I am writing to you to register my disappointment with the tone and content of your recent coverage of the political climate in our village. I am left wondering if your intention is to reflect and report on our local politics, or to influence and shape it. Your objectivity appears to have gone missing.
Of particular concern is the recent “correction” relating to your Feb. 24 article reporting on the incidents in the Feb. 21 council meeting. This “clarification”was a dismal failure. Whereas, in the original published article, you unequivocally stated that the mayor “was correct” in his handling of the meeting according to procedural order, in your “clarification” you used very different terminology in stating that “the way it transpired may not have been correct.” Is there any doubt? The “clarification” continues: “Mayor Wood should probably have recognized the councillors…”. This sort of inflammatory rhetoric is, at the very least, counter-productive, and is only contributing to the escalation of animosity and hostility in the Harrison political arena.
The hallmark of journalism is supposed to be “objectivity”, not the choosing of sides to represent. Words matter. Choose them carefully.
I also view the position of your “clarification” directly below the colourful headlines applied to two “Anti-council” letters to the editor blaring “Fighting for peace in Harrison” and “Harrison Hot Springs run by council of children” as deliberately adding further fuel to the fire, and emboldening the anti-council faction in the village.
We have a right to expect fair, unbiased, objective reporting from our journalists. Since your paper is delivered to every door in the village, there is certainly no need to try to boost circulation using sensationalism. Everyone needs to calm down.
Harrison Hot Springs