Proof the Spec has been dishonest

It's been quite obvious that the Spec has been biased and pro-WH from the start.

Editorials, opinion pieces, news articles have all been heavily in favour of WH. Reading letters-to-the-editor, one would think it was 9 or 10 to 1 for WH when the City's own "scientific" survey found an almost even split at 50-50.

I submitted a rebuttal to a pack of misinformation in an opinion piece by Eisenberger ("Mayor - City's best interests must decide stadium" (Aug 7)) but it was rejected by the Spec's submissions editor Robert Howard as being too long, the word limit supposedly being 750 words.

Well surprise, surprise.

Today's opinion piece "Latest Stadium Move Disappointing" by Keanin Loomis (who happens to be a freelance writer and a columnist for Raise the Hammer ( and whose members are spreading more BS in the Spec's comments section for this piece) happens to be over 2,000 words in length, a far cry from my 750 words.

Either someone can't count or is totally biased and dishonest at the Spec (in it's slanted pro-WH coverage), someone didn't like the Mayor being exposed... or maybe I was rejected because I just used too many vowels :roll:

Either way, by my math, 2,000 is greater than 750 but was not rejected. Funny how that happens...

If you have not done so already, why not post on here, I would love to read it.

I've said right from the start that the total bias of that newspaper (fishwrap), has been BS. I wish that there was another alternative paper in this town because the Spec would be out of business in no time flat. It's a lefty paper, through and through. Just take a look at the columnist that write in that "fishwrap"...9/10 of them are total lefties. :cowboy:

The RTH people are really tied in with Fred big time, has to be much more than just this stadium issue, has to be some other connections I would say or perhaps even deeper.

8) Oh yes Earl, you're so right about that fact !!
  There is definitely some hidden agenda here, and I can't wait for it to finally be revealed !!!     <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->

*** My math was right, but my reference was not... the opinion piece from the RTH writer was 1022 words vs my edited 750 that was rejected when 750 words was supposed to be the limit (per R. Howard of the Spec). The 2000 words I referenced was my original submission that was rejected because it was over the 750 maximum. But 1022 (accepted) is still larger than 750 (rejected) :slight_smile:

My (750 word) rejected rebuttal (Aug 10)...

[b]City's best interests must decide stadium (Aug 7)[/b]

Mayor… "debate on the site has been vigorous, spirited and robust…
essence of the debate comes down to two competing visions..."

About the only accurate part of this pre-election spin.
Mayor... "My vision is clean, green, and prosperous… we must rehabilitate abandoned industrial land in the heart of the city and place on it new developments that attract businesses and jobs. It means revitalization of our waterfront."
Suggests there’s his “lofty? vision, then there’s the "other?.
Mayor... "…It means new entertainment opportunities… NHL team, restaurants, stores, cultural activities… better ways to get around… including LRT… "
- attracting an NHL team means offering "breaks (giving owner control of arena and revenues). Wasn't that the deal for Balsillie? Why is Young crucified wanting a similar arrangement?
  • why would only a WH stadium lead to development? An amphitheatre would
    seem to achieve that goal.

  • public transit... forced dream thru crippling downtown traffic flow.

  • more hopes, wishes and planning based on a non-existent LRT

Mayor... "… a "driveway to driveway" stadium accessible mostly by car -- far removed from LRT …"
LRT again... unless Fred knows something we don't. LRT's affect is questionable but not a sure thing, so irrelevant and not part of the discussion.
Mayor... "(EM) removes industrial employment lands from the City "
There’s trouble filling the present industrial parks plus there’s still undeveloped airport lands. A red herring, along with costs for road/infrastructure work in EM when money was to be spent anyway.
Mayor... "competing visions are a cleaner, greener, more prosperous city of the future, or the environmentally harmful "driveway to driveway"
The Mayor tries to play the White Knight and claim the moral high.
Mayor... "… It is also about the preferences of the "legacy tenant," the Tiger-Cats
The ignored "legacy tenant"...
  • left off the short list of officially consulted groups

  • dismissed as a minority player

  • a major reason Hamilton was awarded the stadium

  • painted as an uncaring, greedy business only looking after it's own

Mayor... " Tiger-Cats are an important part of history and life of the city."
Empty platitudes considering the insults made and contempt shown.
Mayor... "important to remember that it is a privately owned, private enterprise. Is it the role of the government to ensure a private business is sustainable? For what other private business would we spend hundreds of millions of public dollars and then turn over all the revenues from that public facility to the private interest?"
Government helping business... like the plan to entice Balsillie to bring the NHL to Hamilton?

Like City's plan for his backroom friends the Katz group (manage City
facilities and revenue)?

If it’s OK for Balsillie, Katz, etc, why not for Young?

