Dear editor:
Reading Richard Harley’s impassioned editorial in The Lake Report from Feb. 12 felt like a gut punch to the stomach (“Editorial: Transparency and the role of local media“).
In the editorial, Richard speaks about a letter from NOTL CAO Nick Ruller published in The Lake Report.
In the letter, Ruller complains of inaccurate reporting from local media outlets and goes on to state that he has “directed that town staff no longer respond to these types of opinion-based requests, and to focus only on matters of fact and policy by reporters acting in a reporting capacity.”
Really? So now it is up to town staff to analyze requests from the press to determine if they focus on matters of fact?
According to Ruller’s directive, town staff will also have to determine if the request is from a fact-based or an opinion-based journalist. What criteria will they be using to do that? What about a journalist who does both?
If government employees are now the arbitrators of what the public is allowed to know, does that not go completely against the idea of an independent press? Is not one of the roles of government to keep the public informed and allow the press to examine their actions and report on what they find?
While I have a lot of respect for Nick Ruller’s service to this community I think he’s got it wrong on this one and Richard’s editorial does a good job of explaining why.
Governments don’t like being criticized; who does? But in a democratic society, that is exactly the role journalists are expected to play. Without a press that is free to report on issues that affect the public, democracy does not exist.
Our local press does a good job of identifying which of their articles are opinions and which are reporting news. Readers can make up their own minds when reading an opinion piece, and can decide for themselves if they agree with the author or not.
Many of the things columnists write about are important to the community and stimulate public discourse and debate, essential to a democratic society.
Do the press always get it right? Of course not. They often under-report stories, print press releases verbatim without checking facts, or get the facts wrong when reporting on an event.
They are far from perfect, but what is the alternative? The one Ruller suggests is a slippery slope that diminishes the role of the press in holding governments and the powerful accountable.
I have my own issue with freedom of speech. In July 2024, I received notice of a $2-million libel suit from Benedetto Marotta and Solmar regarding a Facebook post I made over Parliament Oak. This was after many councillors reversed their position and voted to change Parliament Oak’s zoning from institutional to commercial, allowing for the construction of a four-storey, 130-suite hotel and convention facility in the middle of a residential neighbourhood.
While I can’t comment on the suit as it is still in litigation, we are currently waiting for an appeal court decision on a motion to have the case dismissed. What is most troubling, however, is what the news of the lawsuit has done to quiet the citizens of NOTL.
Public discourse about Parliament Oak and other developments in town has diminished. NOTLers have become afraid to speak out. I have been told or heard on multiple occasions things along the lines of: be careful what you say or you could end up in court.
And who can blame people for this fear? Being sued for libel by a powerful corporation is no fun. Our constitution affords more protection to writings from the press than it does for individuals.
In a time when politicians openly criticize and diminish the media and limit access to information, a free press is our best recourse to hold those in power accountable for their actions.
Kudos to Richard Harley for standing up for this fundamental, democratic right.
Stewart Hall
NOTL
