Maclean's November 9th Issue

[MartinMtl]

I agree 100%. This is not Quebec bashing this is just sensationalism. MacLean's magazine is clearly desperate to sell magazines and this kind of cover is provocative. It obviously is working, we're having a heated debate here about it after all!

 

L'article est quand même écrit par "Martin Patriquin". Ce nom ne semble pas trop "Torontonian" à mon avis.

 

Patriquin est un Québécois anglophone originaire de l'Estrie. Il habite Montréal.

[steve_36]

Non, ce passage vient du fil de commentaires, comme l'a dit rufus96.

 

Voici un autre message d'une autre personne, mais c'est plus une exception

 

"Who cares. Sending money to Quebec is the cost of maintaining our Coast to Coast to Coast empire.

 

Look at it this way, for around $8 Billion a year in transfer payments, plus another $5 - 7 Billion a year to maintain a "Bi-Lingual" (read French) Civil Service in the "National Capital Region", we Canadians get to have Continental sized country, a G20 economy, and a generally great standard of living.

 

Who cares if the money we send to Quebec is spent on Hospitals & Schools, or Porsche Cayennes for the wives of Mafia Bosses? What difference does it make to those of us on the ROC if Quebecois can't drive down the street without a cement block falling on their head? Who cares if 12 year old Francophone kids get blown to bits playing in the streets of Montreal? We throw the money scraps from our ROC economy into the province every year, and locals get to fight it out to see who gets the cash. Sit back and enjoy the show, after all, you're paying for it!"

 

Ok, donc cela me rassure un peu que ce soit des commantaires sur le site web, ça vaut ce que ça vaut. Mais si c'était le magazine alors cela démontrerais la bassesse ou certains sont pret à aller.

 

Personnellement je trouve l'article honnête et véridique, ceux qui se mettent la tête dans le sable sont pognés dans leur mentalité des années 60 ( petite flèche à certaines personnes ici!).

 

Sous la pression populaire et à cause de vous je me suis résigner à lire l'article. Bien sur qu'il y a plein de verité là-dedans, heureusement. Ce n'est pas dans le texte mais plutot dans le ''Front page'' sensationaliste que la controverse s'installe. Ce ''Front Page'' est complètement à coté de la ''track'' et comme le dit Malek ils auraient du mettre la photo de Tremblay et ne pas laisser croire que la ''mafia'' controle tout à Montréal. Elle controle peut-etre une partie de la construction, elle controle peut-etre Tremblay et son administration, elle controle peut-etre des députés et ministres du Parti libéral mais cela aurait du etre plus clair.

[GDS]

Now now, you wouldn't happen to be "hypersensitive" by any chance, would you? Well, it does sound like you're upset. Did i upset you with my little candid dose of truth? But how could that be? Like you say, words don't matter, right?

 

Everything we say is.. you know, just kind of stirred around in the same pot, right? The gist is the same?

 

Words only matter if they come from a source that is being intelligent, credible, truthful etc. That's why your words don't matter, and neither does a cheesy headline from Macleans. The fact that you put so much stock into that headline and defend your arguments with such malice shows how small you are. Please grow.

[Cataclaw]

Words only matter if they come from a source that is being intelligent, credible, truthful etc. That's why your words don't matter, and neither does a cheesy headline from Macleans. The fact that you put so much stock into that headline and defend your arguments with such malice shows how small you are. Please grow.

 

Why are you so angry? Geez, calm down buddy.

 

I could say that in one paragraph, you've managed to childishly insult me by calling me unintelligent, not credible, dishonest and small. I could also say that whereas i've backed up my claims with rational arguments, you've just been dismissive and have failed to provide anything to the discourse.

 

But i'll be the better man here and attack the core issue once again, in one final effort to help you understand: words are subject to interpretation and magazines on a magazine stand are subject to the same laws of perception that govern everything else that's thrown out there for us to consume. You may or may not be familiar with Macleans, you may find the cover cheesy, but the bottom line is not everyone shares your exact point of view. Making the casual insinuations you've made in the way you've made them is essentially rejecting all other viewpoints in favour of your perspective and yours alone. It's ignoring the fact that not everyone will see things the way you do. It's like being stabbed in the foot and deciding to ignore the flesh wound just because you have a genetic deficiency that gives you an abnormal pain threshold, and then looking around you and saying "what, doesn't everybody ignore stab wounds and just go about their daily business instead of going to a hospital?"

[GDS]

Why are you so angry? Geez, calm down buddy.

 

I could say that in one paragraph, you've managed to childishly insult me by calling me unintelligent, not credible, dishonest and small. I could also say that whereas i've backed up my claims with rational arguments, you've just been dismissive and have failed to provide anything to the discourse.

