It is, at best, amusing, but mostly disappointing, to see The Echo reporting on the mayoral minute to Council about the negotiations with the Wallum developers last week, using the kind of journalism that Donald Trump would approve.
The Echo article (page 1, 10 April) whips up blame and division, fixing on an ‘enemy other’ (Council) to divert from what is actually the issue; planning powers taken from local communities and given to state-appointed entities, and planning and environmental laws that are shockingly weak.
It’s not like The Echo needs sensationalism to sell a free paper.
Trying to negotiate with Clarence Property was an agreed action under our resolution in February, aimed at minimising the environmental damage to the site.
No-one ever expects a newspaper to just reprint a media release from a politician – that would be lazy journalism – however, to not even publish the proposed new site map for Wallum, was either lazy or deliberate.
People might actually have wanted to know what transpired from the negotiations.
Most of The Echo story on this was about how protesters refused to compromise, which is their right, but what if that doesn’t get any result at all and we never even attempted to get Clarence to scale the development back and save some habitat?
The Echo’s editorial (page 8) scanned (through rose-tinted glasses) recent and historic protests and asked if local government, ‘is claiming to being “pragmatic” appropriate, and reflective of this community’s wishes in times of diminishing ecosystems?’. I don’t think any councillors ever told people not to protest at Wallum but can The Echo tell us what else to do that supports the community’s wishes but isn’t pragmatic?
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
