The Invisible Slate: The Unspoken Fourth Dimension in Prince George's Election

A recent Prince George Citizen editorial rightly warned voters to scrutinize third-party groups, noting that corporate-backed collectives can function as unelected "slates" pushing a specific agenda. It's a fair point. But the editorial left something out - it never turned that same scrutiny on itself.

Was that an oversight, or part of a broader pattern? Since the new ownership took over, the Citizen has built an identity around being "pro": pro-community, pro-business, pro-city. There's nothing wrong about cheerleading the local community, and on that count the paper deserves some credit. The Citizen also isn't shy about scrutinizing council decisions or specific councillors. But there's a difference between holding others accountable and applying that same lens to the people and business interests that fund and own the paper itself. In today's media environment, outlets are squeezed, and more often than not there is a dependence on advertising to survive.

The Citizen's advertising revenue is one of the pieces missing from the editorial. An unelected advertiser like the Citizen can shape the election narrative just as easily as an unelected third-party sponsor. Take the mayoral race. As of this writing, Roy Stewart's campaign ad is by all accounts currently the only mayoral ad running in the Citizen. That's presumably a paid placement, but it raises questions: is there any personal or professional connection between the paper's owner, Cameron Stolz, and Stewart's campaign? And would the paper accept advertising dollars just as readily from Kyle Sampson, a candidate the Citizen has been openly critical of throughout the year?

Unless the paper is prepared to rotate mayoral advertising evenly across all nine candidates, it's worth asking whether accepting paid advertising amounts to an unofficial endorsement. This process is all above board, and a common way for media outlets to operate. It's also exactly the kind of influence the editorial asked readers to be alert to — albeit they omitted to include themselves in that warning.

That omission is telling. The editorial urges readers to follow the money behind third-party sponsors and ask whose interests they serve. That standard should apply just as much to the paper itself.

The Citizen is owned by a prominent local businessman and former city councillor who currently sits on Elections BC's disqualification list, which puts it inside the same local business and political network that produces the third-party sponsors it's cautioning readers about. It's also worth asking whether that ownership shapes what the paper chooses to cover.

When a newspaper writes itself out of that picture, it isn't journalism, it's a public relations exercise for itself.

Every story involves choices about what to include and what to leave out, and in this election, the paper's own influence is one of the things being left out. A genuinely informed electorate needs to see the whole picture, not just the version that's comfortable for the people who own the press.

The most consequential slate in this election might not be the one printed on a third-party pamphlet — it might be the one running on the Prince George Citizen front page.