Mayor Denies Drug Charges

The Wall Street Journal published an updated article today called "Toronto Mayor Denies New Drug Charges."

Apparently, along with admitting to smoking crack within the last two years (I'm assuming that's how long he's been in office), he now is facing charges of bringing prostitutes into the office and using drugs after.

I also have to assume that he is refusing to leave office temporarily because it would make him look even more guilty. But what I don't like is this: why aren't we hearing what the people of Toronto have to say on the matter? Do they approve of the drug use? Do they disapprove? Do they even care? If the WSJ published more quotes from his constituents, I think this article would greatly improve in quality.

Now, journalists argue over how much to insert themselves into an article, but I think this article did a proper amount: "Speaking to reporters outside his office Thursday, the mayor denied the new allegations contained in the documents, which the police had submitted in requesting search warrants." The reader actually knows that the authors of this story worked to get the story, which isn't a  bad thing. I think it helps dispel the idea that journalists do a lot more sitting around reading press releases than they actually do.

I also wish this article would have included quotes from the people who are making the allegations against the mayor. For such a serious charge, they should be willing to discuss it with the public, show their proof. The people of Toronto have the power to make him want to leave office (think Herman Cain and how he stepped out of the running). But do they want him to? That is the biggest hole in this article. I think this could be shown as a good example of giving voice to the people...if the reporters gave the people the chance.

Unfortunately, like so many news articles these days, the 'people' are rarely heard from. For being a smaller issue (unlike, say, healthcare), citizens should have been interviewed. If they don't care, why? If they approve, why? If journalism is meant to give the people a public platform, I feel like this article failed in that respect.