Over the course of the last four years I have submitted numerous letters to the editor, all of which have been published. Along the way, I have become most appreciative of the editorial staff and have quite often come to their defence. Unfortunately, I find myself having to provide an unflattering critique of the front-page story (Gazette, July 29) under the heading; "Crouse calls court case a trophy hunt." Although the topic of the legal action is unquestionably appropriate for the front page, the Gazette deserves admonishment for reporting it in an uncharacteristically tabloid style. Additionally, due to the presiding justice in the case reserving his decision the matter is technically still before the courts, to wit the media generally treads carefully.
In a rather unusual move, the article deflects attention from focusing on the hearing itself pertaining to alleged acts of omission (pecuniary interest) on the part of the respondent (Nolan Crouse), and refers to applicant (Steve Stone) and those providing evidentiary information via affidavit, subject to cross examination.
Virtually no mention was made concerning the preponderance of the evidence submitted by the applicant when compared to the verbal arguments put forth by the respondent's counsel. Questioning the appropriateness of the person (Cameron MacKay Sr.) who assisted the counsel (Brent Rathgeber) for the applicant in acquiring transcripts and the like serves only to cloud the real issues. Regardless of the fact that none of this was pertinent to the case itself, it nonetheless constituted the better part of the article and in so doing gave undue attention and credence to the respondent's conspiracy theory. The expected objectivity of reporting was sadly lacking resulting in unnecessary controversy on the eve of an election cycle. Whether this occurred by design or default matters not.
Truthfully, my consternation would have been considerably lessened had this matter appeared on the 'Our View' editorial page where subjectivity is both expected and accepted, as opposed to the front page that is normally reserved for stories that provide the reader with genuinely new, unbiased and relevant information.
As far as Nolan Crouse's description of a 'trophy hunt' is concerned, I will simply point out that even if it were true such political opportunism cuts both ways. I prefer to think of it as one side earnestly and rightfully seeking justice while the other desperately tries to evade it.
Murray Lambert, St. Albert
