Reporting wasn’t unbiased in Phillips investigation story
By Lethbridge Herald on November 15, 2025.
Editor,
As a Lethbridge resident, I believe it’s vital our discussions about policing and accountability be based on facts, not emotions. The recent CBC reporting on the Shannon Phillips–Lethbridge Police investigation raises fair concerns — but also shows how logic can get blurred by the way a story is told.
The article leans heavily on emotional appeal, quoting Phillips’s frustration to make readers feel outrage rather than examine the evidence. It also generalizes that if the system failed her, it must fail everyone — a claim that sounds persuasive but isn’t proven.
The story further suggests that because ASIRT recommended charges and none were laid, justice must have failed, without explaining the Crown’s higher legal standard for prosecution.
Add in loaded language and missing context, and readers are steered toward one conclusion before hearing the full picture. If we want real accountability and trust in Lethbridge, we need journalism that informs rather than inflames — and readers willing to spot logical fallacies before drawing conclusions. Logic matters as much as justice does.
Maxine Browne
Lethbridge
8-7
A factless and emotional plea against factlessness and emotion.
Getting little tired about hearing about the Phillips saga. There’s so much being said about her one came make a trilogy of movies. Please stop! She is out of politics, other than teaching the poison she believes in at the U of L, and doesn’t deserve a single letter or punctuation mark in the news.
Just like Charlie what’s-his-name..
There’s a difference between the two. Charlie Kirk provided values to live by. Yes it may seem or be extreme, but his point was, and always will be, a respectful debate with actual facts, not your feelings because, well, everyone’s feelings is different, but facts are there, and if it can be proven over and over getting the same result, then there’s no point arguing against it.
Charlie Kirk was a misogynist, a racist bigot, and homo/transphobic. He was a climate-change denier, spread misinformation about COVID19, and was critical of civil rights legislation. He promoted the so-called “White Replacement Theory,” was the great polarizer and contributed significantly to the erosion of civility and civil discourse.
Yes, he did “debate” those who disagreed with him, but he didn’t engage in good-faith debate. He was a bully who didn’t seek common ground or consensus.
As I used to tell my students, who looks up to you and who you look up to, says a lot about who you are and your character.
Good faith debate? I beg to differ. He did prove his points with facts, recited the Declaration of Independence to the letter and proper interpretation, he challenged anyone even though it seemed that the delusional left came to “debate” him, and all without any notes. He opened a lot of eyes to the people, and he even convinced those who were for abortion, and were going to get an abortion, to change their minds. Sure, he’s outspoken, but what about those on the left? Are they not outspoken as well? Then again, maybe these leftists protester where getting funding by the likes of George Soros to keep the country divided and fighting amongst each other while the real damage is coming forth from the roots of the deep state.
From your comments I draw two conclusions. First, assuming you have watched some of Charlie Kirk’s videos, you have no idea what a good-faith debate is. Second, your reference to the deep state suggests you’re immersed in the world of alternative facts and identity politics.
no, these are facts that have not been taught in schools because it’s not the agenda of the elites to have us learn that. It’s been going on since the implication of the federal reserve and getting off the gold standard. It’s called “question everything.” If it doesn’t make sense, then why?
Says the clown who says he goes around the streets of Lethbridge riding a broom.
Flake!
really? Questioning everything makes me or others a flake?
I know where this is going, except for your reference to the gold standard. That’s a head-scratcher.
That said, I note that you haven’t challenged my characterization of Charlie Kirk with any of your so-called facts.
unless you can prove what CK is, then it’s just an opinion. You don’t know about the gold standard, what Nixon then later Pierre Elliot Trudeau did in 1971? Think about it. I’ll wait
while another topic, yes, the final move off the gold standard to so-called fiat currencies was the beginning of the end of whatever remained in terms of legitimacy, and “decency”, in the world economy. nations were thrust under the thumbs of the most unscrupulous scum, as their currencies were manipulated and typically ground down by the wealthiest lenders and investors. and, at the same time, the usa dollar became king, that same usa dollar that is still king even though that nation carries an unfathomable and insurmountable 38 trillion dollar debt.
moreover, with fractional banking, the privileged few got to lend money they did not actually have on hand, 10x more, in fact. wealth, in effect, was produced out of thin air, and the filthy lender was made further rich by “earning” compounded interest on the money that is allowed to created. consequently, we have been cemented as peons under this system, ever losing ground to systemic inflation.
Charlie Kirk was certainly a controversial person. And I didn’t have much time for his approach or views. My opinion of Charlie Kirk was formed after (a) watching many of his YouTube videos and (b) comparing his behaviour and ideas against widely-accepted definitions (e.g., what is a misogynist?) and norms of civility. So, my opinion is not arbitrary or idiosyncratically subjective. It’s the result of a reasoned assessment based on evidence.
I know what the Gold Standard was, when and why it was adopted, and the circumstances under which it was abandoned. I just couldn’t understand how it related to a conversation about Charlie Kirk. I’m guessing you linked it to the idea of the so-called “Deep State.” Which is, of course, your opinion.
Mrs. Kidd (she/her) BTW, shouldn’t someone like you who wants to be “Woke” and pronoun yourself as “she/her” also not want to project “Ms.” as opposed to “Mrs.”. Your call.
However, you may want to note the realization that after Charlie Kirk’s assassination there has been a flood of people recommitting their Christian faith, one Christian Church notes 500 in number increase since the incident and similar in other churches. Even in Lethbridge some Churches are now planning additional services on Sunday to accommodate the influx of believers. Also, Christian Churches near the UofL being overwhelmed with attendance. The University Student’s Christian Fellowship is also on fire!
