Checking Brook Sanctuary social media misinformation
ANALYSIS: A snippet of misinformation circulating on Facebook this week ought to serve as a timely reminder that while social media may bring controversy, it rarely brings truth or accuracy.
An ‘‘anonymous’’ post on the notorious Nelson Snippets page stated this week, ‘‘...behind closed doors the council gave the Sanctuary Trust $250,000 of ratepayers money.. to pay for 26 tonne of brodifacoum poison...’’; ‘‘Skinner, Walker, and Dahlberg were prevented from voting...’’
Incidentally that post bears a striking resemblance to one posted by a Brook Valley Community Group member who has campaigned against the poison drop.
The author reckons the council made its decision hidden from the public, funded the purchase of the poison, and forcibly silenced councillors.
It’s been shared at least 80 times from the Snippets page alone.
Nelson may not be perfect, but it’s not North Korea.
Not only was the final vote made in public, it was broadcast on Nelson City Council’s YouTube channel where it remains for all to see, and reporter Tim O’Connell wrote about the outcome.
While the meeting did enter a public excluded section while councillors talked through confidential financial information provided by the Sanctuary, the final decision was made in public.
A quarter of a million dollars funding was approved for the Sanctuary Trust, but it’s to be used for maintenance, not the poison drop.
An initial payment of $100,000 will be made soon but applications for the remaining $150,000 would have to go before the planning and regulatory committee.
As to councillors being ‘‘prevented’’ from voting – only a councillor can make the call as to whether they vote or abstain. In this particular instance, all three determined they had conflicts of interest.
Under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, elected members are advised not to vote if they have a pecuniary interest, or a bias or perceived bias.
If they do vote when these things are at play, they open the council up to legal challenges on decisions.
Councillor Bill Dahlberg is a trustee of the Rata Foundation, which gives funding to the Sanctuary; Cr Stuart Walker said there could be a perceived bias because of his role as chairman of Nelson SPCA (and the unfavourable view it’s understood to hold on certain pest management practices adopted by the Sanctuary).
As for Cr Tim Skinner, he’s made his views on the poison drop clear: he doesn’t support it. He held a public meeting about it.
At Tuesday’s meeting he told councillors he’d reached the conclusion that were he to vote, there could be a perception by joe-public that he’d already pre-determined the way he’d vote. Skinner said he would step aside in order to protect the council’s credibility (and avoid a law suit).
People may agree or disagree with the legitimacy reasons councillors gave for abstaining, may hate the idea of a poison drop, and may question whether the Sanctuary should not have been given funding.
However, it’s important that in a sea of ‘‘alternative facts’’ and an ocean of information at our fingertips, we navigate with caution the murky waters of social media posts that report opinion as fact.
If someone doesn’t put their name on a post, treat it with caution.
As accredited journalists, we’re as much held to account as we’re tasked with holding others to account – the Press Council, the Court, and those we report on will all tackle us if we misreport things.
When it comes to matters of council, it’s important we neither exaggerate nor underestimate the power our elected members have.
They make a vast number of decisions on our behalf, but there are also checks, balances, and opportunities for us to have a say on what they do.
If we misunderstand the limits of their power, we either check out because we think we have no voice, or trust too keenly they already know what we need.
By all means the Sanctuary’s business model, future, and plans for the poison drop are in the public interest and warrant discussion (reporter Jonathan Carson took a look at both the brodifacoum debate and the sanctuary’s plans in Saturday’s paper).
But this really needs to be done against a backdrop of facts, not fear-mongering and exaggeration. That does not serve democracy.