Comments on: Brunt, on his conflict of interest

By: David Hutchison

David Hutchison — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:39:27 +0000

Conflict of interest?

Consider the term “media rights holders” – these are media who pay for the right for special access to the games – how on earth does that not play as a bigger conflict of interest than simply running with the torch for a few minutes?

By: Kaitlin Beckman

Kaitlin Beckman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:05:51 +0000

Cheer up. It WILL get better.

By: Kaitlin Beckman

Kaitlin Beckman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:49:27 +0000

haha thats funny! thanks for the laugh

By: Bryan D

Bryan D — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:32:59 +0000

I didn’t know that the Globe & Mail were even going to cover the Olympics. It will be the first time that a sports event in BC has appeared in their ‘National’ sports section!

By: drcsrfgfgc

drcsrfgfgc — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:59:11 +0000

BWRHXC ozrogsugbxln, [url=http://dvwnzrybnros.com/]dvwnzrybnros[/url], [link=http://qzdtsqdtbydl.com/]qzdtsqdtbydl[/link], http://agjmegcwwscq.com/

By: Mike S

Mike S — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:10:58 +0000

Brunt has often said that anyone who watches a professional sport is basically condoning the performance enhancing drug use that goes on in that sport…………………now that he has agreed to carry the torch I guess that means he is basically condoning the corruption of the IOC

By: The Mid-Week Linkage

The Mid-Week Linkage — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:59:14 +0000

[...] Houston in his Truth & Rumours blog still isn’t happy with the explanation on why journalists are participating in the Canadian Olympic torch [...]

By: Dustin Parkes

Dustin Parkes — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:36:04 +0000

I understand the nonsense around journalistic ethics, but is this really all that different than entertainment writers receiving cool media kits with swag or allowing the kids of baseball beat reporters to shag flies during spring training?

Sure, if you really want to employ a zero tolerance rule on this sort of thing, knock yourself out. I still believe it to be fairly harmless.

Nevertheless, it’s great to have this column back in a new form. Happy to read you again, William.

By: Brian p

Brian p — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:46:01 +0000

I find it difficult to believe that the amount CTV paid as a sponsor/broadcaster of the games, or whichever sponsor Brunt is implying he got in as a torch-bearer under who bought him this spot, really paid enough to defray the negative publicity this is getting. Maybe the torch relay should be solely reporters, so that there’s no one in the country to say what a dumb idea this was. Except independant bloggers, of course.

Anyway, the question I’d really like to see Brunt answer is not whether or not he thinks there’s an ethical issue here (of course he’d say no), but what exactly he thinks he’s done to deserve this spot. Having little kids and former Olympic heroes carry the torch makes people tear up and is a lovely thing. Having reporters do it reminds people of what a corrupt, money-grubbing machine the Olympics really are.

Sorry (but not surprised) to see Toth ditched by Sportsnet. The only reason I’d occasionally tune in to Sportsnet News instead of TSN’s SportsCentre is the off chance Toth was on. Toth and Jay Onrait are the only sports anchors I’ve seen who consistently try to be funny and can actually make it work. Every time Don Taylor tries to be funny I feel like stabbing him.

By: marion, madam librarian

marion, madam librarian — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:06:16 +0000

Commenting on a comment . . . just wondering – why is owning property in Newfoundland and paying property taxes important vis a vis carrying an Olympic torch ? If taxes paid were a bona fide selection criterion, then perhaps the citizens of B.C., who bailed out the construction overrrun expenses recently, via their public purse, are the most qualified ? There definitely is a Santa Claus in this situation – he is us.