Globe and Mail proves today it will manipulate coverage to protect a political party it favours

If there was any doubt that the Globe and Mail will intentionally bury a news story lede, it ended today with the story it ran on the Alberta premier’s sister caught illegally donating public money to the PCs.

Alberta health official charged taxpayers for political events

Funny how the Globe headline misses mentioning who the official is and you’ll also notice that the reporter Josh Wingrove doesn’t bother to include it until the 5th paragraph (see here).

No shame when it comes to running defense even when it breaks the law.

Advertisements

12 Responses to “Globe and Mail proves today it will manipulate coverage to protect a political party it favours”

  1. Blame Crash Says:

    How stupid do they think their readers are! Plenty, by the looks of it. They’ve made complete fools of themselves by treating their paying customers to this laughable attempt at misdirection and dishonesty.
    But don’t get me wrong, I like it when they do that.

    • BC Blue Says:

      Complete outing of themselves with this one

      • Blame Crash Says:

        But lets not be too hard on this eager beaver pup “reporter”. I bet he’d level a forest if he was told to and besides, I’m sure that it was one of his so called “editors” who had him bury this gold nugget of information in the back forty. That’s just what modern journalism does now a days.

  2. Joanne (BLY) Says:

    I’ll have to take your word on this story. Must limit Glob & Pail consumption due to stupid paywall. As if I’d ever pay for their garbage!

  3. Jen Says:

    .
    No reporter should block refrain or withhold any answers pertaining to SERIOUS questions from the public..
    You have a right to ask any reporter questions relating to their work especially when you have the ‘GUT FEELING’ that they are lying or withholding certain eliminates to their work.
    It is about time that the public become the reporters. which I think that they can do a far better job.

  4. RS Says:

    Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
    Couldn’t help noticing how your headline also neglects to name names.
    Does it really matter that Lyn Redford (second sentence/paragraph) is related to Alison Redford (fifth paragraph)?
    You can’t infer that because they are sisters Alison knew what Lyn was up to. That would be irresponsible – no?

    • BC Blue Says:

      Give it a rest. Don’t bother coming on here and playing stupid question games.

      • RS Says:

        Ah ha ha ha! Exactly the sort of puerile and defensive retort one might expect from a Cummins Conservative lickspittle.

        Thanks for the reply, and a glimpse into your true character. Irresponsible? Yes. And immature, amateur, and arrogant.

  5. dmorris Says:

    Further to what RS said, when I read the name, Lyn Redford, I confused it in my ancient memory, with Lynn Redgrave,the actress,and have been humming “Georgy Girl” ever since.

    At the Globe and Mail link,they want me to pay them 99 cents to see the story. Hell will freeze over before I pay those #%&&*$#@!! a bloody cent for their liberal views/propaganda.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: