We must overcome crisis of differing opinions
By Lethbridge Herald on July 29, 2018.
I am wondering how impartial The Herald can actually be in reporting on the opioid crisis? At the bottom of the front page of the Special Report section, the writers attempt to introduce the series of articles as being an objective presentation, without bias, of the crisis. I appreciate that they thought that, but their bias was still evident.
In a paragraph, almost at the end of the article we read, “From 2011 to 2016, the number of fentanyl-related deaths in Alberta increased by 6,000 per cent.” That statement does not provide impartial information. If they had shown how many deaths in 2011 and then how many more in 2016, they could then provide a statement like: “an increase of 6,000 per cent.” Impartial reporting does not try to hide or mislead in giving the information. It is merely reporting the facts as facts and not opinions. It is written to allow the reader the opportunity to form (or change) their own opinion. It is not meant to influence that decision to one specific side or the other.
I have an opinion, but I am trying to be open enough that if I feel that good information has been presented, and backed by credible sources I can be persuaded to change my mind. However, those sources must be factual, verifiable, and not emotionally driven (especially by “mass-mentality” thinking). Trusted sources (trusted by both sides) are not so easy to come by, because so many things can be found to contradict a “fact” from the opposite viewpoint.
We, as a populace, need to pull back from the emotion of the issue and try to find a common ground so we can move forward together. We all want the same end result, but there may actually be more than one way to get there. If there is, then the “other” way is not necessarily wrong, just different. I hope we can overcome this crisis of differing opinions soon, so that a reasonable and workable solution can be found.
Keith Nalder
Lethbridge
-1
