West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
An article appearing in the Martinsburg Journal today by Naomi Smoot, "Officials: PATH not without benefits", quotes a single power company official touting the benefits of building one large transmission line compared to "30 lines at 138 kilovolts each."
This is like a mad doctor saying, don't complain about your healthy arm I'm about to amputate--just be happy I'm going to cut it off with one swipe of an axe instead of taking thirty slices with a meat cleaver.
Why did this story appear on this day in the paper? Best I can tell, it is because American Electric Power and Allegheny Power scheduled a media day--complete with helicopter rides--to showcase their PaTH joint venture. A paper with a better editor would use the media day as a launching pad for a much bigger picture on the project.
Does the story, as reported, have news value? No. The article is indistinguishable from a corporate press release. It only quotes a single source, an official from American Electric Power. It doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards for a neutral point of view. This article is much closer to advertisement copy than a newspaper story.
What would a news story on PaTH look like? There's a strong clue right there in the story:
The line has prompted concern for area residents and county officials. In all, 120 citizens, businesses and governmental agencies in Jefferson County have filed as interveners in the West Virginia Public Service Commission case to determine whether the line should be approved.
But, this paragraph raises more questions than it answers (Is 120 a lot or a little? Why are they concerned?). The article says nothing else about what the concerns are.
The entire remainder of the article are about benefits of building the transmission lines. Unstated is, inasmuch as those benefits even exist, they are almost exclusively benefits to the electrical utilities, not to residents of the newspaper's reading area!
The real news is the unprecedented number of "citizens, businesses and governmental agencies in Jefferson County [who] have filed as interveners." I bet there's never been more than a handful from Jefferson County before in any case at the PSC. Just imagine how many papers you could sell if you started telling the stories of these engaged local citizens.
Reader reaction
There is one small silver lining today. With 120 petitioned interveners in Jefferson County, the newspaper has an increasingly well informed audience. (With no thanks to the paper.)
The reader responses are priceless. Here's a flavor of the negative responses:
JournalReader - 07-30-09 6:04 AM
Why does the Journal roll over and play fetch for AEP? This reporter consistently is a mouthpiece for any corporate propaganda -- never seen her apply critical thinking skills to any story. In the age of shrinking newspaper revenues, the purchase of full page ads by AEP/PATH must be like manna.
FERCYOU - 07-30-09 6:34 AM
Lies. 1. This power will not be used in the eastern panhandle. PATH's own maps prove this. 2. Who cares how many 138kV lines it would take to equal PATH? If the east coast provides its own renewable power, we won't need ANY new transmission lines (AKA extension cords). 3. Height of towers. I guess they didn't bother looking at their own application to the PSC. Tower heights are much higher in the application. 4. Nothing can "blend" 180 foot towers into the landscape. Get real! 5. Cost = over $1.8 billion, with 14.3% profit for Allegheny and AEP paid for by you. 6. 140 intervenors from Jefferson Co. 7. These lines are creating a new 275 foot right of way adjacent to existing lines, hardly "a couple of feet". 8. PATH land agents are busy in Jefferson Co. trying to swindle folks out of their land for a song. Just say NO.
jbchris - 07-30-09 8:41 AM
ChEwNo, you are exactly right about the extension cord concept, that is precisely what PATH is, a huge extension cord supplying dirty coal fired electricity to the eastern seaboard where they don't want it, does that make sense to you? Renewable energy systems both large and small will solve our nations energy needs now and into the future. Why invest millions in an obsolete technology? We should build renewable systems that are clean alternatives and wait for the smart grid technology to be instituted in order to plan for the nations future electrical needs. Don't be fooled by fear and free advertising as reported in the Journal, use your mind and embrace the future of electrical generation.
Sesame - 07-30-09 4:04 PM
First: I have documented all comments by Mr. Allen Staggers, Allegheny Energy Spokesperson, stated in past Journal Articles. Now I will update/add Mr. Gogol's comments. In the near future I will publicly address the comments.
Second. PATH representatives are telling on one side of the story,not the whole story, which equates to lying,is very poor business ethics and is not within any code of conduct I have ever worked under either in private or government industry.
Examples of half truth or one side of the story. Mr. Gogol states that they are in Jefferson County simply asking for rights to survey. He fails to mention surveying/taking core samples requires bringing heavy equipment onto the property and drilling down as much as 30 feet. Huge disruption to the property and homeowner. Running tandem to the existing 500 and 138 volt lines is considered as of no consequence, when in fact it now increases the electric field to 1403 kilo-volts of electricity. No Issues?
houner - 07-30-09 6:06 PM
The so-called "fact box" (actually a xerox of a power company press release) contains the statement that "80 percent Amount of the project that will parallel existing 500 kilovolt power lines." Besides making absolutely no sense grammatically, this statement is not a "fact". Very little of the PATH line will parallel existing lines. I all cases where that happens, the PATH line will require an additional 200 right of way. There is at least one lie in the "fact box." Many more in the quotes from power company hacks.
