The Bar Towel

The last part of the article is the most telling. This just makes me sad.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... -says?bn=1

"At Queen’s Park, government sources said Tuesday that Hudak will be crying in his beer if he thinks he can succeed in lowering the tax on suds.

“The brewers are literally the most successful lobby that is out there,” said one Liberal insider.

“They are incredibly skillful at trying to access and influence government,” said the official, noting the combined force of Labatt, Molson, and Sleeman – and their foreign-owned parent companies – is difficult to challenge.

“Tim may say that now, but they (the brewers) will spare no expense to get things to game their way.”

Indeed, at the Liberal policy convention last weekend in Ottawa, Labatt hosted a Super Bowl-themed hospitality suite, complete with the ‘Bud Girls’ flight attendants from the TV commercials, that was hugely popular with MPPs, delegates, observers, and reporters.

A similar suite is expected for the Tory convention in Niagara Falls in April."

Mr.X wrote: “Tim may say that now, but they (the brewers) will spare no expense to get things to game their way.”

Indeed, at the Liberal policy convention last weekend in Ottawa, Labatt hosted a Super Bowl-themed hospitality suite, complete with the ‘Bud Girls’ flight attendants from the TV commercials, that was hugely popular with MPPs, delegates, observers, and reporters.

A similar suite is expected for the Tory convention in Niagara Falls in April."

It is kind of mind blowing that all it takes to influence government policy is free beer and some pretty girls who are paid to serve it to you.

Kel Varnsen wrote: It is kind of mind blowing that all it takes to influence government policy is free beer and some pretty girls who are paid to serve it to you.

Really?

Bytowner wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote: It is kind of mind blowing that all it takes to influence government policy is free beer and some pretty girls who are paid to serve it to you.

Really?

Yea I was suprised that free beer and hot waitresses was all it takes. I was thinking at minimum it would require free coke, suitcases full of cash and strippers/whores.

Well this is interesting - the last two lines regarding the Labatt convention suites have been removed from the article. It now ends with line before that.

I wonder who put pressure on the Star to remove it...

Very interesting Greg! I shot an e-mail off to Ferguson and Benzies.

Got a quick reply from Rob Ferguson. He doesn't know, said they added something in the middle and maybe the editors wanted to keep the word count down.

Bytowner wrote:Got a quick reply from Rob Ferguson. He doesn't know, said they added something in the middle and maybe the editors wanted to keep the word count down.

Word count! No way, it's a digital article for god sakes! Someone definitely did not want that out there. (I say in a conspiracy theory voice)

Really though, that does seem a bit fishy.

GregClow wrote:I wonder who put pressure on the Star to remove it...

"Yeah, maybe best to spike it? Okay. Fuckity-bye!"

Wheatsheaf wrote:

GregClow wrote:I wonder who put pressure on the Star to remove it...

"Yeah, maybe best to spike it? Okay. Fuckity-bye!"

FTW!

Actually he didn't specifically say "word count" just implied it might have been a length thing.

Cass wrote:

Bytowner wrote:Got a quick reply from Rob Ferguson. He doesn't know, said they added something in the middle and maybe the editors wanted to keep the word count down.

Word count! No way, it's a digital article for god sakes! Someone definitely did not want that out there. (I say in a conspiracy theory voice)

Really though, that does seem a bit fishy.

Cass, without knowing the specifics about that article, I've got to speak up for both Rob and the Star. I assure you, there's no conspiracy at this place -- remember, my Star colleague Dana Flavelle's outstanding series on The Beer Store a while back? Also, having spent plenty of time as an editor here, I can tell you that the same version of the story is now put into the paper as goes online. So if a story was trimmed to fit a certain space in the print version of the paper, it will also show up that way online.

Believe me Josh, I respect the Star and its writers. But you have to admit that what was trimmed could be construed as one of the more controversial things in the article. Government representatives need to watch out when they accept things from outside corporations. It's gotten them in hot water in the past, has it not?

Cass wrote:Believe me Josh, I respect the Star and its writers. But you have to admit that what was trimmed could be construed as one of the more controversial things in the article. Government representatives need to watch out when they accept things from outside corporations. It's gotten them in hot water in the past, has it not?

Yeah it's pretty 'coincidental.'

Not to mention suggesting any whiff of 'scandal' associated with a large company could cost a newspaper advertising revenue. They can't afford that these days! Best keep articles conservative & neutral where immediate impact on Ad revenue may be a consideration.

Belgian wrote:

Cass wrote:Believe me Josh, I respect the Star and its writers. But you have to admit that what was trimmed could be construed as one of the more controversial things in the article. Government representatives need to watch out when they accept things from outside corporations. It's gotten them in hot water in the past, has it not?

Yeah it's pretty 'coincidental.'

Not to mention suggesting any whiff of 'scandal' associated with a large company could cost a newspaper advertising revenue. They can't afford that these days! Best keep articles conservative & neutral where immediate impact on Ad revenue may be a consideration.

Take off the tinfoil hat. There's no conspiracy.

tuqueboy wrote:

Belgian wrote:

Cass wrote:Believe me Josh, I respect the Star and its writers. But you have to admit that what was trimmed could be construed as one of the more controversial things in the article. Government representatives need to watch out when they accept things from outside corporations. It's gotten them in hot water in the past, has it not?

Yeah it's pretty 'coincidental.'

Not to mention suggesting any whiff of 'scandal' associated with a large company could cost a newspaper advertising revenue. They can't afford that these days! Best keep articles conservative & neutral where immediate impact on Ad revenue may be a consideration.

Take off the tinfoil hat. There's no conspiracy.

Yeah, but it's always fun to talk about