Editor:
Although conservative mainstream news media might be expected to behave implicitly apologetic towards big environmental polluters, such as the corporate crude-oil sector, the relatively few mainstream outlets of an outwardly liberal slant, conversely, might be expected to voice the alarm on all ecological threats.
However, from what I’ve observed over the last half-dozen years or so, those latter supposedly liberal-minded outlets fail to do so, even though basic common sense would dictate that genuine ecological threats and disasters would be given the highest priority.
Meanwhile, those progressive-reputation newspapers are very zealous in printing numerous stories on persecuted and disadvantaged minority groups, most notably those of race, sexuality, gender and especially stories involving society’s most disenfranchised; and, to not be mistaken, I find and crucial such journalistic social activism.
But, to me, it’s clearly counterproductively absurd to stop that fervent extensive-coverage activism short of including the environment and ecosystems gravely threatened by big industries.
Furthermore, very disturbing is the tendency to have every provincial and federal election find polled voters rating the environment as the very least – or next to it – of their election issues of importance, and, equally troubling, the economy as their primary concern.
I see it somewhat like a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely socially represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable traditionally marginalized person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line.
As a species, we really can be so narrow-mindedly over-preoccupied with our own admittedly overwhelming little worlds, that we’ll miss the most critical biggest of pictures.
Frank Sterle, Jr., White Rock