Supreme Court Appointments
Since most papers are owned by one company in Canada, I made sure I had an independent voice. "The Western Standard" and "Toronto Star" articles are very polar in their approach on the subject of the recent court appointments.
The Star reports on the committee in parliament. The Western focuses on the subject of the judicial review committee. Both articles show the Conservative Party opinion that the appointment of Louise Charron and Rosalie Abella are just a way for the Liberal government to push forward their agenda.
The Star, like this essay, stays outside the issue at hand. It is more to designed to state that a meeting did take place. The only real issues brought up are partisan politics. It totally avoids the elephant in the room. By looking at the process. Though it does say that more media attention has been brought to the issue and thus educating the public.
It fails to give any relevant information. The trivial seems to interest the author. It is one step up from a Parliamentary hill gossip column. It attempts to portray the Conservative contingent, Peter Mackay and Vic Toews as whiners. It attempts to cast a sore loser feel to them. "The Tories refused to endorse the nominations of the two Ontario judges while protesting what they dismissed as 'a rubber-stamp process" The "they", shows the author feels distant from the Conservative cause.
I do not know if it was done deliberately but misdirection is used. Panetta states that the conservatives issued a news release, and then starts a direct quote saying that the judges are more than qualified. For the skimmer reader it would look like or make them believe that the conservatives are hypocritical.
At the end of the article is where he finally...