Today’s editorial on the Stadium in the Otago Daily Times includes:
During the past two years, some of the letters received by this newspaper, many unsigned, some of the various diatribes published on the “blogosphere”, again made with the protection of anonymity, and the utterings of some who have descended to schoolyard behaviour over personalities, have been nothing short of a disgrace.
I am not sure what they mean by the “blogosphere” because there is very little blogging in Dunedin. Perhaps they mean the “Stop The Stadium” web-site. In any case, anonymity in blogging, or issue, sites is unusual. Even if a pseudonym is used, the writer’s real name is readily available.
The ODT continues:
We would argue such attacks have been, at least in part, fuelled by a vacuum of forthright leadership from various officials and representatives during the debate.
The accompanying lack of hard facts – even if that is only a perception – in the public arena has resulted in a cacaphony of emotional outbursts both for and against the stadium as predictable as they were, in many cases, objectionable.
Perhaps the ODT would have been fulfilling it’s role better if it had done some analysis of the Stadium project rather than just reporting the spin from the Carisbrook Stadium Trust and the Council. Blogs have helped fill the vacuum. And it is notable that some of the best reporting on the Stadium issue has come from the national weekly, the National Business Review. To give the ODT credit, they have printed opinion pieces from writers such as Calvin Oaten and Peter Entwhistle.