Mayor... "As a city government, we do not offer that service … They are on their own to create and sustain their own economic viability."
See above re the Mayor/City and Balsillie/Katz.

JB wanted government assistance, plus management and revenues, and the
City was more than willing to go along.

Mayor... "… May 6, 2010, the Tiger-Cats' ownership insisted that it would never play at a west harbour stadium… has become a barrier..."
TiCat's concerns were made known since last year, they were ignored.

"Insistence" comes from not liking the numbers at WH. TiCats ARE a
business, not a philanthropic organization.

Mayor... "(TiCats) have never presented a proper business case that proves a stadium located at west harbour cannot work..."
The CFL lists few teams showing a profit (Hamilton not being one of them), WH has many of the same issues as IWS.

City’s own studies/plans suggest other uses other than a stadium at WH.
The Deloitte report made a stadium anything but a sure success.

Mayor... "Notwithstanding my strong view of where this stadium should go,"
An understatement.
Mayor... "I have done my best to work with all..."
By ignoring the work/suggestions of facilitator Fenn and you've certainly NOT worked with the TiCats.
Mayor... "uphold the best interest of the people of the city of Hamilton."
By sticking to a site the City's own studies don't support or guarantee as being successful serves the best interests of citizens?
Mayor... “A private interest … must not and cannot be put ahead of the public interest…"
Unless an NHL team comes a knockin'.
Mayor... "public interest is with a stadium at west harbour.
No proof, just wishes and dreams.

Now moot given Council’s WH vote.

It loses some content in the reduction to fit the 750 word limit but it couldn't be helped. If I had only known 750 was a
"rough", arbitrary number.

Out of curiosity, I just counted the Mayor's original opinion piece... 810 words... somehow greater than 750 but accepted.

How strange...

I think I'll contact the Spec's R. Howard and see what he says about their "selective" word count.

[b](Normally the Spec doesn't reply if they are not going to use a submission (at least for letters) but for Howard to reply that my original opinion piece couldn't be used because it didn't fit the imaginary, arbitrary 750 word limit suggests it would have been accepted otherwise. They chose not to use the edited 750 word version so was the first rejection a lie?

The only reason I raise this issue is to point out the bias and dishonestly shown by the Spec throughout this whole stadium debacle. My submission and opinion mean diddly squat.)[/b]

What most people don't realize is newspapers, radio and television newscasts are not service providers. They are independent businesses that sell advertising to pay their bills. Their objective is to have as many readers, listeners, and viewers as possible. Where the bias comes in is how they represent the news stories of the day. Decisions get made every day as to which angle to portray, who's perspective to highlight, etc. The Spectator is owned by Torstar who has a mandate from their first owner/editor to promote the socialist cause: the Achison Principles. I once had an email exchange with a Toronto Star columnist and she didn't even know of these guiding dictates. The best approach is to realize you are getting one side of the story, think for yourself, and not dig yourself into polarized trench position based on media reports.

One thing that has taken me a long time to learn in life is that very few people have a totally unbiased outlook on issues regardless of education and how well read they are. Most have an ideology behind any talk of being open to new ideas etc. I guess it's just part of human nature.

I've submitted letters over this issue also...........all ignored without even a phone call back (no doubt because I was pushing the East Mountain and rejecting the toxic wasteland at West Harbour swampland.

Censorship is alive and well ! :smiley:

Consider yourselves lucky guys. In some countries if you disagreed with the newspaper that is operated by the government, the government would send the army to your house and cut off your finger or worse. :o

Maybe I'm missing something here. Do newspapers typically print anything people submit? Is there some perceived obligation for them to do so? Is a polite decline really proof of bias?

It's hard to judge without seeing the piece. But it's possible that the writing wasn't up to the newspaper's standards, or that the points made were deemed to be repetitive of arguments previously raised. Also, I assume a writer is at a disadvantage if their "day job" does not give them a presumption of being more knowledgeable of the subject matter than the average reader.

There's editors who can quite easily trim 1000 words down to 750 if they want to. Maybe the response given was the equivalent of "I'd love to go out with you that night, but I'm washing my hair."

Consider yourselves lucky guys. In some countries if you disagreed with the newspaper that is operated by the government, the government would send the army to your house and cut off your finger or worse. :o :wink:

It's eerie that you should use that quotation, because I once asked out a girl who REALLY DID have plans to wash her hair that night. For some curious reason she was washing it the next night too...

Hey Ockham...I'm onto them like "white on rice" but the problem is that when a city has a major issue (as the stadium site is), and the only paper in town (Spec), plus the local tv outlet (CH), feed the unwashed masses their slanted, bias views everyday, the public gets hoodwinked. Now is the time to expose them for what they are.. lefty media outlets that filter the news to suit their own narrative. :cowboy: