Wong, Globe still on the hook

From the Toronto Star (and not the Globe, it should be noted):

"An Ontario Superior Court judge has dismissed a motion brought by the Globe and Mail and journalist Jan Wong to have a lawsuit against them thrown out – and ordered them to pay $9,160 in legal costs.

...

"While employed by the Globe and Mail as a reporter, Wong impersonated a maid and then wrote about her experiences in a five-part series on low-income living. The newspaper published the stories in the spring of 2006.

Members of a Markham family are suing the newspaper and Wong, alleging they suffered "significant embarrassment and mental distress" after one of the articles contained details about their private lives and household.

The claim filed by Steven and Georgina Nitsopoulos and their son Angelo seeks $50,000 for deceit and invasion of privacy, plus costs. Toronto Maids, which is also named in the suit, has filed a cross-claim against the Globe."

Supreme Court clarifies "fair comment"

Kirk Makin's article for The Globe.

Image of an uprising (redux)

Here's an interesting situation. Above is the image that was run on the front page of the National Post. It depicts a protest scene in Burma/Myanmar. The Globe and Mail ran the same photo, but from a wider angle. Here is what the Post left out:


I haven't found a decent-sized version of the full image, but the man lying on his back (Kenji Nagai) appears to the right of the crowd being herded by security forces.

Mr. Nagai is a Japanese national who had just been shot by a soldier. He died as a result of his wounds. My guess is that this is the reason for his omission from the Page 1 image, but I'm throwing it out there to the masses for comment.

Edit: I found the photo.


Also: Links to two videos that show the incident (disturbing, but not gory). The first is courtesy of Times Online and is a Japanese news broadcast. The second comes through The Guardian and shows the incident from a different angle.

Comment on Blatchford

The afore-posted Toronto Life blog focusing on the Conrad Black trial
has an interesting topping its page today. It
concerns The Globe and Mail's coverage through the always- controversial Christie Blatchford.

He then asked me if I’d read Christie’s column. I said I hadn’t. He then read me the last line of the column. Speaking of Conrad Black, Blatchford asks (rhetorically, one suspects), “Is it a criminal offence to be so visibly entitled?” The satirist then suggested that I read the rest of the column and imagine that instead of a description of corporate greed,Blatchford had appended her question to an article about a guy who walks into a Mac’s, points a loaded gun at the owner, spews abuse at him, then steals his money. (Which also happens to be the analogy trotted out by the prosecution in its opening remarks.)

I'm not going to hunt for Blatchford's article as The Globe locks such content behind a paywall.

Must find ink-on-paper version later in library... if such things still
exist when I get around to properly researching this thing.