About the Toronto Sun

[grey]

Why not read them both as I and many others do, you are allowed. Maybe even required if you really are interested in more than one opinion on events that you can't attend or witness yourself.

The first link I posted explains why the Sun shouldn't be considered a valid opinion (sorry, I edited my post before you quoted that). It's doesn't even provide good conservative opinions. Also, FYI -- NatPo doesn't really have as much of a conservative editorial stance anymore. At least not as much compared to when it launched.

 

[Jonny5]

Why not read them both as I and many others do, you are allowed.

Why read either? The unique content is anemic and still shrinking. I find and consume vastly superior content online every day. These two papers are becoming jokes that wrap dozens of computer generated wire stories with shrill opinion pieces by out of touch hacks. Though I credit The Sun for realizing they suck and no longer even trying.

 

[fouronesix]

Why not read them both as I and many others do, you are allowed. Maybe even required if you really are interested in more than one opinion on events that you can't attend or witness yourself.

Frankly persecution complexes tire me. I read the Star, Sun, Globe and Post. The Sun is by far the shittiest. If you don't realize that you're either an idiot or an asshole. Plain and simple.

 

[Peepers]

I like The Sun because it covers important Toronto issues, like fecal matter.

Ha ha

Actually I like that cover story as well! It looks like Toronto's Dogs have been getting a BUM RAP!

 

[spider]

Frankly persecution complexes tire me. I read the Star, Sun, Globe and Post. The Sun is by far the shittiest. If you don't realize that you're either an idiot or an asshole. Plain and simple.

I can't help you with your persecution complex but I am happy that you at least read all 4 papers which qualifies you to form an opinion on their relative quality.

Some people have acquired the impression that I am some sort of apologist for the Sun, this is not the case. The Sun has flaws as does every other paper on earth but only the Sun seems to attract rabid attackers who are proud to tell the world that they have never read the thing. Perplexing.

 

[FAC33]

I think the thing that bugs me the most about the Sun is the long decline in general journalistic standards there. The reason you see so many errors is because of deep and abiding cuts in the editorial department (as well as across the board) over the years. I read all four of Toronto's daily papers in order to get a wide variety of views and opinions, and regardless of the content the Sun always seems to trail in the copy-editing department (not just with typos and grammar, but with tightening up articles and fact-checking).

On the plus side, they've run Mike Filey's historical columns for years--a great gateway into Toronto history for those so inclined.

 

[ShonTron]

I think that the sacking of Rob Granatstein last year was the final straw for having any hope for the Sun. He is a good and decent man, and I guess that he wasn't a good fit there.

I do read the Sun when it is left on a table at a coffee shop, diner or restaurant just for the entertainment value, so I am aware of how bad it gets.

 

[ticky]

I read The Sun at work and look at only two things. The Sunshine Girl (obviously), and the sports section (the best in the city). For general news and etc, I browse the Toronto Star.

 

[adma]

I think the thing that bugs me the most about the Sun is the long decline in general journalistic standards there.

Maybe the most pertinent implication here is that for what it was, the Sun *was* once good, and a necessary part of our journalistic discourse--going back to the 70s and 80s. A bit of a carryover from the Telegram, and a bit the nature of the blue-collar-lunchroom tabloid format.

So in a way, maybe this thread is less about the Sun, than about the Sun under Quebeccor--or, when Sun became Sun Media, as opposed to just plain "the little paper that grew".

 

[spider]

So in a way, maybe this thread is less about the Sun, than about the Sun under Quebeccor--or, when Sun became Sun Media, as opposed to just plain "the little paper that grew".

This thread is not about the Sun (I screwed up with the thread title) at any place in it's lifespan. Thread creep I guess.
It is about the attitude that encourages people to post the most outrageous statements about a paper and then smugly vow that they have never read it and wouldn't on threat of death.
From the original post.

I am mystified, how is it that those who profess to hate the Toronto Sun are so conversant with the paper’s stance on everything? They proudly declaim that they would sooner be dipped in shit than be caught reading it’s apocryphal pages yet their familiarity with the positions expounded by it’s editors and columnists is so comprehensive that they must be clairvoyant or are reading it under the covers with a flashlight.

Again, it is not about the Sun or it's contents, it is about the posts. You may not like the Sun but you are not entitled to say so if you don't read it. Would you go to a Christian church presided over by a leader who couldn't be bothered to read the bible?

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

You're ignoring the fact that one of the primary reasons The Sun is so terrible is that even a non-reader would be able to tell you what The Sun has to say about most issues because The Sun is just a terribly predictable right-wing rag. The Sun is the paper embodiment of Stephen Colbert, but without any awareness of its own ridiculousness.

I read lots of opinions that are contrary to my own, but I will rarely read The Sun because when I do so I find that it doesn't even try to make sense. The Sun is devoid of cogent argument. Its premises don't support its conclusions. It is exhortational rather than argumentative. It appeals to the stupid because it doesn't attempt to confuse with nuance or explanation. In Colbertian terms, it says the same thing on Wednesday that it said on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.

By way of illustration, is it not fair to say that The Sun will invariably publish the following opinions no matter what happens?

-Our cops? Tops.

-Unions? Bad (except the police union).

-NDP? Crazy and dangerous.

-"Free enterprise?" Good (if undefined).

-Wars against various brown peoples? Righteous, unless waged by non-allies.

-Rob Ford and his band of merry thieves? Defenders of all that is just.

 

[flonicky]

... and then smugly vow that they have never read it and wouldn't on threat of death.

When people say that, they're not saying that they literally NEVER read it ever, they're saying that they do not patronize it as a business or do not consider it worthy of regular reading. As this thread is demonstrating, lots of people pick it up if they see a copy lying on a streetcar, in a food court or on their grandparent's kitchen table. My pet peeve: "Scarboro".

 

[adma]

When people say that, they're not saying that they literally NEVER read it ever, they're saying that they do not patronize it as a business or do not consider it worthy of regular reading. As this thread is demonstrating, lots of people pick it up if they see a copy lying on a streetcar, in a food court or on their grandparent's kitchen table. My pet peeve: "Scarboro".

Exactly. If a newshound household "with pretensions" (harrumph) chose 3 out of 4 Toronto papers, it'd more likely opt out of the Sun as being too crass and lowbrow, than opt out of the Star as being too left-of-centre.

 

[adma]

This thread is not about the Sun (I screwed up with the thread title) at any place in it's lifespan. Thread creep I guess.
It is about the attitude that encourages people to post the most outrageous statements about a paper and then smugly vow that they have never read it and wouldn't on threat of death.
From the original post.


Again, it is not about the Sun or it's contents, it is about the posts. You may not like the Sun but you are not entitled to say so if you don't read it. Would you go to a Christian church presided over by a leader who couldn't be bothered to read the bible?

Uh, actually, spider, in order to comprehend and even be sympathetic to the Sun--and, collaterally, to address the issue you have with its critics--the any-place-in-its-lifespan part is extremely important. And as I indicated, the Sun was once far more of a benignly-or-not valid part of Toronto's news symbiosis--the Globe was "high", the Star was "middle", the Sun was "low", but it was all a form of "good journalism" (even if, in the Sun's case especially, "good" in a time-honoured Hearstian yellow-journalism way), regardless of toxic left-vs-right political wars.

Right now, you're defending the Sun in the same ahistorical/philistine way others defend McMansions.

 

[spider]

One more time.

I am not defending or passing judgement on any paper, my problem is with people who feel entitled to pass judgement on any paper, book, magazine or TV show without bothering to read or watch it.

It is as simple as that.