Dear Sir:
So, Black Press (The Terrace Standard division) becomes beneficiary of quite impressive windfall advertising revenues because some petrogoo consortium is having a spot of bother steam-rolling one of their schemes over a bunch of less-than-appreciative locals [—including natives in both senses of the word].
That wouldn’t have anything to do with the Standard’s suddenly-burgeoning adverse editorial interest ("Lunch time," July 4, 2012) in groups or individuals actively gain-saying said project, would it?
Where’s the editorial ire about Enbridge’s unsubstantiated claim [June 5th] that an unspecified 60% of First Nations groups [and 80% of the individuals] along the right of way support the proposal ? Enbridge’s fob-off: “Names? Oh, we can’t give you names, we’re far too discrete for that” kinda begs the question — what's being hidden?
Yet the next day, the integrity of our elected member of Parliament gets whacked on the editorial page over some polling his outfit commissioned around the pipeline issue.
Polling happens. It hardly warrants the weight of an editorial verdict. (well, maybe an editorial cartoon…) But obviously Nathan Cullen’s up to something nefarious, prompting the editorial inquisition “what’s being hidden?” Cue the spooky music.
And now, the Bun Fight at the College! Some local ladies decide to protest--civilly and legitimately--an Enbridge attempt to ‘educate’ some select few of the yokels on the benefits of petrogoo-ing your grandkids, and the editor fumes mightily. Get a grip! Or at least loosen Enbridge’s.
John How,
Terrace, BC