The Whig retracts.

[keoadmin]

While the Whig is hammering arena advocates for misrepresenting information and misleading the public because a photo on Friends of the Entertainment Centre website was poorly reproduced, the newspaper might try applying the same self-righteous standards to itself for a change.

In case anyone missed this tiny correction in Tuesday's newspaper: "A story in Saturday's Whig-Standard about the Large Venue Entertainment Centre incorrectly reported that Kingston musician Rob Baker didn't return phone calls seeking his comment. In fact, The Whig didn't attempt to contact Baker by telephone on Friday." You would have to be deaf, mute and blind not to notice that the newspaper has been twisting the facts of this story and giving undue weight to the anti-arena lobby, but such a blatant lie in indelible ink is beyond belief.

Here you've got a group of ordinary folks, led by The Tragically Hip's Baker, whose crime was to put up a website without top-flight technical photo reproduction expertise, trying to organize a show of support for a project they feel is vitally important to the community. Enter the Whig to investigate on the side of the anti-arena lobby and accuse Friends of the Entertainment Centre of some big conspiracy to mislead the public because a "concept drawing" of the proposed new arena was out of whack. Who the heck but someone looking to gag arena supporters would have taken time to measure minute buildings in a picture on a website? Who, from the general public, would even notice the buildings were not precisely depicted in the first place? The website of Kingstonians Concerned About LVEC (or KCAL), the anti-arena group, is chock full of misleading information, baseless accusations and opinions passed off as fact. Yet not one Whig investigation there.

Here's another precision tip for the Whig. The picture used by Friends of the Entertainment Centre is not a "concept drawing" nor is it a preliminary drawing of the facility. As consultants explained several times, the sketch is taken from a massing study and would otherwise have been a big gray blob on a page if consultants had not fancied it up with doors and windows.

Friends of the Entertainment Centre may be guilty of using low-grade technology but Baker and his group are not the ones who ought to be concerned with their own credibility gap.

[billygoat]

I have news for you: anyone who thinks that they're getting accurate, unbiased reporting from the Whig Substandard is extremely dillusional.

One of their latest jokes was a story on a criminal case. The paper tried to downplay the fact that it had breached a court imposed publication ban on the case. Funny thing...the downplaying in the article was written by the very person who broke the ban in the first place. The real story is: why wasn't the reporter and the paper charged with violating a court oder?

Like the Toronto Star - the ultimate in self-righteous fact-ignoring crusading, masquerading as a newspaper - the Whig consistently ignores facts and only goes for the sensational, seeking to generate as much controversy as possible. The problem is that when controversy is generated on false premises, the public interest is not served. In some cases, people's safety is jeopardized.

Personally, I'd love to see people cancel their subscriptions, and companies pull their advertizing from that rag.

[Emerald]

Perhaps the only thing that is worse than a newpaper you don't like is a city with no newspaper.

[billygoat]

Yeah well, luckily we have The Heritage and Kingston This Week - for free.

Actually, I find that The Heritage often has stories that The Whig missed out on.

Other than that, there's always our two national newspapers.

[cain]

Kingston This Week - for free.

Same Owner as the Whig

[Emerald]

Cain is correct - both are now part of Osprey Income Trust if you can believe it! I wonder what effect the Income Trust structure has on newpapers.

[billygoat]

Same Owner as the Whig

So what? It's got the same staff as before they were purchased by Osprey, and as far as I can see they haven't yet intentionally written anything dishonest the way The Whig does. It's not Osprey that's the problem, it's the editors and some of the reporters.

[macphail]

Here you've got a group of ordinary folks, led by The Tragically Hip's Baker, whose crime was to put up a website without top-flight technical photo reproduction expertise, trying to organize a show of support for a project they feel is vitally important to the community.

The only way for that photo to be wrong has nothing to do with the sites lack of a "top-flight technical photo" pro. In fact, the only way for that photo to have appeared at all is because of such expertise as the photo was doctored.

The idea put forth by Gedge that it was a Photoshop error is a bunch of bull.

Cheers, Derek

[macphail]

So what? It's got the same staff as before they were purchased by Osprey, and as far as I can see they haven't yet intentionally written anything dishonest the way The Whig does. It's not Osprey that's the problem, it's the editors and some of the reporters.

Actually, Kingston This Week isn't at all what it was before being purchased by Osprey.

