Letters and editorials show an anti-development bias

What concerns me is the numerous anti-anything viewpoints you seem to favour.

Editor: As a regular reader of your editorials and letters, I must take umbrage with what I perceive to be a decided bias in your paper.  For the most part I embrace your editorial positions, both yours and that of your guest writers. What concerns me is the numerous anti-anything viewpoints you favour.

An example is the letter of John Winter (The Times, Dec. 25). It is well-written, clear and to the point. The point is so far off the mark it voids any of Winter’s concerns.

This type of letter and some editorials which are full of nothing but wild off-the-wall speculation, along with publishing baseless assumptions, does little to enhance your paper’s reputation.

Winter uses the usual scare statement without foundation, such as scarring the land for life. It is apparent Winter has absolutely no knowledge of pipeline construction.

I too have concerns about the future of British Columbia. It is not so much for me and my wife, but for our grandchildren. How will they be able to exist above a poverty level without some form of industry contributing jobs and taxes?

Winter and the others of his ilk, who are against anything productive, would probably be happy going back to the horse and buggy days, I, for one, do not support such a step. Progress in any manner is inevitable.

All I expect from your paper is unbiased reporting and a clear statement of facts. The letter from Jimmy Polk (The Times, Dec. 25) is a refreshing breeze in a sea of anti-development  dialogue.

Terry Brenan,


Pop-up banner image ×