It isn't worthwhile to take Mrs. Wente too seriously. Her manifest purpose is to poke and prod debate, though superficial and unproductive those debates may be. The real concern is what she tells us about the paper itself. As a former manager of the Globe and Mail, she does, of course, articulate and represent the underlying culture of that paper. ("Underlying" is here used in the most generous sense of the term, since, in defiance of industry norms, The Globe has allowed their editorial opinions to tilt their coverage in this or that direction.) As has been documented, in that role she engaged in unfair hiring practices, union busting activities, and managerial misconduct. But I would not blame her for it; a person can only be as corrupt as the institution that tolerates them.

So much the worse for the Globe. At best, we've come to appreciate yet another reason to decline to subscribe to that paper. But we have not yet come to reason to believe they represent the mainstream. Take the Toronto Star, which you cite above. Certainly that editorial has a certain slant. As it happens, we can criticize that slant for being marvelously inconsistent with that very same editorial board's opinions. (For instance, the CUPE 3903 strike at York University was a lawful protest, but in their eyes, was to be condemned as an act of hostage-taking; only shades away from the rhetoric of 'terrorism' that we've acquiesced into. Not so fine, it seems.) But there have also been dissenting editorials in that paper, which are quite sympathetic to both the Tamil plight and the protest: http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/632765 . So while we might conclude that they are irrational in the most predictable sense, it is more difficult to make the case that they are corrupt or racist, it seems to me.