Hampstead to hold referendum on demolition
Hampstead has set a November date for a referendum on demolishing two apartment buildings on Côte St-Luc for the construction of a much larger condo building. Is it just me, or does CTV’s illustration of this news with a convincing rendering of the building, plus the wording “The development, a 10‑storey building with 90 units, will be built on Cote St. Luc Rd.”, betray a mild bias?
Chris 07:59 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
Did you miss that it ends with “if approved” or did they really add that in so fast?
Kate 08:04 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
I did not, but there can be hints in the choice and order of words sometimes, Chris. The proper form of that verb is conditional.
MarcG 08:40 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
“would occupy a space” under the illustration also implies that it’s currently an empty lot.
Kate 09:09 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
Ooh, good analysis, MarcG.
Chris 09:17 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
Kate, fair enough, but your omitting two words in your quote is a bit misleading too, no? Especially with you ending the quote with a period, implying the end of their sentence (yeah, the period is for the abbreviation I guess). I honestly though they amended their sentence after reading your comment.
Kate 10:06 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
Chris, my only point (bolstered by MarcG’s observation) is that an inattentive reader might take this project as a fait accompli.
Uatu 10:30 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
CTV News are a bunch of shills. More of a pr agency than news
Kate 11:16 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
To be fair, Kevin, who participates here, is not a shill. But the overall tone of CTV’s news can be somewhat passive and uncritical.
Kevin 12:33 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
Thanks Kate, but there’s no point talking to Uatu. She closed her mind a long time ago.
Uatu 18:54 on 2019-10-08 Permalink
As much as I hate to admit it, Kevin is right. I’m still bitter over the lack of critical coverage of the superhospital and mitz as face of the muhc . As employees we were let down. And it burns me every time a stranger comes up to me at work and asks why the hospital is the way it is. It’s because everyone was sold a load of goods reassured by the smiling face of Montreal’s most trusted news anchor. Maybe that’s not what was intended, but that’s how it appeared to me
Kevin 09:35 on 2019-10-09 Permalink
@Uatu
Arthur Porter swindled everyone.
Uatu 10:47 on 2019-10-09 Permalink
Yes he did, but maybe it wouldn’t have been so bad if the Montreal press had kept an eye on the project. It’s not like this city hadn’t been burned in the past by megaprojects. Like i mentioned before, the day Porter was hired the union put up posters talking about his questionable tenure at the Detroit medical center and that the hope would be that this isn’t the future of the new superhospital. But it was, and everyone was conned even though there was a precedent. Hindsight is 20/20 but I hate being reminded of it every day at work…
Kate 12:56 on 2019-10-09 Permalink
I was very marginally involved in some PR stuff when the superhospital was in development. I never met Arthur Porter or any of the bigwigs – my role was very external and very minimal. However, even then, I was aware of Porter and picked up a vibe that he was a con man. I couldn’t tell you how I knew, but I knew.
I still want an explanation why Stephen Harper chose to put Porter in charge of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which oversees CSIS, back in 2008.
…And, I admit, I’ve never been 100% convinced that Porter really is dead.
walkerp 18:08 on 2019-10-09 Permalink
Arthur Porter was the symptom, not the disease. He was able to operate because politicians, media and especially corporate elites allowed him to operate. Let’s not brush off the super hospital theft on the shoulders of one bad apple. This kind of behaviour is still going on today.