Home > Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics > Second Edition: Quality v. schlock journalism

Second Edition: Quality v. schlock journalism

Earlier in June, we established a novel award – the purpose being to compare good environmental journalism with what we call “stenography of government spin” or what other prominent media experts have dubbed “lapdogs” or “enablers”. see:”You’re Doing a Heck of a Job, Brownie” http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/06/youre_doing_a_heck_of_a_job_br.html
Today, we continue in that vein with a focus on the coverage of a story about toxic site cleanups.
Last week, we broke a major story by releasing a US EPA Inspector General’s Report that severely criticized both EPA and NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
See: EPA REPORT BLASTS NEW JERSEY TOXIC CLEAN-UPS http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1068
EPA’s own IG criticized EPA for poor oversight of the NJ DEP in supervising the progress of cleanup of delegated federal Superfund cases. EPA’s hands off “flexible” “partnership” approach to traditional federal oversight failed to hold the State accountable.
The EPA IG blasted the NJ DEP for gross mismanagement and lack of enforcement of toxic site cleanups. Importantly, the EPA IG Report demolished DEP’s excuse for failure. DEP persistently has blamed lack of staff resources and thousands of cases for backlogs and delays in cleanup. But, the IG found that DEP could provide no evidence to support this claim, so the IG called BS on this DEP argument. Instead, the IG found that DEP failure was a result of lack of enforcement, priorities, mandatory cleanup timetables, and public involvement and oversight.
The story received page one coverage across NJ and generated editorials that strongly criticized the NJ DEP.
Based on that coverage, the Murrow/Orwell is issued jointly to Sandy Bauers of the Philadelphia Inquirer for this story:
Report: inaction delaying cleanup of hazardous waste http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20080619_Report__inaction_delaying_cleanup_of_hazardous_waste.html
and to Matthew McGrath of the Asbury Park Press for this story:
DEP, EPA at odds over cleanup of Brick Superfund site
STATE FAULTED: Report urges EPA be put in charge

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008806260581
Bauers did a nice job of holding government officials accountable and presenting the key public policy issues from the IG Report. More importantly, Bauers was the only reporter to understand the significance of the IG Report and its links in undermining the justification for pending state legislation to privatize toxic site cleanup.
McGrath did an excellent job connecting the national and policy story to local conditions at the Brick landfill. His work illustrates why local officials – who have no expertise, conflicting interests in development, and cozy relationships with State DEP regulators – are the last people that should be involved in site cleanups or rendering judgement on the causes for failure and slow pace of cleanup.
The lapdog goes to Joe Tyrrell of the Star Ledger for this story:
Toxic site cleanup roles at issue – State labels report by the EPA ‘biased’
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
BY JOE TYRRELL
Star-Ledger Staff
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/somerset/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1214368611122650.xml&coll=1&thispage=1
Tyrrell drank the DEP Kool-Aid.
DEP claims the EPA IG Report is biased because it focuses criticism on DEP sites and not EPA sites. First, that claim is absurd, because the IG did in fact criticize EPA.
Second, and more importantly, the DEP’s bias claim is patently false, because the EPA IG was directed to conduct its review of State lead Superfund cases. Focus on State (NJ DEP) management was precisely what The IG was directed to concentrate on. This apparently was lost on Tyrrrell because he reported DEP “bias” spin as fact. How can the Report be biased when the IG was directed to look at State performance?
Worse, by relying exclusively on local officials – the least credible sources on this issue due to lack of expertise and political and economic conflicts – Tyrrell essentially provides cover and affirms DEP bias claim and excuse for delays.
It is not as if any of these facts were a mystery – they were written in the IG Report and several excellent newspapers days before Tyrrrell wrote his story.
Finally, Tyrrell – while serving as stenographer for DEP’s discredited excuses – completely missed the State level policy context and implications of the IG Report. Tyrrell failed to reach out to report other views that would balance the DEP and local perspectives he apparently accepted at face value.
Heck of a job Joe! You provided cover right on time – just when DEP needed it!

Categories: Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics Tags:
  1. unprovincial
    June 29th, 2008 at 11:33 | #1

    I get so tired of hearing the DEP excuse of not enough people. Sure, we could use more people but they could also mandate that EVERYONE carry a case load. Most managers, Section Chiefs and above (which means bureau chiefs, Assist. Directors, Directors, and Assist. Commissioners) spend all their time attending meetings and thinking up new ways to have staff twist in the wind (ie. NJEMs). Anyone who’s ever been in the private sector knows that once a manager removes themselves from the day-to-day workings of projects and becomes merely a “manager” they are expendable…………everywhere except DEP that is. We have Section Chiefs who do nothing but make almost $90K a year and then the union accepted them a few years ago to boot. Why would the union want mgmt? For their dues. (Carla needs the cash for her boyfriend’s campaign fund.) It’s sickening how the so-called DEP mgmt is so inept……..must be that some of them have political or other connections. It’s like the military in many ways: stick around long enough and you can become general. No one knows how to think outside the box. They keep reshuffling mgmt with each new administration as if that is going to make a difference and then they lie down on the RR tracks and are surprised when the train comes by again.

  2. unprovincial
    June 29th, 2008 at 14:04 | #2

    PS. I guess I should spell out why it’s significant that Section Chiefs are in the union: they are then protected. Can’t get rid of them and they make almost the same salary as Bureau Chiefs because they are in the contract and get the step increases in the contract. They should eliminate the title, consolidate some of the multi-levels of mgmt (up the chain of command) and reward managers who really know how to manage and get some productivity out of people. Right now, the mgmt just puts on blinders and assign lazy staff to be supervised by other lazy staff so there is no conflict. See no evil hear no evil. Some of the managers got their titles because they are so inept that they aren’t capable of doing anything productive like case work. So they let them sit in a cubicle or office somewhere to look important and hope that they don’t screw things up: rising to their level of incompetence.

  1. November 10th, 2010 at 11:52 | #1
You must be logged in to post a comment.