Didn’t take long for the usual suspects among the mayor’s critics in the media to jump all over the details emerging of the tentative agreement signed with the city’s unions in the wee hours Monday.
The mayor could hardly contain his frustration at the line of questioning from some among the city hall press corp (corpse?) at a press conference this afternoon.
How did it come to this? How did the mayor’s relationship with the press become so strained?
In the absence of any real opposition on council, except for a misguided rump of right wingers, the media, it seems, have decided to take on the role of judge and excutioner.
It happens. Too bad all the static is clouding the real issues in this strike. Would the media prefer the strike continued? Certainly the pundits in the press would have more to write about.
As it stands, they seem to be making mountains out of molehills.
On the main issue of sick pay, the press has been particularly unrelenting in its attacks, describing the deal struck with city unions as a loss for the mayor.
Reality check: city negotiators got the best they could hope for – an end to a costly system that allows workers to cash out unused sick days at retirement.
But the media isn’t satisfied with that, judging by what’s being printed in the papers. They question why sick days banked by current city workers weren’t taken away entirely.
That was never going to happen. But apart from the questionable legality of such a move, how is that even fair?
Perhaps the current resentment the public feels towards city workers has seeped into the collective consciousness of those supposedly charged with being the gatekeepers of information.
How troubling that some among the fourth estate seem to be trying to whip up a public hysteria. It’s perhaps too harsh to say all the stirring up is to sell a few more papers, but you gotta wonder…[rssbreak]
