Drivel - Star FAIL

A recent "editorial" in the Toronto Star (and I refuse to even link it, it is so contemptible) gleefully, pompously and erroneously perpetuated the same tired old arguments about why the current legislation banning "pit bulls" in the Province of Ontario should be maintained.  This is in reaction to the all party vote (including three Liberals who voted with their consciences instead of following the party line like my own lily livered, pathetic excuse for an MPP Lorenzo Beranadetti) for Bill 16 (Hershey's Law) calling for a repeal of the legislation.

As a 20 year subscriber to the Toronto Star (now former subscriber), I have always felt the Star was the least biased of the media sources in Toronto.  This outrageous piece of garbage has clearly illustrated that the Liberal puppet masters are flexing their political will and the Star editorial board is bending over and taking it with a smile.

The reality is I am a big girl - I am more than able to debate and argue a difference of opinion - and can even accede that one contrary to my own viewpoint can have valid points.  Rational adults can do that.  Thus, HAD they argued with some solid facts to back up their ascertain the legislation should remain - then that could have provided a good starting point for a rational argument and counter-argument.

Unfortunately, the drivel the Anonymous author spouted has absolutely NO basis in fact.  Instead, the cowardly author vomits the same old myths and misinformation that media in particular has been wont to glorify; after all, pit bull stories make great press while a simple dog bite doesn't warrant the same reaction.  The continued glorification of the "evil pit bull" myth has been in many respects, largely due to the media hype. 

This article in the Boston Review gives a remarkably fair, unbiased overview of the whole pit bull question.

Bottom line?  Pit bulls are NO more dangerous than any other breed.  In actual fact, in many respects,they are probably SAFER and more human friendly than many other dog breeds.

Here, James Schnerch on Facebook has a discussion on the Star article, including a reply from the Star editorial board. With his permission I have linked it and below is an excerpt from the letter he received back:

Dear sir:

The article you are referring to is an editorial. As such it expresses the institutional opinion of the Toronto Star news organization, not the... view any one writer. It was written by a member of the editorial board following debate and discussion of the entire editorial board.

This article expresses an opinion of this controversial issue—it is not a news report.

Best Regards,

Kathy English

Kathy English/Public Editor

Toronto Star/www.thestar.com

416-869-4950

Really?? REALLY Ms. English? 

So, because the story is an "institutional" report - the Star feels no need to actually include any verifiable facts?

Because the story is an editorial "opinion", the Star is really ok with publishing under the guise of "facts" misinformation and myths which can - and HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN - refuted.

What this tells ME, Ms. English that your editorial DISCUSSION clearly illustrates that the Toronto Star's editors - the individuals who spearhead the various departments - are asses - and lousy journalists.

So, I will no longer be subscribing and most likely will no longer be reading - such an ill informed, piece of garbage.

So take your OPINION and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I would truly appreciate everyone who cares about dogs - everyone who cares about keeping newspapers accountable to the public - email, phone or WRITE Ms. English and give her your (polite) editorial opinion as soon as possible.

And make sure to say you won't be reading the Toronto Star anymore!