Letters to the Editor

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Editorial: The Issue of Fairness

“There’s some potential here but it’s pretty one sided which isn’t a hallmark of quality journalism.” – Anonymous commenter to the Purple Violet Press site

The Purple Violet Press received this missive in the comments section of one of its postings recently. We wanted to address it because that isn’t how we see it, nor would that be the perception by anyone who has taken the time to read through our postings.

This publication has attempted to be fair in its coverage of the shale gas issue, however, that isn’t always possible when those approached ignore queries, requests for interviews and submitted questions. When there is no comment by them, this publication can’t be reproached for not having tried.

As is often the case with other media outlets, they have stated those they’ve contacted for an interview were unavailable. This publication has done that. Scroll through and take a look.

Perhaps organizations preferring not to acknowledge The Purple Violet Press do so because they don’t see blogs as being professional or objective. We disagree. There is no reason why a blog can’t work alongside the mainstream media as a source of information. By conducting ourselves in a respectful manner with all parties involved in an issue, and reporting on it fairly, we believe it is possible.

Pulling together voices from all sides through print and video, our blog lends a unique perspective while educating the reader. And since we are a small operation, one issue is enough, especially one as big as shale gas in New Brunswick has become.

According to Navneet Alang at Techi.com, an online technology publication, the future of blogging is bright – and respectable:  

“Blogs are becoming places much more about content than the face behind it.”

We're growing and finding our way, striving to bring you interesting content from various aspects of the shale gas issue. Regardless of what anonymous armchair critics say.


  1. That was my comment. Other media seem to be able to balance out the story. My comment was not intended as a slam but constructive criticism.

  2. If it wasn't intended as a slam, why didn't you leave your name? You can approach us professionally and engage us here using your name, or you can email us, letting us know who you are. If not then it will be assumed the comments are nothing more than something from an armchair hack worthy only of deletion.

  3. Cheryl, your blog is more credible because you use your real name. The same can't be said of other blogs that cover Fredericton and NB issues under a pseudonym.

    And commenters should try using their real name more often. You should be able to stand behind your comments, otherwise people may think you are just a troll.

  4. Take it as you will. I'd remove the anonymous option then if you don't want it. You offer it as an option. Don't complain if it's taken. I actually like to see credible blogs and this one has sone potential but comes across (at least currently) as too one sided. It's friendly criticism that you can take or leave. However if you're not prepared to be challenged, even by anonymous critics, this may not be the best line of work. Personally, I hope you succeed and provide an unbiased alternative to MSM. Best of luck.


  5. You're doing great and I hope you don't give up!!!