“We are independent and non-partisan. We represent no vested interests nor will we be afraid of reporting on controversial issues or expressing our opinions.”
“By providing insight, perspective and commentary we hope to provide a forum for discussions …”
Both statements made very welcome reading to me and I am sure many others. With our local papers being part of media chains, all to often their ‘reporting’ seems founded on the principle of blandness so as to not upset anyone in order to maximize profits. Having grown up with an independent locally owned newspaper I appreciate how important and how much a local paper can contribute to the issues of a City and the lives of its citizens. With so many important issues and decisions facing our Cities the promise of “ … nor will we be afraid … controversial” and “forum for discussion” seemed an answer to prayers for bring important questions into much needed public attention, focus and discussion.
While “Could media be to blame” was on the rather safe topic of whether medias constant “if it bleeds, it leads” reporting of crime is leading to unreasonable public fears, it was a step in the right direction. You also included a report as to the Times strike and settlement. I suppose one could argue the need to ease both the public and their new paper into examinations of whether media conglomeration has left them ill served in the examining or reporting on important local and national issues. Future editions of The Post will bear witness on this.
However, in order to deliver on your promises as quoted at the outset of this letter, you cannot let statements or issues raised in the stories you report on go unchallenged.
In “Downtown looking up” you failed (miserably) to examine or question the statements: “the idea is to clear out the area where STREET URCHINS lurk…” or “…will drive out the some of the seediness that has plagued these streets in recent years.” Street Urchins? What exactly is that in reference to? Drive out seediness? Again, what does that mean? Now given the actions of the Downtown Business Association I would suspect these statements are veiled references to the continuing campaign to drive the homeless, the poor, the addicts and the hookers out of Downtown into other parts of Abbotsford.
If the Post truly wants to “report” it needs to make sure it does not accept vague euphemisms but requires the speaker to clearly spell out what they mean. You also failed to address what effect the “…clear out …” or “…drive out …” would and has had on others. I would suspect the merchants on Sumas Way have little thanks for “street urchins” driven their way. I am sure that homeowners finding these “street urchins” and “seediness” forced into their neighbourhoods, by the actions of the downtown businessmen, would have some words to pass along to Mr. Bos and associates for “what you told us…” Assuming you would care to question the actions of a “vested interest”. Moreover, I would expect that many citizens would like the opportunity to comment on the fallout of the efforts led by Mr. Bos in closing down Street Hope. Losing the source of their evening meal, being human (and thus unwilling to quietly starve) and having been forced to “clear out” into new parts of the City items previously not worth stealing suddenly became the means to food.
Instead we get a puff piece either of the other papers would or could have written. Understand I fully support the right of the Downtown to work for improvement. I just feel they should have addressed their concerns with thought and carefully chosen action. I certainly do not think it is permissible, or acceptable, that their current solution is to “drive out” their problems onto their fellow business people and the citizens in general. Of course puff pieces are far easier to write and sell than asking hard questions and holding perpetrators responsible for the consequences of their actions.
To compound the offence against your stated goals for your new paper you allowed Fiona Brent to misrepresent the upcoming referendum as an “all encompassing facilities upgrade”, when that is clearly what the referendum IS NOT about. Further you have accepted the implied assertion that the plan is a good idea without raising any of the important questions that would clearly demonstrate that this plan is far from a good idea.
You have ignored that this is about only a few facilities; overlooked Councilors Beck’s statement that this is not about IF but only When the facilities will be built; failed to to ask a representative of the Chamber of Commerce if the business people really think it is a good idea to rush to build in an over priced construction market, to build without adequate design and consultation with end users, to build a huge rink after chasing the major tenant out of town (the Chiefs), wasting money on what is in the end a pointless referendum since it is only about timing; you have not questioned what the priorities for City capital projects should be; if we should be building a large sports/entertainment complex for which there is no clear need when the money would permit the building of many needed smaller capital projects; should we be deciding what to build based on what projects are pet projects of City Staff and councilors OR should we base capital plans on the needs of the citizens, the people who pay for all the building.
Yes, it is only your second issue. Perhaps it is that you intend to raise all the questions and issues that others have failed to ask about capital spending plans. Mr. Bos is slick and facile with words, but no more than you should expect form one involved with the legal profession.
Still, as you begin so do you tend to go. If you truly want the public to “find what we (the Post) have to say useful, thought provoking and always interesting” you need to be willing to forego the easy “Puff” pieces and work hard digging into the Who, What, Where, when and Why of stories. In that way you will succeed in offering our communities the “forum” so sadly lacking and desperately needed.