Positive Rogers coverage?

[Downtownfan]

Can you cite a recent article or two where this was the case, from any source (not just the Star)? I just did a Google web search for "Canadian Football League woes" and came up with a few stories from 2014. Same search in Google news turned up nothing remotely negative or about past woes in the first few pages of results, all of which were recently published.

Paul, I really respect you and your work, and understand that you are in a particular position to defend the Star. But there have been a few articles that needlessly go over the past, or generate unnecessary provocation about the Argos. Here is one, by Sean Fitz-Gerald, which I actually wrote to him about, as it was so needlessly provocative, speaking only about the very few people for whom sharing a stadium is an issue: https://www.thestar.com/sports/2016/...eing-blue.html Not about the past, though it uses tweets (!) as a basis for its reporting. When you can get your name in the paper for being a troll, that's a new level of trolling success.

OK, if that's not about the past, how about this one, which was supposed to be on tailgating, but was really about an incident in 2001? There are actually only two paragraphs at the very end of the piece about the new tailgating-- the rest is on an incident in 2001, which wasn't even tailgating. https://www.thestar.com/sports/argos...-saturday.html One would have thought, based on the title, that the article would have been about the new tailgating experience at BMO-- but no, 90% of the piece was on something that happened 15 years ago, and was incredibly minor. But hey, its always important to dredge something like this up, right?

[paulwoods13]

Paul, I really respect you and your work, and understand that you are in a particular position to defend the Star. But there have been a few articles that needlessly go over the past, or generate unnecessary provocation about the Argos. Here is one, by Sean Fitz-Gerald, which I actually wrote to him about, as it was so needlessly provocative, speaking only about the very few people for whom sharing a stadium is an issue: https://www.thestar.com/sports/2016/...eing-blue.html Not about the past, though it uses tweets (!) as a basis for its reporting. When you can get your name in the paper for being a troll, that's a new level of trolling success.

OK, if that's not about the past, how about this one, which was supposed to be on tailgating, but was really about an incident in 2001? There are actually only two paragraphs at the very end of the piece about the new tailgating-- the rest is on an incident in 2001, which wasn't even tailgating. https://www.thestar.com/sports/argos...-saturday.html One would have thought, based on the title, that the article would have been about the new tailgating experience at BMO-- but no, 90% of the piece was on something that happened 15 years ago, and was incredibly minor. But hey, its always important to dredge something like this up, right?

First of all, thanks for your kind words but to be clear, I am not speaking on behalf of the Star in this forum. I am speaking as an opinionated Argo fan who happens to have some experience in (and yes, some well-defined and certainly arguable points of view about) the news media.

I don't agree the first article "bring(s) up any troubles the CFL had in the past." It is about the present and happens to include comments from someone with whom many of us do not agree. That's a much different issue than your original complaint.

The second article does indeed dwell on the past; it's factual that the wet t-shirt thing was proposed 15 years ago, and it's relevant context for what the team is now (thankfully) doing, but a reasonable case can be made that the story is too heavily weighted to "past troubles." So I will give you that one. Some distance from "ALWAYS," but presumably that was hyperbole and you know it is not actually done always.

[Qman]

I agree that the Star doesn't have negative articles on the Argos. Only problem with them is the lack of coverage.

again, still can't understand why the star doesn't cost-share put edwards & milton on the argos beat as well. its seems to to tag team coverage with staff people and O'leary (at least integrate O'leary with all of Edwards coverage) You have all these resources that are in the star network. The 3rd down nation is owned by the star/metroland .. or integrate it with the star's website. They own all this CFL content. Especially when money is so tight in newspaper biz and online is the future. its not costing you anything, you OWN it already.

Frank at the sun is doing an awesome job with Argos this season.

[AngeloV]

again, still can't understand why the star doesn't cost-share put edwards & milton on the argos beat as well. its seems to to tag team coverage with staff people and O'leary (at least integrate O'leary with all of Edwards coverage) You have all these resources that are in the star network. The 3rd down nation is owned by the star/metroland .. or integrate it with the star's website. They own all this CFL content. Especially when money is so tight in newspaper biz and online is the future. its not costing you anything, you OWN it already.

Frank at the sun is doing an awesome job with Argos this season.

That is a great idea about Milton and Edwards.

Admittedly, I have been the biggest critic of Frank, but I really do appreciate the work being done.

[Downtownfan]

"Some distance from "ALWAYS," but presumably that was hyperbole and you know it is not actually done always."

Hello Paul: Yes, that was hyperbole on my part-- which I should certainly tone down. Point taken.

And please understand that I should not have said that you were defending the Star, but should have said that as a journalist, you will defend your profession, which is completely understandable, and frankly, to be expected.

[paulwoods13]

And please understand that I should not have said that you were defending the Star, but should have said that as a journalist, you will defend your profession, which is completely understandable, and frankly, to be expected.

Thanks, DTF. Again for the record, while I do (tediously often, admittedly) try to explain how journalism works (or at least is supposed to work) if I see commentary that seems ignorant or wrong on that subject, I have in the past been quite critical of journalists who do not (IMO) meet the necessary standards of the profession. I have limited such criticism on this forum over the past two years because I realized it might appear I was speaking for my employer, and in this context (a CFL fans forum) I am most definitely not. Also because it might appear unfair to take pot-shots at competitors behind the veil of a "username." Thus, for instance, I have said little about Frank Z recently. Not nothing, I acknowledge, but little -- and much less than I might say if not employed in the same industry and working for a competitor.

[marcwagz]

if rogers doesnt host a "lol argos only 12k" article after last night, I will assume they have turned the page.