[mea] FW: News editor makes news again

From: "Cheri Frazer" <cfrazer@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:48:11 -0000

Forwarded (with permission) from the EAC listserv.

=========================================================================
Here's another example of an editor being on the other side of the desk.

http://www.burnabynow.com/issues05/063205/news/063205nn6.html 

I was interviewed about an insecticide that could affect local streams 
after sending a press release out for our volunteer streamkeeper group. It 
never ceases to amaze me how it feels to be on the interviewee side, and 
the dismay that crawls up the back of your neck when your comments have 
been misinterpreted.

It's not a horrible story, it's just that I didn't say quite what it says I 
did! At least my name was spelled properly :-).

I sent in a request for a correction today:
-------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the extensive article on the chafer/insecticide issue, 
however I have several concerns about how some of the information was 
presented.

1) I never said that there was a "potentially deadly impact of the chemical 
on spawning salmon...." Salmon enter creeks, they spawn, they die. The key 
is the chemical has a potentially deadly impact on the bugs in the water 
that are part of the food chain for hatching fry, resident fish, and other 
animals.

2) "Cipywnyk said coho salmon fry are especially susceptible to chemicals 
because they have to live in the local creeks for up to a year...." I never 
said fry were susceptible to Merit, which is the implication in this 
statement. Again, the issue is that the chemical is toxic to the bugs in 
the water, and the fry eat the bugs.

3) I never said "... if the chemical was to enter the storm sewer system, 
it could flow into streams and kill salmon runs throughout the city." 
Again, it's the bugs.

4) I never said "... Burnaby's storm drains should be considered aquatic 
habitat." I said storm drains lead directly to streams and creeks.

I am concerned that these misrepresentations could hurt my credibility as a 
streamkeeper, and even potentially leave me open to accusations of 
misinformation from the manufacturer of the insecticide.

I would appreciate it if the paper could publish a short correction or 
letter to the editor along the following lines:

"Paul Cipywnyk thanks the Burnaby Now for its environmental coverage, 
however he would like to clarify that he did not say that the insecticide 
Merit would directly affect spawning salmon or coho salmon fry. The key is 
that the chemical is known to kill the water bugs that fry and resident 
fish eat. He also did not say that storm drains should be considered 
aquatic habitat, but that they lead directly to local streams and creeks, 
conveying chemical runoff and other pollutants into sensitive aquatic 
systems."

-----------------------------------
Follow-up message
-----------------------------------

By the way, the paper has agreed to publish a letter to the editor with my 
concerns. Initially the reporter sounded quite upset, saying that he always 
does his best, and after going over some of my points, we came to an amicable 
conclusion.
[mea] FW: News editor makes news again

Other related posts:
