The absence of subjects of interest--to me anyway--in today's Morning Star (with the exception of yet another of Ken Mather's well-written historical features, and another featured election candidate) left me musing on what had been bugging me since I read the Morning Star issue of September 20th.
There, on the first page, was the story by their reporter Rolke, entitled "Water advocate doesn't make the grade".
No big deal, really; it's just a story title.
But it did stick in my craw.
GVAC director Kiss, for some time, himself hadn't expected to be included in the SAC committee that will meet October 1st to begin its review of the Master Water Plan 2012.
Even Coldstream Mayor Garlick's quote from the same story: "...If people are there just to snipe, it's not helpful..." is inappropriate, and for Rolke to use the quote in his story defends Rolke's scorn.
If Garlick thinks Kiss is sniping, then he himself falls short of the listening skills he demands of his pupils.
Garlick's "snipe" comment shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. And not for the first time either.
Forget Garlick.
Back to Rolke's story heading.
There's a much-feared (among GVAC generally, and bureaucrats specifically) 'bias' against change. Opposing views are considered by directors, and bureaucrats at RDNO, to be dissention.
Dissention is feared because it can galvanize people to create change.
Director Kiss has created change. His six-year focus to achieve equity for water users has citizenry clamoring to attend Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan meetings and jostling to sign the group's petitions.
So what could have possessed the reporter to use the phrase "make the grade"?
What bugged me about the heading was that it was inappropriate and disrespectful.
Especially when referring to a man whose work as a scientist spanned years and years, and frankly, that academically...he's only a hair shy of a Ph.D degree. No small feat.
It was the simple act of choosing that entirely inappropriate phrase concerning a highly-educated man that bugged me.
Then there was the same reporter's "Public vs. private" editorial in the same edition (concerning an unrelated topic) where Rolke states "...there's no question that the media, including myself, needs to be accountable for its actions and what we choose to elevate to the status of being newsworthy." Several paragraphs later, this: "We would be accused of using our personal relationships...(and those do exist after spending years together) to cover things up."
Choose to elevate?
Yet more Rolke puffery, considering the same page's "Water Plan Scrutiny Needed" (likely written by Rolke's boss) which appropriately refers to Kiss' (and now director Spiers') determination to get the best deal for residents:
"He (Kiss) may not sit on the stakeholder committee,
but Kiss should question and raise concerns anytime at GVAC or Coldstream council.
He can continue to play a vital role in the process, and, in fact,
his not being part of the stakeholder committee
may provide him with some independence."
Exactly!
Appropriate!
Accurate!
Thoughtful!
"That's better," offers Kia, adding "better than Rolke's perennial penchant for avoiding investigative journalism by cutting 'n pasting bureaucrats' press releases."
Is Rolke mirroring director Macnabb's behaviour at GVAC meetings?
You decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Share YOUR thoughts here...