At least someone has ethics – Ford not

alphainventions

In the Toronto Star (the one who won’t print the truth about the F150) today, there was a small article titled: GM to accept ‘lemon’ claims”. Seems that our ailing GM will accept future product liability claims, which will allow it to move on with its financial packages.

Now, I know there was some pressure for them to do so but, here we have an auto manufacturer on the ropes and they are going to protect the consumer from lemons. Unlike Ford, who won’t do a thing about the leaky windows (except not notify owners and make them pay for repairs to burnt out electronics). Myself, I am tending towards a Toyota truck (at least they are honest on recalls) but I have to give GM kudos for doing this. At least one manufacturer is seeing the downside to shafting the consumer. At some point in time, those in support of Ford will see how bigoted Ford is towards those of us stuck with a Ford lemon. Thank god old Henry isn’t around, otherwise he’d have me picked up and shoved into one of his forced labour mills, like in WW II Germany.

But I must admit I had my chuckle last week when Ford put out an ad in the the less than ethical Toronto Star. The ad shows a lot of 0 percent items for the latest Ford and states: “THIS SPRING, KEEP YOUR MONEY”. Based on mine and the experience of others, yes you might save money up front but you can expect to pay through the nose on fixing things like leaky windows and burnt out electronics, as well as blown spark plugs and leaky rear windows. Thank god they will let you save money this spring so you can support them in the fall with the bills.

http://condron.us/index.php?i=6
condron.us

alphainventions

Toronto Star – soft on Ford

alphainventions

I read an article in the Toronto Star today regarding them not accepting an award from the John Howard Society.  For those of you who don’t know, the John Howard Society tries to reintegrate criminals back into society by giving them a support network.  The offered their “Crime and Punishment” award to the Star for an investigative piece they did.  The Star refused because they might have to investigate the John Howard Society.  If you’ve read my blog, you can see why I wonder about the double standard they seem to ignore.  Just goes to show that money conquers all ethics.

Below is my letter to the editor:

 

“Winning isn’t everything at Star”, so stated Kathy English.  So is investigative reporting, based on what I have observed.  In not accepting an award from a very worthwhile organization, The John Howard Society, the Star team stated: “We obviously can’t be accepting awards from groups we might end up covering”.  If you knew my background you would probably be surprised to see me defending The John Howard Society. 

 

Based on your statement, I wonder why you accept advertising from various companies unless, you don’t investigate advertisers and focus your investigative reporting on those without a financial interest in your paper. 

 

For instance, you are aware of Ford building F150’s with a leaky front window and not telling the consumer.  As a result, the consumer is faced with thousands of dollars of repairs that could have been avoided if Ford’s ethics were a little higher.  If you knew that the police were aware of certain information and didn’t act, you’d be on them like white on rice.  Oh, I forgot, you did a story on Jane Doe. Hmmm, but then the police aren’t advertisers.

 

Below English’s column was a piece by Governor General Michaelle Jean on “Journalism’s vital role in society”.  I recommend your team read it.  She reflected on “the example set by those journalists who pursued the truth, often risking their lives to do so”, and noted, “information in the service of truth won over inaction every time.”  I guess you don’t believe in this in regards to advertisers like Ford. 

 

Sorry, but your team is obviously biased.  Too bad, that award would have looked nice up on your wall, along with the advertising copy.

alphainventions

http://condron.us/index.php?i=6
condron.us