 

But i'll be the better man here and attack the core issue once again, in one final effort to help you understand: words are subject to interpretation and magazines on a magazine stand are subject to the same laws of perception that govern everything else that's thrown out there for us to consume. You may or may not be familiar with Macleans, you may find the cover cheesy, but the bottom line is not everyone shares your exact point of view. Making the casual insinuations you've made in the way you've made them is essentially rejecting all other viewpoints in favour of your perspective and yours alone. It's ignoring the fact that not everyone will see things the way you do. It's like being stabbed in the foot and deciding to ignore the flesh wound just because you have a genetic deficiency that gives you an abnormal pain threshold, and then looking around you and saying "what, doesn't everybody ignore stab wounds and just go about their daily business instead of going to a hospital?"

 

The core issues are that

 

1) I said that Macleans does these type of articles all the time and that we shouldn't put credence into them because of that, it is mediatic editorialism designed to draw attention on a non factual basis, it is hypersensationalism causing hypersensitity. You asked me to show examples of that and I did.

 

They have had headlines like "B.C Crime Superpower" and "Israel coming to an end"

 

To you, those might not be as harsh as the current one, but they are just examples among hundreds. You can easily browse their headlines and decide for yourself. You didn't comment on the Isreal one, but you questioned the B.C one. The full headline was B.C World Crime Superpower: The province is getting rich as a global hub for gangs, drugs and dirty money with a shot of the Vancouver skyline riddled with bullet holes.

 

2) I also said that Macleans does not have a Montreal bias. The Toronto cover was given as an example and I think the B.C one is. Once again, you can easily browse their articles and decide for yourself.

 

3) I said that similar articles were written in french and that nobody commented that it was Montreal bashing or as specified, the "us" versus "them" mentality. You asked for proof of these articles.

 

I mean just last week, LaPresse called Montreal politics cancer and leDevoir had Mafia knocking on city's front door. The gist is the same, and if you are going to nitpick about individual words because they are more hurtful - then you are being hypersensitive.

 

You then harped about the gist not being the same. I was speaking about the gist of the articles in french and their headlines and the macleans cover and articles being of the same gist. You could have read the Macleans article and those written in french and decide. You did not.

 

Quoting what I write and asking for proof when examples are given in the text you are quoting is trolling. It's not like you said, I checked Macleans and didn't find anything.

 

I never denied anyones right to an opinion, I just labelled in my opinion types of opinion. To me, concern for a Macleans headline is being hypersensitive. To me, saying the cover is a typical reaction from english Canada is crybabyism.

 

I also think we are wasting peoples time with this - I think most understood the point I was conveying as shown but others posts and that comments like:

 

Now now, you wouldn't happen to be "hypersensitive" by any chance, would you? Well, it does sound like you're upset. Did i upset you with my little candid dose of truth? But how could that be?

 

show the malice I mentioned, that appears to be your posting style when anything is contentious. When I said your words don't matter, are unintelligent, not credible, dishonest and small, the above quote was what I was referring to. I stand by that.

 

I leave the last word to you, if you chose. Out of respect for the board, I will not comment further.

[Cataclaw]

The core issues are that

 

1) I said that Macleans does these type of articles all the time and that we shouldn't put credence into them because of that, it is mediatic editorialism designed to draw attention on a non factual basis, it is hypersensationalism causing hypersensitity. You asked me to show examples of that and I did.

 

To you, those might not be as harsh as the current one, but they are just examples among hundreds. You can easily browse their headlines and decide for yourself. You didn't comment on the Isreal one, but you questioned the B.C one. The full headline was B.C World Crime Superpower: The province is getting rich as a global hub for gangs, drugs and dirty money with a shot of the Vancouver skyline riddled with bullet holes.

 

Yes, and i maintain (as well as most people in this thread) that the Montreal cover is unusually and unnecessarily harsh, even when compared to previous Macleans covers. That includes the B.C. and Israel ones.

 

 

2) I also said that Macleans does not have a Montreal bias. The Toronto cover was given as an example and I think the B.C one is. Once again, you can easily browse their articles and decide for yourself.

 

So? I never brought up bias. I think the Montreal cover is a little extreme, but i don't propose that it's because of some sinister bias.

 

3) I said that similar articles were written in french and that nobody commented that it was Montreal bashing or as specified, the "us" versus "them" mentality. You asked for proof of these articles.

 

You then harped about the gist not being the same. I was speaking about the gist of the articles in french and their headlines and the macleans cover and articles being of the same gist. You could have read the Macleans article and those written in french and decide. You did not.

 

What? Irrelevant. You're comparing "LaPresse calling Montreal politics a cancer" to "Macleans calling Montreal a disaster and a disgrace". The latter is unquestionably more harsh. Here was your exact quote "LaPresse called Montreal politics cancer and leDevoir had Mafia knocking on city's front door. The gist is the same." Again, the gist is not the same.