Maybe it's time to update that old saying by Mark Twain: "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed." If you read newspaper Internet comments, you're un-mis-informed.
Long time readers of West Virginia Blue are aware of our many complaints about the Martinsburg Journal (here's one example). It's embarrassing to say a (Hagerstown) Maryland paper covers the Eastern W.Va. Panhandle much better than the home town West Virginia one does.
The Martinsburg Journal's political coverage fails to meet basic standards of journalism and regularly favors Republicans. Over many years, the Martinsburg Journal has shown a right-wing slant it many aspects of its operation.
An identical diary and comment appeared today by a commenter claiming to be Matt Bieniek, the former city editor at the Martinsburg Journal. (There's no reason to doubt that; the comment history is consistent with the author being Matt Bieniek.) DINO69, a.k.a. Matt Beineke, lays blame on the paper's owners and senior managers for an overt bias to Republican candidates and decisions inconsistent with basic standards of journalism.
Hello all,
I (Matthew Bieniek) am no longer employed by The Journal(I know some of you are cheering!).
Therefore, I feel I'm under no obligation to conceal what I know and in fact, feel an obligation to let people know what is going on at the local newspaper in Martinsburg. Before I move on in my job search, I'll be posting afew items of interest. The first is from an internal complaint I filed in March 2009:
Work of employee Jenni Vincent the Saturday before Election Day, Nov. 2008.
Employee Jenni Vincent was called into work by Publisher Craig Bartoldson on her day off and required to work to produce either one or two stories after extensive interviews with two local Republican Delegates, Craig Blair and Jonathan Miller. I am not sure whether the delegates may be personal friends of the publisher. I was the Saturday supervisor in the newsroom that day. The story was their response to charges in an ad apparently opposing their elections, essentially allowing them an unpaid ad at the last minute before the election... .I made my objections on this matter clear to several individuals and eventually to Bartoldson, who became angry and responded by falsely accusing me of unethical practices. The publisher was aware that Saturday was not a scheduled work day for Vincent.
Required suppression of news items
Matthew Burdette sent an email on Feb 25 or 26 to the city editors and copy editors, apparently with the approval, direct or tacit, of Henline and Bartoldson, requiring suppression of news about the newspaper industry and other media and suppression of most global warming stories. This obviously unethical practice is a disservice to readers, would bring ridicule to the company if it became generally known, and probably will fail to meet whatever bizarre goals it is designed to accomplish.
(I made slight formatting changes for readability.)
I had a conversation recently with news director of an area radio station. I told them the biggest problem I had with political coverage by traditional media is it's completely driven by politicians themselves--news is defined by office holder press releases. The newsperson agreed, but defended the practice by saying they "removed all the adjectives" to cover the press release as straight news.
I readily acknowledged that this sad state of affairs is driven in part by reduced news room budgets compared to 10 or 20 years ago. The newsperson said, indeed, they rely on wire services (Associated Press, in their case) for investigative pieces.
Here's the problem.
Selectively reproducing press releases after "removing the adjectives" may answer the basic questions: who?, what?, when?, where? and how? but it's still stenography.
It leaves unanswered the most important question of all: why? Even worse, without additional reporting--the extra step of drawing in additional sources--it unfailingly accepts the rationale of a single source--that in the press releases--for why.
An Example
Here's an example in action from a story from The Journal in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
"A list of 36 requests for federal earmarks were submitted and released by U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. on Wednesday, making it the first time the fourth-term congresswoman has made the list of requests available to the public.
Capito said she made the decision out of a desire for increasing transparency and accountability in earmarking.
The first paragraph covers the who, what, when. The second paragraph parrots the single source rationale for why. This is stenography in action.
Why did Capito release a list of earmarks?
In this case, the reader is fortunate enough to have the answer buried in the article itself. But, it's buried in single-source spin. And, if the reporter couldn't make the connection, will readers be smart enough to do it themselves?
While serving on the Rules Committee last year, Capito worked with congressional leaders to implement earmark reforms that required public disclosure of all requests on appropriations bills, and allowed debate and a vote on any earmark request. This year, House Democrats decided to restore those reforms.
Did you make the connection? It's really buried there, isn't it?
The News, Not Stenography
Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito released a list of earmarks because House rules require disclosure of earmarks. She wanted to avoid the embarrassment of someone else (like this blog, the DCCC, or a candidate running against her) releasing information about her earmarks in a less flattering manner. The Journal uncritically reproduced her positive framing of the issue.
Next question... why has Capito made these requests? What connections does she have to the people and companies that would benefit from these earmarks? How many of the companies lobbying for government handouts have given money to Capito's campaign?
The Martinsburg Journal is too busy promoting Capito's re-election to ask any of their own why questions, much less these tough ones.
Copyright 2009 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, the tireless efforts of volunteer contributors and continued participation from this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong soley to their respective authors.
