today they published this garbage on the front page: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/815036--before-bryant-s-saab-came-attack-on-bmw?bn=1
i want to know how much the toronto star is getting out of running these blatantly PR-firm fed stories about darcy sheppard and why he deserved to die.
anybody working for the toronto star with half a soul (like, perhaps, antonia zerbisias, who wrote this great article about the case and how it's a class issue/how it's being spun) should be protesting the garbage-ification of their workplace.
so i'm going to use my powerful deconstructive tools and talk about the most offensive passage written in the toronto star for a very long time:
"It had been nearly nine months since Bryant and his wife were driving along Bloor St. after an anniversary dinner, when a drunk Sheppard approached the convertible's window.Bryant's car had stalled and, when he tried to accelerate, Sheppard landed on his hood. The cyclist became enraged and grabbed onto the side of the car. Fearful for his wife's safety, the court heard Wednesday, Bryant took off.About 100 metres west, Sheppard hit a fire hydrant and fell to the road, suffering fatal injuries"
"It had been nearly nine months since Bryant and his wife were driving along Bloor St. after an anniversary dinner, when a drunk Sheppard approached the convertible's window."
ok, let's start here. it's been nine months since our hapless victims, bryant and his wife, were celebrating their anniversary. by starting a description of the incident with bryant and his wife just "driving along bloor st." digesting their anniversary scratchins, we're meant to understand that bryant and his wife are not only the main characters here, but they are also the victims of some kind of weird fate. if only their anniversary wasn't being celebrated! if only they hadn't driven down bloor st! if only they hadn't been staying at the four seasons!
suddenly, bursting their anniversary bubble, "a drunk sheppard approached the convertible's window."
i would be willing to bet that the PR firm actually wrote this story. sheppard approaching the convertible window doesn't make sense. for what? he didn't just come up to the window, he must have been riding his bike, right? so why all of the sudden the lack of detail?? we're given so much detail about bryant and his perspective but none about or by sheppard--this is a classic move meant to familiarize us with bryant, to force the reader to sympathize with bryant. it's actually brilliant.
"Bryant's car had stalled and, when he tried to accelerate, Sheppard landed on his hood."
again, painting bryant as a victim. it's almost like a highway ghost story: his car was stalled, there was a monster at his window, oh god what will happen next!!
well what happens next is that, magically, sheppard LANDS on the hood of bryants car!! just lands there! bryant is just sitting there, in the euphoria of his lasting marriage, and some cyclist has the nerve to land on the hood of his convertible.
"The cyclist became enraged and grabbed onto the side of the car. Fearful for his wife's safety, the court heard Wednesday, Bryant took off."
the cyclist wasn't just angry, he was enraged. first he landed on the hood of a car, then he became enraged. i'm surprised they don't describe him here as growing a few sizes and ripping his shirt off. maybe he picked the car up and took a bite out of it too?
ok, so he didn't take a bite out of the car, but he did grab onto the side of the car. take note though: if we hadn't read any other story, we wouldn't really know why he was grabbing the car. we could guess, but we're not getting any details. no details and the "drunk" accusation make it sound like sheppard just kind of hit the hood on his own and was so drunk he didn't realize it was his own fault.
"About 100 metres west, Sheppard hit a fire hydrant and fell to the road, suffering fatal"injuries."
and finally, placing all of the blame on the victim. sheppard "hit a fire hydrant". he wasn't smashed into one on the side of a speeding car, he just hit the hydrant and fell to the road. that's it. the person responsible didn't speed off or anything.
the rest of the article describes circumstantial evidence: that sheppard was a "mad man", a "sociopath", a drug addict, an alcoholic, part of a problem community(couriers?? really toronto star??), and "shirtless".
so, basically he asked for it. bryant and his wife were just victims of circumstance, the victims of a notoriously shirtless and drunk mad man. he was practically a serial killer.
the toronto star should just change it's name to whatever PR firm wrote that article. this bullshit spinning combined with the sensationalizing of violence that spews from rosie dimanno = a newspaper rapidly losing any credibility it may have once had.