The Teach2010 controversy may educate us about what we post on our websites
So apparently BCTF public relations operatives work the Saturday shift. We got another email telling us that VESTA did not "endorse" the Teach2010 event, despite putting the information on their home page with no disclaimer that it was from a third party. The teacher's union has since taken the link down.
Does posting any kind of information like this on your website imply tacit support for a cause? Our readers and the general public will be the judges of that. CityCaucus.com has removed language suggesting any official endorsement came from VESTA. Maybe this is a lesson to organizations who want to put politically charged messages out without vetting them with their members.
Anyway, here is hopefully the last in a series of emails from the BCTF.
Thank you for striking out the word "sponsorship" from the "Vision's School Board chair defends political program aimed at children" story. However, "endorsement" is just as inaccurate. There is no relationship. Please ensure your story in no way indicates an official relationship or misleads readers. A link was posted. That is all.
From the Teach 2010 website: "Teaching 2010 Resistance has not been officially endorsed by any educational body or teachers' union, nor are we seeking any such endorsement".
After reading another story on your website, I am also concerned about the quote, "VESTA's (Vancouver elementary teachers union) distasteful campaign to brainwash our kids about the Olympics being bad" in the "Raymond Louie finds Burrard Bridge billboard graceful" story. That too is false. There is no such campaign by VESTA. Please retract or change that as well.
Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.
BCTF Media Relations
The third paragraph in the email resulted in this post being updated.