Airing the Laundry

Recently the publisher for the Cranbrook Townsman wrote an editorial about how The Townsman and its reporters post and prior to the election had received some correspondence and communication that was not in good taste. Now the Advertiser has done the same and Black Press has decided not to publish any more anonymous comments. The Townsman is not alone. In the last week The Cranbrook Guardian has received comments, which are, the editors consider, in poor taste. Maybe these comments sent to the Advertiser, the Townsman and The Cranbrook Guardian originate from the same people.

Negative and sometimes abusive comments force any publication into a corner. We want to represent a cross section of opinion and we want all viewpoints to be heard. However there is a difference between attacking a personality and challenging an opinion. Over the last few years Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook have been accused of negativity and spreading misinformation even though we have yet to hear from any source about what that misinformation is. Too often it seems there are some who are willing to discredit or disapprove on nothing more than innuendo and hearsay. Too often accusations have been levelled at Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook about actions we know nothing about carried out by people we do not know or have never heard of. This kind of unsubstantiated tittle tattle does a disservice to the both the senders and receivers.

We, CLCS have questioned City Council on issues we felt needed more debate or explanation. We have quoted what people have said and questioned the accuracy of some statements. We do not view that as negativity but the result of healthy enquiring minds. Often we have been proven right. We accept the same in return if what is said can be substantiated with fact and not fiction. Debating ideas is a healthy way to arrive at common ground. Indeed, it is the foundation of democracy. We are proud of the Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook Society.

In the last week, since the election, we have received several unsavoury comments that we chose not to publish. They were not backed up by substantiated fact and they attacked personalities some of whom are not members of this society. We will at the Cranbrook Guardian continue to accept anonymous comments for moderation because there are many who have valid and varying opinions whose ideas need to be heard without fear of repercussion from those who judge all too quickly.

In conclusion we wish this new council all the best and have every confidence that with a diversity of opinion around the table, keen onlookers and active involved members of the community, this city will continue to grow and mature into the best it can be. We look forward to the continued debating of issues relevant to Cranbrook.