Stereotypes in print


It’s disappointing every time the Big Seven are predictable, for obvious reasons. If newspapers become formulaic and you can guess what will fill their pages and, more importantly, how the stories will read — well, what’s the point of reading them?

The Post was guilty today of living up to its stereotypical pandering to “right-wing ideologues”. Tory MP Rod Bruinooge, recently elected the chair of the so-called Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, told the Globe yesterday that the abortion debate should be re-opened.

Then, today on the Post‘s comment pages:


I wonder who made the call to whom. Did Bruinooge ask for space, or did the Post offer first? Among the claims Bruinooge makes:

By assigning no legal worth to our unborn children, we set the stage for a society that continues to lose out on natural community growth. The study of demographics in our country speaks clearly on this topic, and the numbers are stark. Is there a correlation between our nation’s collapsing birth rate and our legal and social devaluation of the unborn? Of course there is.

Obviously, the greater number of terminated pregnancies there are the greater the population decline. And more subtly, by valuing a kidney more than an unborn human, we are educating our citizens to believe that there is little importance in enhancing the growth of the next generation of Canadians.

This mindset is not sustainable, nor is it psychologically healthy. Can it be changed in the short term? And will Canada be open to revisiting our views on the status of the unborn?

Make of that what you will.

A couple of pages later, though, the Post ran an op-ed titled “Why Greenspan should have read Marx“, the conclusion of which (emphasis mine) was:

Indoctrinated by ideologues like Rand and Friedman, Greenspan thought that the economic prosperity of the period was the product of the free market, rather than the mixed economy. So Greenspan spent his life working to undermine (usually very successfully) the regulatory infrastructure that moderate social democrats had so carefully built. That was the root of the “flaw” in his thinking that he now has to come to terms with, as must we all.

I love reading the Post.

No Responses Yet to “Stereotypes in print”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: