Sorry Globe, you're due
Well, we've tossed out mad props to the Globe on more than one occasion on this blog for their election coverage. It's time to take them down a few pegs. Like many media outlets, the Globe has been running a series of "reality check" articles during the election campaign (the CBC even uses the same name for theirs). They're interesting features that take a second look at campaign promises and stump speech claims (why such reportage can't be included in the hard news coverage is beyond me, I guess context is a special, election-only feature). Today's reality check, however, falls flat. Check it out here. Rather than refute or support the claims in the Liberal advertisements, they simply offer up the Tory rebuttal to each. Now, back in journalism school, oh so many moons ago, we were taught to cover all possible sides to every story. So why weren't the Tory rebuttals included in the original story? Were the Liberal claims presented unchallenged? Furthermore, how does offering the Tory spin constitute a reality check of any sort? Shouldn't a reality check consist of, I don't know, reality? Facts? Granted, many of these claims are subjective - there's no clear answer or conclusion - so then why label this a "reality" check. Election campaign allegations are often he-said, she-said affairs. It'd be nice if reportage elevated itself to a higher plain, but at the very least, call a spade a spade. This isn't a reality check, it's the spin cycle redux.