(Today’s Northumberland file photo)
Over the past decade, the steady decline of local journalism has created a vacuum—one that is increasingly being filled by the very institutions that are supposed to be held to account.
Police services, public health units, school boards, and municipal bodies are now, more than ever, the primary sources of information during emergencies and high-stakes situations. That shift brings with it a heightened responsibility: not just to inform, but to inform clearly, completely, and honestly.
When that responsibility is not met, the consequences are immediate and far-reaching.
Recent examples in Northumberland County highlight a growing and concerning trend—one where critical information is released in fragments, wrapped in vague language, or withheld altogether.
Take the recent warning issued by Lakelands Public Health regarding a “toxic drug supply” and a “notable increase in suspected drug poisonings.”
There is no question that issuing such a warning is the right decision. Public health alerts save lives. The inclusion of harm-reduction messaging—such as the need for multiple doses of naloxone—provides practical, potentially life-saving guidance.
But the effectiveness of that message is undermined when key details are omitted.
When asked directly how many suspected poisonings had occurred, the response from the health unit was that exact numbers would not be provided. Instead, media were directed to a dashboard that updates weekly.
That answer raises more questions than it resolves.
If there is enough confidence in the data to issue a public warning, then there is enough confidence to provide context. Without numbers, the public is left to interpret what “notable increase” actually means. Is it a doubling of cases? A spike over a 24-hour period?
Each of those scenarios carries a different level of urgency.
Context is not a luxury in public communication—it is a necessity.
This is not a matter of demanding granular, identifying information. No one is asking for names, addresses, or details that would compromise privacy. But providing a range, a comparison to previous averages, or even a percentage increase tied to a baseline would offer the clarity the public needs to make informed decisions.
The same applies to geographic context. In a region of Northumberland County with more than 90,000 residents, a blanket warning across an entire county risks being perceived as distant or irrelevant. Identifying a municipality or general area—without being overly specific—would help residents better understand their level of risk.
Without that, the message becomes diluted.
And diluted messages are often ignored.
A similar pattern emerged earlier in the week during the first of two swatting incidents at St. Mary Secondary Catholic School in Cobourg.
A bomb threat called in during the morning hours prompted an immediate response. Students were initially held in a “lockdown” from what police stated, before the school was evacuated 45-minutes later, with students walking to the Cobourg Community Centre.
In the aftermath, the school principal stated in a release to partents that police had conducted a “thorough sweep” of the building.
On its surface, that statement is meant to reassure. It suggests diligence, completeness, and a high level of care.
But it also invites scrutiny.
What constitutes a “thorough sweep” in a school environment? In a building with hundreds of lockers, classrooms, and common areas, the phrase implies a comprehensive and methodical search. Yet questions remain about how that search was conducted and whether specialized resources—such as canine units trained in explosive detection—were deployed.
When those questions were raised, the response from the school board was to redirect them to police.
“Regarding your questions about what kind of “sweep” was done at the school, please refer those to the Cobourg Police Service as they could answer how they conducted their investigation and how they cleared the school,” stated School Board Communications Manager Mark Giunta.
That deflection is problematic.
The statement originated from the school. If the language used is intended to reassure parents, students, and staff, then the institution issuing it should be prepared to stand behind it—and explain it.
Words matter. Particularly in moments of crisis.
Using definitive language without providing supporting detail risks creating a false sense of certainty. And when that certainty is later questioned, confidence begins to erode.
These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a broader pattern.
Across multiple public institutions, there appears to be an increasing tendency to control messaging rather than communicate openly. Information is released selectively. Questions are redirected or deferred. Details are withheld under the guise of process, policy, or timing.
Nowhere is this more evident than with the Cobourg Police Service.
There have been documented instances where serious incidents have not been publicly disclosed in a timely manner—or at all. Oversight bodies such as the Police Services Board, tasked with ensuring accountability, have been largely silent. Failing to ask questions to Cobourg Police Chief Paul VandeGraaf. Police Board members have never asked appropriate questions to the Chief or Communications Officer citing it’s an operational issue controlled by the Chief. But in a public forum – ask and let the Chief state it himself.
VandeGraafs reign at the helm of the Service is coming to an end with valid questions about transparency rarely asked.
Questions that should be asked in public forums often go unaddressed.
All of this stands in direct contrast to the stated core value of “transparency.”
Transparency is not a line in a mission statement. It is not a communications strategy. It is a commitment—one that must be demonstrated consistently, especially when it is inconvenient.
It means providing timely, accurate, and complete information. It means answering reasonable questions directly, rather than redirecting them. It means acknowledging uncertainty when it exists, and correcting information when necessary.
Most importantly, it means respecting the public’s ability—and right—to understand what is happening in their community.
There is, of course, a balance to be struck. Not all information can or should be released immediately.
Privacy concerns are real. Investigations require integrity. Data must be verified.
But those realities do not justify vague language or the withholding of basic context—especially when public safety is involved.
If anything, they make clarity even more important.
Because when information is incomplete, people fill in the gaps themselves. Speculation grows.
Misinformation spreads. Trust weakens.
And once that trust is lost, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild.
In an era where fewer journalists are available to ask difficult questions, the importance of asking them only increases. The role of the media is not to amplify messaging without scrutiny—it is to test it, challenge it, and clarify it for the public.
That is not adversarial. It is essential.
Public institutions should not fear those questions. They should welcome them.
Because a well-informed public is not a threat to authority—it is the foundation of a healthy, functioning community.
Without clear communication, that foundation begins to crack.
And when transparency becomes selective, silence speaks louder than any press release ever could.
Author: Pete Fisher
Has been a photojournalist for over 30-years and have been honoured to win numerous awards for photography and writing over the years. Best selling author for the book Highway of Heroes - True Patriot Love