 

 

 

Quoting what I write and asking for proof when examples are given in the text you are quoting is trolling. It's not like you said, I checked Macleans and didn't find anything.

 

It would be trolling indeed if what you provided was actual proof. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to qualifying (at least in my view). I asked you to show me something equally harsh but nothing you supplied was close to as bad as "disaster and a disgrace". Your B.C. headlines and what not don't come close to the severity of the Montreal headline.

 

 

I never denied anyones right to an opinion, I just labelled in my opinion types of opinion. To me, concern for a Macleans headline is being hypersensitive. To me, saying the cover is a typical reaction from english Canada is crybabyism.

 

And my opinion is that words matter, and that trashing a city is inappropriate. Nobody's going to lose sleep over it, but it's still an inappropriate thing to do. Sadly, it's the sort of thing that sells magazines though...

 

 

I also think we are wasting peoples time with this - I think most understood the point I was conveying as shown but others posts and that comments like *comment* show the malice I mentioned, that appears to be your posting style when anything is contentious. When I said your words don't matter, are unintelligent, not credible, dishonest and small, the above quote was what I was referring to. I stand by that.

 

I find it sincerely intriguing that you would bear a skin so thin as to consider my response to your criticism of my humorous argumentation something malicious. So, my sarcastic witticisms are somehow "malicious" and hurt your feelings, yet you're the one decrying hypersensitivity and crybabyism. Really? ... ... ... Really? My Irony-dar just blew up.

 

Out of respect for the board, I will not comment further.

Didn't you say that already?

 

Assuming you mean what you say this time, good riddance to this debate. Besides, we're both on the same page anyway, when you get down to it. You said it yourself, you agree with me that words matter, and i agree with you that Macleans sucks. Case closed!

 

 

 

EDIT : And in honor of this debate being over, i propose we laugh about it over a beer at the next mtlurb meet.. because i just reread everything and actually laugh out loud. I can't believe how serious a tone this discussion took, when in reality this whole Macleans story is just a bunch of laughable bullshit. Macleans is laughable, their headline is laughable, and the exaggerated length of this arguing was laughable.

Modifié 4 novembre 2009 par Cataclaw

[MTLskyline]

So did anybody actually read the magazine yet?

[MartinMtl]

So did anybody actually read the magazine yet?

 

The article is on their web site if you want to read it.

[WestAust]

Read the magazine yesterday, the article itself is not that bad, it's mainly a written version of everything that was said by radio-canada and other montreal area journalist, the water meters, tony accurso's yatch with zampino and co, labonté and the brown enveloppe.

 

Nothing new to be learned from that article. As for their anti-Harel bias because she's a sovereignist, it's in the same tone as any montreal federalist anglophone media (suburban, gazette)

 

The title is definitly sensationalist just to have people buy it. But the article itself is not worse than anything else that's been writen.

[acpnc]

The problem is not the information itself but the way it is presented that denotes a condescendant intention. Unfortunately I have witnessed too many times that negative attitude from the ROC while reading papers either in Ontario or the west. It seems to continue on everytime they have an opportunity to point out something wrong in this province.

 

I work for Air Canada and travel accross the country regularly as well as abroad and through my carreer of 30 years I have resented that same frustrating attitude too many times. One of the worst exemple of that malign behaviour was experienced in Toronto, it took place in Ontario Place in the 80s.

 

I was visiting the industry pavillion and noticed a Toronto Sun displayed as an exhibit from the pulp and paper section. Among many papers, that infamous newspaper was above the pile and showing clearly in a big title and in red ink : "blood bath in Quebec", with the picture of the Quebec parliament.

 

Obviously this display was intended to show tourists an insidious negative image of my province, trying to deter them from visiting this dangerous "country". I felt really offensed and asked the staff about the opening date of the exhibition in order to check whether it opened the same date of the Toronto Sun issue.

 

I was confirmed that the exhibition had opened a month earlier which brought me to protest officially for having chosen intentionnaly this particular issue in the process. In fact there was a real attack in the Quebec government building that summer but that was totally irrelevant to the exhibition and denoted a clear intention to humiliate quebecois people.

 

That was a gross attack which again unfortunately repeats itself too many times and in too many situations. I am convinced that if we had the same publicising behaviour from our side, the whole country would stand up legitimately and react accordingly.

 

Why is it then acceptable for us and not for them? No-one deserves that kind of treatment and less from people of the same country, which should be ashamed to do so. I will always respect people either from here or elsewhere in the world, but in return I will DEMAND the same reciprocal behaviour on behalf on my own self-esteem as well as my people.