When a local paper decided to recently ‘out’ 10 of the 114 people who signed a register to hold a referendum on the financing of the arena/pool project, it predictably - to most people, perhaps not to them- outraged a number of residents who felt they were wrongly singled out.
While not technically illegal to publish information obtained in a public register, it nonetheless is slightly unethical and unfair to those who signed in secrecy to have their names plastered on the pages of a local paper. Even more disconcerting is the fact that a mere 10 people out of 114 were unfairly mentioned.
“Gotcha journalism”, the deliberate manipulation of the presentation of facts in order to portray a person or organization in a way that varies from an accurate or balanced review of the facts, is considered unethical because it's deliberately biased reporting. Sensationalistic and inflammatory by nature, its intent is to provoke, tantalize, frighten, shock and awe.
Still, it’s used all the time in political reporting. The difference, however, is that politicians are public personas. By running for office, they knowingly, if not always willingly, placed themselves in the line of fire.
Private citizens, however, never signed up for this treatment, and therefore shouldn’t be subjected to the same rules. It’s their democratic right to voice their disagreement in private, without being exposed or having the accusation that they are rabble rousers and naysayers hanging over their heads like Damocles' Sword. How are incidents like this supposed to encourage further participation in future registries and referendums, if those who take the time to cast a vote are vilified in the local media?
It’s their democratic right to voice their disagreement in private, without being exposed or having the accusation that they are rabble rousers and naysayers hanging over their heads like Damocles' Sword. -
As taxpayers and residents of Westmount these people had a basic democratic right to express their hesitation about the project, about the timing of the register and about the many question marks still associated with it.
It’s unfortunate that at some point, someone somewhere decided that daring to disagree with popular opinion was anathema and that dissent should immediately be interpreted as disloyalty.
Are critical scrutiny and alternative proposals automatically interpreted as questionable and frowned upon? Is voicing dissent and disagreement with popular opinion now tantamount to being a trouble maker?
Yes, there is more that is expected of Westmount residents than to merely pounce on every mistake that their local administration makes, question every decision that they take or downplay their successes, but there is just as much importance attached to a democratic process that, not only allows for dissent, but actually encourages it.
