To get good insightful answers, how the question is framed matters. I missed an opportunity on Thursday
When I received last week’s CUP (Canadian University Press) wire in my inbox, I was a little surprised by their choice of lead story.
It was “Student unions join forces for Fight Fees 14,” by Nora Loreto of the Ryerson Free Press.Yes, that Nora Loreto – former RSU president, long-time student politician and “social activist.”
Loreto is also the immediate past treasurer of the Canadian Federation of Students – Ontario. I wasn’t surprised by the publication however.
I read the RyeFreePress for amusement; there’s nothing like a bunch of privileged university students campaigning against the great conspiracy of the week to brighten your day and remind you that we don’t actually live in a police state.
Anyhow, when I saw the byline, I thought I was going to end up reading a bunch of loosely-strung together talking points. Instead, the article was informative and surprisely journalistic in tone. Of course, it was not of a neutral journalistic tone, but there is nothing wrong with that – in reality, there is no such thing as a “neutral tone.”
(Sorry, there is no link for the Loreto piece. Considering the source publication, I’m not surprised that actual newspapers didn’t pick it up.)
The Varsity piece has the most depth of all the choices.
The Excalibur piece mentions that the “fight fees 14” have sent libel letters to various media outlets warning them they could be sued for publishing comments by University of Toronto administrators that the “fight fees 14” hold to be libellous. (Yes, we here at Maclean’s got a letter too).
The comments have been published by pretty much every major media outlet with offices in Toronto. In a touch of irony, (and pointed out to me by someone else) *The Excalibur *republished those comments the “fight fees 14” consider to be libel. No word if they sent a lawyer’s letter to the student newspaper.
**UPDATED: **added a link to Loreto’s article as republished in The Muse.