It's a matter of opinion, and mine is that KTW toes the Whig party line when it comes to writing about municipal issues.

Cheers, Derek

[Lydia]

Here you've got a group of ordinary folks, led by The Tragically Hip's Baker, whose crime was to put up a website without top-flight technical photo reproduction expertise, trying to organize a show of support for a project they feel is vitally important to the community

Hum interesting. Ordinary folks, led ty the Tragically Hip's Baker. I beg to differ. These folks are 'FORMERS" or how i like to call them "HAs Beens" with money. These folks want the LVEC to be an Angliners Bay.

You have it very very wrong if you believe that the anti-LVEC group doesn't WANT the LVEC to happen. THEY ONLY want it NOT TO BE AT ANGLINERS BAY. If the site was different these people gathering petitions would not be out there in the first place. 75% of them want the LVEC to happen just not there.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so if the picture is distorted could it also mean that someone is trying to distort the real reason behind the LVEC only being at Angliners Bay??????

Hum how do i know, let's just say I know first hand what that group is all about. My question still remains "Why doesn't the city just build the LVEC AND THE MULTIPEX on another parcel of land say around the 401 and ANY intersection (i.e. 401 and highway 38, 401 and division, 401 and Montreal etc) Just maybe if they buy a larger parcel of land they could join the two complexes to gether and SAVE MONEY????

[I.M.Pertinent]

The point is not whether Anglin Bay is a good location for an arena. Some think it is, others don't. The point is that citizens who do want an arena on this site have as much right to have, and state, an opinion as those who do not. I don't see or hear pro-Anglin Bay citizens lobbing insults or making allegations against those with an anti-Anglin Bay view. I don't see the Whig investigating some of the pretty outrageous and bogus claims made on the KCAL website. What I do see and hear (besides the ongoing and frankly, boring, anti-Anglin Bay tirade) is the anti-Anglin Bay group and the Whig insulting and belittling those who believe this is an OK site for an arena. This may be Kingston, but it's still Canada where, last time I checked, folks were allowed to have different views and still maintain their dignity.

[macphail]

I don't see the Whig investigating some of the pretty outrageous and bogus claims made on the KCAL website.

I'm curious as to what claims you define as being "outrageous and bogus".

Cheers, Derek

[Valley]

Discussions about the LVEC at Anglin Bay will be moot if the costs are prohibitive for land, environmental issues and building.

While our local government may have the financial capacity to build the LVEC, it may still be a poor use of the capital funds we have for infrastructure. As costs escalate on the LVEC we still readily dump raw sewage into the Cataraqui River and then complain that other levels of government will not provide us with enough money to deal with the problem.

[Lydia]

I do see and hear (besides the ongoing and frankly, boring, anti-Anglin Bay tirade) is the anti-Anglin Bay group and the Whig insulting and belittling those who believe this is an OK site for an arena. This may be Kingston, but it's still Canada where, last time I checked, folks were allowed to have different views and still maintain their dignity.


Im sorry that you believe the people who are POINTING OUT THE distortions that the PRO anglin Bay are insulting and belittling. I personally do think that they are justing pointing things out in a factual way.

I also do agree with you that this city deserves to hear and LISTEN to both sides of the issue. My problem is when council chooses to do things in SECRET and without consideration as to HOW THEY ARE BEING ADVISED BY their own Advisory Committeess.

Isn't it funny that we complain how the Whig reports things. People get upset that council has to find out about things from leaks. Thank GOD for leaks!!!!! otherwise God only knows what this council would do.

I have an idea, DON'T DO THINGS IN SECRET. BE OPEN ABOVE BOARD WITH DETAILS. Then there would be NO NEED for leaks. Of course, for those who want to do things the old way, (buddy/buddy and the hell with the residents) this would not be a good thing.

I for one admire that fact that you are open to discussion on this matter I.M. I for one would want more people who are in favour of this to express your opinions on here. Can you tell me WHY you would be in favour of having the LVEC an Anglin Bay? I can tell you why I don't. My reason is that I would like the LVEC and Multiplex to be created in one location and attached to each other so that the building would be more cost saving. Another reason is that the developer of the Multiplex EXPRESSED his desire for a location at the 401. I have other reasons. So Tell me why is it such a good thing to have it at Anglin Bay

Remember We need both sides.