I used to half believe that the local media was guided by the politicians mentioned above. Bucholtz' article in the Times has changed my opinion, and I believe his paper now deserves first prize for having that attitude. In addition, I cannot imagine how he does not understand the duties of the Auditor General.

The article written by Bucholtz was absolutely the worst piece of garbage I have seen with his name on it. He shoots the messenger with the same gusto as the Liberal MLA chorus of voices in Victoria. Their ignorance of the the duties of the Auditor General is shameful enough, and echoing their opinion is a mockery of good journalism.

Pick up the phone Frank, and call anyone listed and living to the west of Victoria out Sooke/JordanRiver way. You might then write an accurate opinion from those who live where this land use give-away occured. You'll get a heated blast from the horses mouth for sure.... but wait a minute, 'cause that requires a bit of investigatve reporting! Sorry. Silly me !
Methinks | 07.18.08 - 3:38 pm | #

If anyone has any doubts about the duties of B.C.'s Auditor General, go to www.bcauditor.com When you get there tab on "About us" The tab down to "Performance Audit Methology".

If you have any remaining doubts about the Auditor General doing exactly what he is supposed to do, they will be nullified by the job description right there. Period.

That should also make it clear that the defensive statements made by Coleman's coleagues is nothing more that deflective smoke and shameful behaviour by public officials.

Premiere Campbell should know better that to let this crap go on any further.
Methinks | 07.18.08 - 5:13 pm | #

You have been saying for years that the local papers are partisan and I have since taken note that the Times especially in their editorials when talking about the MP and MPPs is consistently very supportive,generous and flattering of them and certainly never critical. Insofar as the Township council again when referring to the males on council especially the Mayor and of late Counciller Bateman the same is the case. Even more so, after mentioning a quote or action about them most often a very kind word or compliment is also attached in the same editorial especially such as he is a great addition to council, he is doing a great job, he is +, etc. Invariably though in my observation and opinion when commenting on the only female on Township council, Kim Richter, the same has never ever occurred since I have been watching for this over the last two years.

To make my point when the Times Editor commented about Counciller Richter and her motion about investigating the high incidence of cancer in children in Walnut Grove it seemed grudging, cold and distant about her initiative and certainly there was no significant or equal considerations or compliments or congratulations on her initiatives, work or motion then or ever in the past that I could find.

In fact in another recent Editorial the same Editor even went so far as to go suddenly very far off topic in his editorial and say that she is always negative and very critical of the other members of council. This comment was not pertinent at all to his editorial gist of his editorial and stunned me. Since watching for these biases over the last year and a half it has become clear in my opinion that the bias is certainly there.

The question is is it conscious/deliberate or unconscious? But certainly it is very noticeable and definitely at minimum a very unfair systemic bias of some kind in my mind.

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 07.20.08 - 11:15 am | #

Embarrassing isn't it how the Editor of the Langley Times seems to this reader to be increasingly a dedicated one man, one paper apologist for the Fab 4 and a half?

See: http://www.bclocalnews.com/surre...n/ 25596214.html

Note in today's Sunday Times Editorial pages that the editor felt it important to clarify the Taughm editorial cartoon that is drawn with a Hell's Angel guy embracing Mayor Alberts in their political cartoon. Wonder how Taughm likes this editorial addendum? I never saw the Editor clarify a Taughm cartoon directly below the cartoon before! Wonder if he corrects the reporters to this degree as well too? BTW the clarification obviously basically supported Mayor Alberts again by clarifying that it: " ..satirizes the impact of incorrect perceptions."! Duh! Once again another gleeful slam at the competition's error perhaps? I just love rubbing salt into open wounds too! lol.

And again on the next page he clarifies with another footnote a minor item in an angry writer's letter when the writer said Coleman is deriding the Auditor General. The Times Editor, in my opinion, essentially comes to the defense of the de facto leader of the Fab 4 and a half once again by clarifying, quite rightly so this time, that MLA Rich Coleman has not said anything publicly about the Auditor of a critical nature. Not Yet! But just about anyone else in his Liberal party caucus and most specifically so his Forestry minister successor have certain;ly lowered the boom onn the Auditor! Even though it's as obvious as the nose on your face to anyone with half a brain that the back room Lib strategists and big party poo-baahs certainly all as Michael says; very likely strategically "slimed" the Auditor in my opinion too.

Chief apologist? What do you think? To be fair though to the Times Editor though, at least he printed the two letters hitting on the Liberals and Coleman re the $150 million forestry land giveaway. My guess though is there were no supportive letters and many more angry letters! Don't worry though the insider back room political letter writers supporting the Libs and Coleman will be coming out shortly methinks. It's probably just tough right now to figure out how to best defend this $150,000,000.00 Minister Rich Coleman land give-a-way deal! LOL.

Bottom line, can the Fab 4 and a half ever do any wrong Mr. Times Editor? Why not?
LFP Editor | 07.20.08 - 12:46 pm | #

I'd like to add that the Langley Times must assume that his readers are all very dumb. Selling his point of view the way he did is plain and visible cheap politicking. Disguising his bias as his opinion might have passed scrutiny except that he was trying too hard.

Edited By Siteowner
Lois Lane | 07.21.08 - 10:30 am | #