Dear Margo:
First of all, thanks for correcting the misinformation in last Tuesday's Editor's Bulletin, even if it took my unacknowledged email to get you to admit, 2 days late, that it was wrong of you to assert to your subscribers that the Manitoba Conservatives had proposed a plastic bag ban.
If only the woes of your newspaper were limited to such trivial details.
For it is also wrong for you to publish a column entitled "A question of transparency and trust for charity" on Saturday, and expect to get away with it.
This is not my message; it is the message clearly stated in the online comments from your own readers about Gordon Sinclair's innuendo-laden lecture, based on the departure of John Mohan from the helm of Siloam Mission.
December 12, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Journalism sure has changed over the years.
Reporters knew then what was on or off limits, and based on this article, you forgot that. The paper falls down another peg. What a classless thing to do.
You could learn a thing or two about compassion from this organization Mr. Sinclair. It's a private matter and let's leave it as such.
and
Posted by: Rural Roots
December 12, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Gord, does this mean that, given how the public puts their trust in journalists like yourself to inform us about the "news" of the day, that you will from here on in ensure that your personal issues and those of all your colleagues that may in some direct or indirect (why were you grumpy in your column today, should I start guessing publicly?) your work will now be noted at the bottom of each column or in a press release?!?
and this
Posted by: Grubfoot
December 13, 2009 at 2:25 AM
"In other words, it's personal. But if what I hear from a source inside Siloam is true, there was also a highly uncomfortable professional aspect that should have made it Siloam's story to tell, too."
What made it your story to tell? There's a highly uncomfortable professional aspect to your infringing on John Mohan's right to privacy. It's more newsworthy that bleeding heart liberals are stabbing the charitable-hearted in the back.
Speaking of which, I am sure you took note of this comment:
Posted by: Jason Wayne
December 12, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Two words.......Pork Gate.
Let's compare the two stories.
Reported: John Mohan leaves his job after evidentally separating from his wife, who is still employed at the Mission.
Mohan and his wife split over something. That's personal. It has nothing to do with their jobs or the public that supports Siloam Mission. It is not "news".
Unreported: Somebody steals food from Winnipeg Harvest and gives it to Free Press employees.
That was "news", Margo.
It must have been because your striking employees bragged about receiving the 'donation' and then clammed up after it turned out the real story was not so kosher, as it were.
Not to mention theft is a crime. And the FP covered it up even after the City of Winnipeg issued a health warning about consuming thawing meat handed out by an unknown distributor from the back of a truck.
Tell us all, when a half-ton of stolen food meant for the truly hungry and poor ended up in your employees freezers, did you give them this lecture about "accountability and trust"?
The Winnipeg Free Press has no moral authority to lecture any other organization about accountability and transparency, or about ethical obligations to the public to 'come clean'.
The FP raises money from the public for Harvest every year. There's a direct connection. And your newspaper pretended nothing happened.
Siloam Mission could have used the unspoiled portions of pork to feed the poor, but instead some of your well-paid employees, accepted the pilfered, taxpayer-subsidized gift.
And now, one of your employees is criticizing Siloam for protecting the privacy of a couple in their employ? Your newspaper has been protecting the privacy of the thief and those who accepted stolen food for over a year now.
This same employee has ceaselessly been an unapologetic cheerleader for Harvest honcho David Northcott and has never asked why Northcott gave up his "investigation" rather than find the thief.
Margo, the attack on Siloam Mission exposes the selective commitment Gordo and the Free Press has to reporting on "A transparency issue for a charity that relies on the public for its funding."
And, it calls into question whether you agree with his observation "Transparency being the currency of trust."
If you do, Gordo will reveal what he knows about Porkgate.
Who got the meat. Where did it come from. Who stole it from Harvest. Why the FP did not report on it even after the city and federal health warning. How much money does the FP give Harvest. Was the meat a kickback.
I realize you have your hands full, what with one blogger discovering Gerald Flood was snookered by a seasoned PR spinner posing as an average citizen wanting credit for the Field of Dreams, and another blogger discovering that no one has even bothered to ask about the impact the relocation of Canada Post trucks to the streets of the inner-city will have on adjacent schools and daycares; and then of course there is the matter of a case of apparent plagiarism by Bruce Owen. (Who has his own link to Porkgate as you will recall).
Until you address this double standard, the great divide between the public and the newspaper of record will continue to grow wider and wider, and you will continue to scratch your head at the abandonment of readers and subscribers from the Free Press.
