About the Toronto Sun

[CDL.TO]

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.

I think the responses by vox and flonicky summed it up well, IMO.

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

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.

On that theme, there's also the internet. Toronto Sun articles still get circulated, such as on forums like UT. You can still be exposed to their "journalism" without making an effort to read the paper.

 

[adma]

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.

And one more time: you're defending the Sun in the same ahistorical/philistine way others defend McMansions. In fact, my posts in this thread do more sympathetic justice to the Sun than yours do.

Speaking of which, maybe this argument is like people generically knocking "the suburbs" without actually venturing out there--when in fact, it may be those who presently opt for the suburbs that are the suburbs' worst enemy, through tin-eared McMansion teardowns and EIFS-ifications in Don Mills-ian vintage neighbourhoods and all...

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

So, I picked up a Sun at the gym, just to see what a paper edition is like. It was the Boxing Day edition (I was reading it a day later), so take this with a bit of a grain of salt, but... wow.

The 'news' section had one wire article (usually 1/2 or 1/3 page) every third page among the ads. The opinion column was someone doing a puff piece on the mayor and how his job is keeping him fat. The Leafs coverage was extensive but mostly kind of bizarre. The Raptors season preview was excellent.

Overall -- a major failing grade for a newspaper, and not as good as the free tabloids. Ouch.

 

[TrickyRicky]

News coverage in the Sun, say like news coverage in Now magazine, deserve to be read primarily as a reminder that there are people in this world who share these same points of view.

Speaking of newspapers I was reading Metro a few months back while sitting in Harvey's eating my burger. I came to the shocking realisation that the small commuter and community news papers have started to elipse the large publications such as the Globe and Mail or the Star or Sun in news coverage. The Metro I was reading actually had a lot of news coverage. Simple to the point paragraphs telling you the basic details on a subject. There is almost no news coverage in newspapers anymore. They have essentially become adver-promo-blogs.

 

[spider]

I always thought I had a reasonable command of the English language but I guess not. I have summarised my postings in this thread and would like you to point out to me where I gave the impression that I was a shill for the Sun. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

At least I, and many others I am sure, make an effort to read the Star before making judgements on it and it‘s content. Are we wrong? Is the effort to actually read opinions we may not agree with some how counter productive?

Perhaps education is the key. Am I shackled by the inadequacies of my grade 11 education , unable to see the smaller picture espoused by those whose post secondary degrees have taught them to ignore uncomfortable opinions?

I read and enjoy the Sun and the Post and make no apologies about doing so. I also read the Star. All 3 papers have their strengths and their weaknesses, qualities that depend on your predispositions but qualities none the less.

Any message that begins by denigrating a newspaper you are proud not to read rings a little hollow

Feel free to post contrary opinions without fear of being branded a troll for doing so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me too, very funny guy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you are aware of the Sun's position on things you must obviously of lowered yourself to read it despite your protestations.
You had to reach back quite a distance to find an offending front page, I have been offended much more recently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice to know you read the New York Times, isn't a shame we don't all read it too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the point is don't denigrate any newspaper, magazine or book unless you have read it. The thread starter makes no judgements on the content of any of the 3 papers but on the fact that this hypocrisy seems only to be aimed at the Sun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reaching back to March 2009 for an example doesn't qualify as "constantly" to me
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair comment as long as it is your opinion arrived at by reading the paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could switch the terms conservative and liberal as used above to describe the Star and there is nothing wrong with that, that is their position on the political spectrum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading something you disagree with is good even if you think it is funny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some would call this ironic, others may call it balance.
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------
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?
-------------------------------------------------
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.

 

[Jonny5]

One more time.

I don't need to read The Sun to pass judgement on it. I know the content of every opinion piece before it is written. There is zero diversity. There is zero nuance. There is zero tolerance for being "off-message". There is zero value added to my life by looking at it.

 

[Justin10000]

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.

I refrained from posting in this thread, but I have to wonder... Who here on this board, or this thread said they have never read the Sun, and criticized it? I am sure everyone has read the Sun, they give out enough free copies at doughnut shops, and McDonald's! I do not see where you should have a problem with people, because we have all read the Sun enough to pass judgement on the lack of quality journalism in the paper. Quite Frankly, I read the paper just to read the nonsensical factless rants from sellouts such as Sue Ann Levy, Michael Coren, Ezra Levant(who was forced to apologize to George Soros!), and Joe Warmington. The Sun used to a decent tabloid, where you got some news, and sports. Now it's nothing more than a vessel to promote QMI's corporate agenda. It's pathetic.

Quite frankly, you are need to stop worrying about what people think of you, if you like reading the Sun, and Post, good for you.

 

[adma]

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.

And because you insist upon repeating yourself, let me insist upon repeating myself

Speaking of which, maybe this argument is like people generically knocking "the suburbs" without actually venturing out there--when in fact, it may be those who presently opt for the suburbs that are the suburbs' worst enemy, through tin-eared McMansion teardowns and EIFS-ifications in Don Mills-ian vintage neighbourhoods and all...

 

[nfitz]

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.

