The Star needs to remember Dec. 1

I almost spit out my coffee this morning as I was reading my copy of Toronto Star over breakfast.

Neatly inserted behind all the usual sections was one called "New Energy Future - The Energy Challenge and Environmental Responsibility". The first headline claimed to provide us with a 'reality check' on climate change, and scattered throughout the section are smiling feel good stories of employees of the tar sands with little myth buster boxes on tar sands production. 

The entire section? Sponsored by Shell Canada.

I'm so glad the Star thinks that its okay to distribute oil company propaganda to millions of Canadians as a supplementary section to inform Canadians with reality checks and myth busters about climate change and the oil sands industry. 

Remember Star, when you devoted your entire front page on December 1 arguing that the world needs to unite in the face of climate change at the beginning of the Copenhagen conference?

This move for the Star (obviously because Shell was able to provide the $$$) seems highly antithetical, and has made this blogger extremely disappointed. 

I wonder if I had enough money, I can buy a section in the Star devoted to arguing to the existence of unicorns?

Comments

[Chotto]

The Star is a business like any other, and one that is living on the edge of bankruptcy. So yes, they provided a company with an opportunity to advertise, using an insert, and let's be clear, it was just an over-sized ad, not them endorsing what was being said inside. Also they are a newspaper, and it is their responsibility to report both sides of a story, not just ones that suites you or any one party of thought.

So if you have the money I am sure they would love for you to advertise for unicorns, who wouldn't.

[Elemental LED staff]

If only Shell had put what was probably a massive sum of money used for that advertisement towards actual R&D for sustainable energy, which in the near future they could be profiting from...

[Milan]

Well said!

It is unfortunate that newspapers are so willing to provide a platform to those generating misinformation about climate change, and the extent to which burning unconventional fossil fuels makes abrupt, catastrophic, or runaway climate change more likely.

[Jasmeet Sidhu]

Chotto, I agree, I understand that the newspaper can (and probably must for financial reasons) accept advertising inserts like this one, and those decisions remain separate (and should) from such editorial decisions as to devote their front page on Dec. 1 stressing the need for decisive action on climate change at the beginning of the Copenhagen summit.

It was just a bit hard to stomach, as there is clear evidence that Canada will not even make the weakest of its climate change reduction targets and our national emissions will perpetually rise if it chooses to continue to develop the tar sands. It was such blatant propaganda on Shell's part, especially in light of recent news that two U.S.-based firms are pulling out from the Alberta Tar sands supply. Canadians and American companies are beginning to realize how horrible the Tar Sands are, and they are scrambling to keep face with ploys like these.