hell do the CBC think this is news by repeating crap like this. The editor obviously needs to grow a set. Slime ball.
Strangely, none of these people seem to have any strong opinion on the equally unsigned Western Star editorial of May 1st.

Still not sure you have a plant on your hands? Read a little further. First the obligatory, slightly sexist slag of the opposition leaders:
Maybe if they want a leader to resign they should look at their own leaders because Yvonne Jones and Lorraine Michael aren’t something to be proud of.
The unfounded historical claim:
Still why would the premier resign? In seven years he has done more for this province than any other premier did in the first 54 years of this province.
The appeal to the CRA poll:
His approval ratings are constantly in the 70s.
And, lately, the L-word, complete with the author being vague on what, exactly, that L is:
The premier has a legacy in this province, one that he is continuing to build upon, for someone to suggest that he resign is upsetting to say the least.
(You do have to wonder why the Plant Co-ordinator is so strongly harping on the Premier's "legacy", whatever that is — the bungled expropriation, maybe? — when he plans to run again in 2011.)

And yet more fixation on the unsigned nature of the masthead editorial of a newspaper:
To the writer of that editorial I’ll sign my name to this letter.

You should have signed your name to yours.
Still not convinced? Hi, Dave Denine, if you're reading today!

MR. DENINE: I was down in Garnish, and I have to be careful now because I cannot leave a place out. I was down in Garnish with my colleague the Minister of Education, and what a community.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.).

MR. DENINE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you meet Tony Ducey?

MR. DENINE: Yes, I did. I met Tony Ducey. I said hello to Tony. Hi, Tony, how are you, if you are listening today?

Labels:

1 Comments:

At 5:39 AM, May 07, 2010 , Blogger Ed Hollett said...

When they spend so much time trying to deny the story - this is a nothing story etc - you know they are spooked by it.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home