Surely launching a thread called "About the Sun" that then goes and questions why people would attack it without reading it, when there's never been any evidence that anyone has attacked it without reading it, and then going after anyone who disagrees with you is trolling! It's as simple as that.

Really! Are you that desperate for Christmas entertainment?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

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.

This is a strange criticism....you're saying people should make cogent, thoughtful criticisms WITHOUT reading it?

How can you criticize people for commenting without reading it while simultaneously saying the people who hate it obviously know what they're talking about from having read it?

IMHO, there's nothing more frustrating than arguing/debating with someone who has no evidence - whether it's slamming a movie they didn't see or forming an opinion on the Arab-Israeli conflict with no actual understanding of history.

Personally, I have more respect for someone who knows what they're talking about. I think the Sun is a rag because I've read it enough over time to say so. I often disagree with editorial positions in The Star or Post but they're not as kneejerk or simple as The Sun. Read their puff piece on Mayor Ford's great year, look at their riddiculous "Welcome to Hell" cover on the day after the provincial election....yeah, because I've SEEN THE PAPER I can explain to you why it's bad more easily than if I was just spitballing based on a gut opinion. (Their sports coverage is generally decent, however.)

But everyone should make no mistake - The Sun is purposefully stupid. The people running it are perfectly intelligent and playing to a crowd (obviously succesfully, at least to a degree). If you want proof, look at the comments for an article of your choice. I can read comments on The Star or Globe websites and be easily scared that some of the writers live in the same country as me. But the few times I've read comments on The Sun website I've been genuinely scared both by the opinions and the literacy level of the commenters.

It neither aspires to nor achieves genuine levels of journalism. It is, in every respect, the Tim Hortons of journalism, from its faux populist stance, to the fact it's likely the most read paper in that establishment, to the fact I don't have to go to Tim Hortons every day to tell you how mediocre their coffee is.

 

[adma]

Well...again, once upon a time, the Sun was more benign (relatively speaking). Back in the days of characters like Gary Dunford and Paul Rimstead, back when it was "little guy" journalism par excellence, the perfect greasy-spoon paper, the perfect factory-floor paper, etc. Sure, it was right-of-centre and a little lowbrow, but it still felt geared at a "general" readership, no different from the Star or the Globe in its way. The trouble is, with the decline of newspaper readership in general (and particularly among the lunchbucket crowd), the Sun went into torpor in the 90s and 00s. As well, the "general readership" notion came to seem too diffuse. So, the key to survival for the Sun brand was through supertargeting what I call a "Monsanto demographic", i.e. a critical mass that was genetically engineered to be fat and juicy and thoroughly "efficient", with few dead-wood "ringers". That's the media-targeting story these days: it ain't all about so-called breadth, it's about efficiency...

 

[neubilder]

Monsanto Demographic. That's good. It summarizes so much with one two word notion.

 

[TOareaFan]

Over the holidays I was sharing a drink/meal with someone and the topic of journalism today came up and, through this discussion, I realized that I have the same problem with most papers today.

Papers, like politicians today - I guess, have become far too dogmatic and less vehicles of presenting news than vehicles of presenting their own viewpoints through the news. Balanced reporting, it seems, is a thing of the past and, in an effort to sell, papers now pick sides.

The guy I was talking to, as it happens, is a far-right winger (I tend to be a right of centre chap myself but this guy makes me look positvely "lefty") and was trying to convince me that I should be getting my daily news fix from SunTV. It led, though, to a discussion about journalism in general and, frankly, you can predict on just about every story these days which direction/slant the paper is going to take.....and expecting balance is an old fashioned notion.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Over the holidays I was sharing a drink/meal with someone and the topic of journalism today came up and, through this discussion, I realized that I have the same problem with most papers today.

Papers, like politicians today - I guess, have become far too dogmatic and less vehicles of presenting news than vehicles of presenting their own viewpoints through the news. Balanced reporting, it seems, is a thing of the past and, in an effort to sell, papers now pick sides.

The guy I was talking to, as it happens, is a far-right winger (I tend to be a right of centre chap myself but this guy makes me look positvely "lefty") and was trying to convince me that I should be getting my daily news fix from SunTV. It led, though, to a discussion about journalism in general and, frankly, you can predict on just about every story these days which direction/slant the paper is going to take.....and expecting balance is an old fashioned notion.

Aside from the recent development of media oligopolies and the broader corportate interests for which they must account, I'm not sure that the media was previously more "balanced" than it is today. It is my impression that there used to be a more cohesive social consensus resulting from the post-WWII welfare state, increased living standards and a relatively elgalitarian distribution of wealth with a trend of increasing egalitarianism. As the egalitarian trend has reversed over the past three decades, so has the social consensus fragmented, such that we now have sizeable, distinct constituencies that each hold a distinct view of reality. Just as is the case economically, the ideological "middle" has shrunk and is in danger of extinction. But I think it is a fallacy to say that, generally, the media of the 1970s were more objective than they are today. It's just that there is no longer a majority consensus on what "objective" actually means.

 

[nfitz]

... was trying to convince me that I should be getting my daily news fix from SunTV.

Does SunTV have a newscast? Anytime I've flicked past, it's seemed to be magazine style shows with a host going on endlessly about something, rather than a newscast.