Citizen editors, tell me, why are people who are already sentenced in court only briefly mentioned on page two of your paper with no images, while a man who has only unproven, alleged, wrongdoings receive a full picture on the front page?
You end your article stating the victim of your smear story "... is not facing any criminal charges."
That appears a moot point because your paper has just contributed to ruining this man's professional image, career and most likely his mental health.
What reason other than sensationalism could possibly lead you to print a big, full colour, picture on the front page of a man deemed innocent by a Supreme Court hearing?
You glaze over that this man had only unconfirmed allegations and report nothing of how, although this woman came forward and marred his good name, she didn't press charges.
This seedy bit of pulp reporting reeks of lurid tabloidism and your shameful desire to sell some extra copy has likely played a part in the destruction of this young man's career. And you call yourself a part of this community?
Isn't reporting supposed to be unbiased and intended to bring a full story to light? Why not add that although this tragedy is ongoing for Mr. Scott, he has dozens of women clients who don't feel the need to have a 'chaperone' in the room. Why not do some real investigating and report their stories?
By catering to a market that feeds on scandal and half-truths you have jeopardized not only Mr. Scott's professional life but also The Citizen's credibility.
You have nothing to be proud of in printing this story and image. At the very least, why not print this sensationalized story, without the picture, on page three after those who have actually been charged?
I can only hope that others see this story for what it is and cancel their subscription to your rag post haste.
Renee Gomes
Prince George
