Once again, the Spectator's Andrew Dreschel has used his column as a launching pad for a personal attack against someone he doesn't like.
Today's column, 'McHattie drops the ball on teamwork', begins:
City councillors routinely make choices about how they spend their work hours.
Sometimes they make good time- management decisions, sometimes they make bad ones.
Last week Brian McHattie made a very bad one indeed.
Dreschel notes that five councillors and the city manager missed last week's team building workshop with Chris Bart, a McMaster business consultant, but saves the lion's share of vitriol for the councillor he loves to hate.
Dreschel chides McHattie for missing the session to attend to "issues that affect his west Hamilton ward" - conveniently forgetting that he has previously criticized the councillor for his "focus on the city's big picture ... at the expense of constituent and small-business concerns".
Dreschel also dismisses McHattie's claim that Bart's team building sessions don't provide much value for a civic government - again, conveniently forgetting that he himself had criticized the session's participants for "smoking wacky tabacky or lacing their lunchtime pizzas with special herbs" over the city objective they put forward.
I understand that a column is a space specially reserved for its writer to argue opinions rather than merely state facts. It's mainly what we do here at Raise the Hammer.
I also understand that Dreschel's stock-in-trade is muckraking, or politics at its most personal.
However, any writer with as large a readership as a high-profile Spectator columnist has an ethical responsibility to form opinions based as much as possible on objective, factual analysis and not merely raw partisanship or personal animosity.
Ultimately, hit pieces like this undermine his more cogent arguments by association and cheapen the character of the masthead under which he writes.
You must be logged in to comment.