Dear editor:

There are opinions and then there are informed opinions. In the case of columnist Garth Turner, there are too many of the former and too few of the latter.

Take for example the assertion in his latest column that “Last year, the Shaw lost millions on its operations” (“The Turner Report: The town that chose to eat itself,” June 4). Compare that with the announcement by the Shaw that in 2025 it had an operating surplus of $172,000 (“Shaw sets record with $39.5M revenue,” March 26). What is factually correct?

In an earlier column, Mr. Turner indicated that the Shaw was dependent on government grants and on donations by corporations and individuals to produce the end result of an operating surplus and that without those contributions the Shaw had operated at a loss.

Would he make the same argument regarding non-cultural commercial entities that receive hundreds of millions of dollars in direct government grants or in special indirect tax write-offs to which the auto manufacturers and the oil industry are adept at prying out of pliant governments?

Only in Turnerland is a buck not a buck.

Ron Fritz
Queenston