Divisiveness Is a Choice - a Bad One

At times, some town leaders appear more focused on criticizing this paper and framing it as divisive or unreliable than engaging with the issues it raises. Why?

In small towns, people often say they want honesty, transparency, and accountability from local government. But sometimes, the moment those things appear in print, there is the accusation that they are “divisive.”

That word gets used a lot these days and for good reason. We live in a time when social media algorithms, outrage, and misinformation often bury basic facts beneath emotion and noise. It has become harder to have meaningful discourse when people cannot even agree on objective information. But that confusion should not cause us to label honest journalism or public accountability as “divisive” simply because it challenges people or makes them uncomfortable.

A newspaper asks hard questions. Divisive.

A columnist points out contradictions. Divisive.

A resident publicly disagrees with leadership. Divisive.

A reporter shines light on decisions that some would rather avoid discussing. Somehow, also divisive.

But truth itself is not divisive.

Facts are not divisive.

Public records are not divisive.

Honest criticism is not divisive.

What’s happening in many cases is much simpler: people in positions of authority do not like being questioned.

That is not the fault of the newspaper.

Local journalism has always played an important role in small communities. In towns like Springdale, where decisions by leadership can be magnified, independent reporting matters even more. Without it, residents are left with filtered narratives (like the town newsletter), selective information, and public meetings where difficult questions often go unanswered.

A healthy town should not fear scrutiny. Good leadership should welcome it.

If officials believe reporting is inaccurate, they can correct the record with facts in the same publication. If they disagree with an opinion piece, they are free to write their own. That is how open communities function.

But Town leadership encouraging residents to unsubscribe from a newspaper simply because it is critical sends a troubling message: support journalism only when it is flattering and supports their narrative.

That is not accountability. That is image management.

And perhaps most importantly, disagreement is not the same thing as division.

Communities are not damaged because people speak up. Communities are damaged when people become afraid to speak up. They are damaged when criticism is treated as disloyalty. They are damaged when transparency is viewed as a threat instead of public good.

No newspaper is perfect. No writer is perfect. But a community without independent voices is far more divided than a community willing to listen and debate.

If you think the Sun is divisive, then write an article explaining why. I'm sure it will get published. Help make it better rather than discrediting it.

The issue is not whether journalism is divisive but whether some people have become so uncomfortable with public accountability that they now label any criticism as “division.”

A newspaper is not divisive simply because it tells the truth about decisions people would rather not, or maybe cannot, defend.