Surprise of all surprises! In today’s Windsor Star (Rag), editor in chief, Marty Beneteau takes aim at CUPE’s lack of modern day communication savvy during the 101-day strike by Locals 82 and 543 against the City of Windsor.Go figure. Yet another anti-CUPE diatribe from the editorial board that was forced to disclose their conflict of interest that existed, and still exists. Norma Coleman, Chief of Staff for Mayor Eddie Francis, is the wife of John Coleman, an editor at the newspaper. Apparently, she gained her position after the mayor was first elected to the job, and the Star supported his electoral bid. The incumbent, whom Norma replaced, then successfully sued the city for wrongful dismissal.
So, it’s little wonder that today Beneteau continues to bash CUPE even though the strike is over and the members and management are valiantly trying to pick up the pieces and get the service levels back up to speed. His four main contentions continually miss the mark, and simply prove the biased slant the paper chooses to endorse. How can you take the newspaper seriously when it continually runs afoul of the Ontario Press Council’s directive that, “The writer, further to enhance editorial page credibility, also should encourage the institution he or she represents to avoid conflicts of interest, real or apparent.”
Marty Beneteau tries to defend this conflict of interest by writing,
“Eddie Francis is a media savvy, calculating, some argue Machiavellian mover of political chess pieces, with many influential people, including journalists, on his speed dial.”
And, it seems, in his pocket.
“Are we supposed to not answer the phone?”
We’re not talking about an editorial where the opinion of the writer would be expected to shine through, but rather article after article quoting only one side of the players and highlighting only their issues and concerns. No corrections of obvious mis-information, and pandering to the mayor’s “Machiavellian” penchant. Is that unbiased reporting? Like a nice issue of Pravda.
He then takes issue with CUPE’s so-called “mixed messages” during the strike. If he were in Windsor at all during the strike, he'd be aware that CUPE didn’t have a public message what so ever, let alone it being mixed. Beneteau tries to prove his point, but fails, by writing, “One day the strike was about post-retirement benefits, the next it was money.” Can’t the strike be about a number of issues?
Thirdly, Beneteau raises the accusations people have laid against the Star for heavily loading the column comments with pro-city remarks.
“Pro-CUPE posters were simply -- and vastly – outnumbered,” Beneteau says.
I, for one, wrote in many times to the Star in response to an article and I can count the number of times my observations were published on one finger. Others have told me the same thing. I expect that many pro-CUPE readers were resigned to the fact that their thoughts wouldn’t see the light of day and simply stopped writing in. They possibly, stopped reading the Star altogether. I think they should tell that to the Star’s sponsors, both in the print version and on line.
Lastly, Beneteau tries his hand at some damage control by trying to pit union members against each other. Beneteau resurrects the memories of Bob White and Buzz Hargrove…
“The CAW has been led by a succession of master communicators beginning with Bob White.”
And,
“I recall jogging with White and Buzz Hargrove on the Toronto waterfront. Unlike CUPE, they ran with me, not from me.”
He attempts to bring CAW readers to his side and against that of CUPE. He thinks that by invoking their reminiscence he can show the CAW members that he and the Star aren’t such bad guys after all. Doesn’t he know that the CAW were working very closely with the CUPE locals during the strike? CAW leaders attended the closed-door meeting with CUPE members and they publically offered their support to the srikers. However, in a blatant effort to stave off further subscription cancellations Beneteau insults the readers intelligence and provides them with a glimpse of the inner workings of his mind.
In Beneteau’s own words, “That’s laughable.” If it weren’t so sad.
Seed Newsvine
4 comments:
You...Are right on the money. Beneteau's editorial is all about damage control. The Star may be the biggest loser in the civic battle. CUPE and other union members alike are indeed cancelling their subscriptions and there is a growing anti-Star sentiment at large.
Mr. Beneteau gushes over how well he knows his Machiavelian buddy. He ought to know him him well. He eats at his table along with the rest of his editorial staff. They socialize together! How could he not know him? And how could the Star not be biased?
It is clearly apparent that there were two PR blunders here. One by an organization that should know better.
I respectfully disagree with your analysis.
"Go figure. Yet another anti-CUPE diatribe"
I seem to get a singular message from his editorial that he's upset that people can't distinguish between columnists and reporters. One is supposed to be biased one is not.
I think that everytime someone tries to show bias, they quote a columnist as a reference and not a reporter. I've not seen a case made yet against a reporter. Maybe there is one to make, but no one has made it.
"If he were in Windsor at all during the strike, he'd be aware that CUPE didn’t have a public message what so ever, let alone it being mixed."
I think that actually proves his point. Why didn't they have a public message? wasn't that negligent? Much of the public's backlash was unfounded (I.e. amount of garbage men etc.) If I was a CUPE member, I'd be pissed my union had no plan for public support. Gaining Public support is the whole purpose of a strike. A picket line is supposed to informing the public. CUPE was not doing a good job informing the public. Everytime they tried to focus on the Mayor, they ended up polarizing public support behind him and abdicated the 10 councilors from their responsibility. At any time during this strike, the 10 councilors could have ended it immediately. CUPE let them off the hook
" I expect that many pro-CUPE readers were resigned to the fact that their thoughts wouldn’t see the light of day and simply stopped writing in."
I know many Anti-CUPE readers who told me the same thing, I guess they cancel each other out leaving the end result unbiased
You say that the pro Cupe member stopped reading. You'd never know it by the star's hits on their website, which I hear have skyrocketed from the numbers they're showing advertisers
We all know and CUPE knows that they blundered. It probably won't happen twice. That, however, is not what the editorial was about. Beneteau went straight for the throat. Kicking a dog that was already down and after the fact. At best his article was cute in its delivery but it reiterated all that is wrong with its own editorial policy. Why did he personally have to deliver the verdict? Maybe to please his Macheavelian pal. After all, he is their biggest advertiser. One can bet that the comments in the Windsor Star are coming from a few who favour the same perspective. If they are selling advertising based on that they have fools for clients.
The editorial was about columnists being mistaken for reporters. It was done again when someone asked why Van derDolen didn't report balanced on a blog. Well he doesn't have to as he's a colunists not a reporter.
Post a Comment