These are hard and real facts, and with the establishment of a “Turning point” Chapter in our City, are we talking about”REVIVAL”?
Thanks for standing up to my point. As the old adage goes, “you can’t have a battle of wits with those that are unarmed “
Given your adage, why did you need support or defending?
To be clear, my choice of preferred pronouns has nothing to do with you, the same goes for Mrs. vs Ms. But I do wonder why it threatens you to the point you feel compelled to comment? I also wonder what makes you think you have the right to comment about a personal choice of another person? White male privilege and arrogance, perhaps?
And, I don’t want to be woke, I am woke, although I suspect you and I define the term differently.
you demonstrate as much about what christ stood for as do the kkk.
Bad person, world is overfilling with Socialists who cannot an will not debate – this is a teacher – oh my!
Univercity is full of she hers. Lot of young commies coimg from there- not good for long time.
Who?
values you call them?! sure says a lot about your outlook.
Yes, most expensive politician in albertas history. Teaching at Univercity, where did certificate come from to teach at Univercity.
Thank the good Lord they are both gone!
Yo: “So if God chose you to be his holy people whom he loves, you must clothe yourselves with tenderhearted mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.”
Ephesians 6:10-18, that describes a spiritual battle. It consists of six pieces: the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (the Word of God). These are seen as spiritual tools that believers put on to stand firm against evil and temptation.
and again you entirely missed the point of the entry. just a dogmatic demagogue with a teeny weeny heart and an utter lack of a soul. recite all you will, proclaim jesus as your savior, and you better hope your god is near as much of an idiot lout as you present.
So there you have it : “ …word of God”. You thank the good Lord, yet treat others with disrespect, spread questionable news , exercise intolerance. No wonder you have the endorsement of Gandalf. “Two peas in a not so respectable pod.”
There is no other pea in my pod. I go solo.
You also missed the parts of scriptures where bad rulers are to be removed from power, and not be enabled. When kings were doing bad, they were removed from power. Making excuses to enable the corruption of the UCP and Danielle Smith to continue is weak.
Gandolf welcomes you
How’s your $400,000.00 suit against my City going Shannon?
the look on her face says “you shut your mouth” lol
What a couple of a-holes you are!
You’re right, Miss Uranus of the universe lol
Have you noticed that no one agrees with your stupidity yet you aren’t smart enough to understand it? All mouth and no brains as friends would say, and too too stupid to realize it?
What do actual Conservatives say about the UCP and Danielle Smith? We know how good Peter Lougheed was, and when he was still alive, he warned Albertans about Danielle Smith, because he knew she wasn’t trustworthy. Even his own cabinet ministers, Jim Foster and David King, know how bad the UCP and Danielle Smith are.
Former Red Deer PC Attorney General Jim Foster takes issue with Smith’s ethics violation | Red Deer Advocate https://share.google/JXtD7fjgWB6cV1kze
Opinion: Alberta undermining public education — and democracy | Edmonton Journal https://share.google/LOgpKd2Ujw58aO2gr
another whitewashing away of justice.
if using the police data base for one’s own political purposes – and not, as per law, in the line of of police work – is not assuredly prosecuted, there is nothing to support the law, ant therefore the law becomes moot and rather useless. moreover, this inaction fails to uphold a basic freedom while then creating a police state reality.
it is pathetic that people will support actions of the state that undermine basic rights and freedoms simply because such actions are in line with their preferences. of course, such people overlook the eventuality that fascism unchecked will eventually come back to shackle one when the totalitarian state inevitably runs contrary to one’s preferences.
such folk have either lost touch with why we have laws that are in line with with our charter rights and freedoms – you know, to uphold the likes of democracy and freedom – or, have ever been about militancy, intolerance, and, indeed, fascism.
hey, if she, S. P, didn’t want certain things to be leaked out, then perhaps she, S.P, shouldn’t have spoken out loud in a public place
you entirely miss the point. her rights were violated – the same rights as we all have. that violation is not being prosecuted, and the big issue then becomes that all our rights are thus violated and without near enough consequence. you may not like the person victimised, but surely you are bright enough to understand that a breach of a significant aspect of our rights freedoms is not seen as worthy of being upheld.
you do understand that the law broken is one that helps us avoid falling into a police state?
while you may have the right to speak in public, expect a response in return. If S.P didn’t want certain information leaked out, there perhaps was a better place to speak on such topics. There’s always a consequence with whatever choice we choose, good or bad.
Absolutely correct, we, (tax payers) pay lots to accommodate MLA Phillips by providing luxurious offices in Lethbridge and also in Edmonton. These offices, I strongly suggest, are for holding conferences and meetings in a private and confidential manner. Phillips disregarded her privilege of her secure office and chose to convene in a public coffee shop, maps laid out on tables for everyone to observe (this according to investigative official reports). One question, WHY? On the other hand six months of salary and absolutely no response from her to constituents who tried to contact her by e-mail, phone, written letters AND visits to her office! Most unfortunately Rob Miyashiro is following in her footsteps and West Lethbridge constituents who need government info or direction are defaulting to MLAs Schow and Nuedorf and that with excellent response I might add! NDP, no way!
again, you miss the glaring point of this issue. we all have the right to share and discuss what we want (limited by the rights and freedoms of other), and whether or not s.p discussed her concerns in public does not warrant ILLEGAL actions by cops, and, nor does it justify cops abusing her rights – and, what amounts to our rights.
again – the laws in place that were broken in this case are a significant aspect of what underscores our rights and freedoms, and protects us from being a police state. to not prosecute this obvious breaking of what is a significant law invites the police state and is an affront to our rights and freedoms.