When a column warrants a warning label

By Denise Tessier

To piggyback on Tracy’s latest post just before this one:

This morning’s Mountain View Telegraph (sister paper to the Journal) carries yet another Marita Noon column, this one entitled “Climate Change Is Obama’s Iraq.”

The Telegraph is running her column with eyes wide open. In other words, it is well aware of the problems with her columns: On August 27, it ran a Noon column (“Energy Wrongfully Blamed[”) after that same column was pulled from Heath Hausseman’s nmpolitics.net and the Farmington Daily Times .

Reacting to criticism about running that already-discredited column, the Telegraph ran on Sept. 17 “Many Errors Found in Column,”  a response piece by New Mexico Wildlife Federation Director Jeremy Vesbach. At the end of his piece, Vesbach wrote, and – to its credit — the Telegraph printed:

I appreciate the opportunity provided by Telegraph Editor (Rory) McClannahan to present the facts on where NMWF stands on the San Juan River.

However, I also feel obligated to warn Telegraph readers that McClannahan said flatly that he is not interested in fact-checking opinion pieces and does not always print corrections or retractions for verifiably false information that appears on the Telegraph opinion page. This isn’t the way most news organizations work, and I believe this lackadaisical approach is a disservice to readers. But until something changes, Telegraph readers should realize that it is apparently up to us to fact-check opinion pieces we read in the Telegraph.

Having once been in the situation of finding columns and sorting through letters to fill the space on the editorial pages of the Mountain View Telegraph and the zoned editions of the Journal (the Rio Rancho and West Side), I have to say I understand McClannahan’s point that there is little time to fact-check the items that come in. And, believe it or not, it’s often difficult to get columns to put on those pages. When I had time, I would call presidents of neighborhood associations and other involved citizens asking them to write about what was going on in their part of the community so I wouldn’t be caught short on deadline day. And sometimes that was like pulling teeth and I’d still be scrambling to fill the space.

That said, I would be hard-pressed to use a column by someone who has been problematic.

On deadline, lacking anything else to run, one might consider running such a columnist only in conjunction with some clear disclaimers about the writer’s background.

Which brings me to my point: If the Telegraph is going to continue running Noon’s columns (as it obviously has decided to do), it should write its own end-note describing the columnist’s background.

The end-graph as it now routinely is run (or not) describes the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE), of which Noon is executive director, as an advocate for “citizens rights to energy freedom.” What the heck is a citizen’s right to energy freedom?

At the least, those words should be put in quotes. Better still, instead of this squishy description crafted for general audiences, the Telegraph should lift from CARE’s Web site the words it uses when addressing its member audience, which are that:

. . . Marita has moved CARE toward specifically advocating for oil, gas, nuclear and coal. . .

Caveat emptor.

Journal Reader: Noon’s Energy Claim “Doesn’t Add Up”

By Tracy Dingmann

This letter to the editor that appeared in Wednesday’s Albuquerque Journal is so interesting, I’m just going to reproduce it in full here.
The letter, from Journal reader Terry Goldman of Los Alamos, ran under the headline “Energy Claim Doesn’t Add Up:”

Marita K. Noon either made a serious writing error in her column, “Target Redundant Costs First to Trim State Budget,” (subscription required)  or else she needs a substantive remedial course in elementary mathematics.
She quotes Oil Conservation Director Mark Fesmire as “sputtering” that “… the OCD annual budget was only about 4 percent of the state’s budget problems (emphasis added).” Earlier in the column, however, she elevated this amount to 4 percent of the state’s entire budget, claiming that eliminating the duplication represented by the OCD would reduce the need to cut the state budget by 10 percent to a cut of only 6 percent. If the quote of Fesmire is accurate, the savings amount to 4 percent of 10 percent, otherwise known as 0.4% of the total state budget.
While this is not to be ignored, and while we are all undoubtedly sympathetic to eliminating duplication in government (although I don’t favor dumping state costs on counties) and while it is clear that her organization (Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy) has much to gain by eliminating state oversight of oil and gas regulation in favor of more easily manipulated local governments, Noon does neither her organization nor her argument any good with what is either a blatant misrepresentation of the facts or an astounding display of mathematical ignorance.
On the contrary, she leaves the impression that none of her or CARE’s arguments should be considered accurate or trustworthy, let alone viewed as having been considered carefully and without bias.
TERRY GOLDMAN
Los Alamos

Hmm. That’s not the first time Noon, an oil and gas industry booster who the Journal features regularly as a guest columnist on its editorial page, has been shot down for making factual errors. We’ve written about it here and here.

Differences of opinion are one thing – but out and out errors made by a writer are another.

When is the Journal going to get the message?

The Journal Strikes Again: Noon Whistle

By Denise Tessier

The Journal’s done it again.

The Albuquerque Journal ran on today’s Op-Ed page a column by discredited columnist Marita K. Noon. This one’s entitled, “Target Redundant Costs First To Trim State Budget (subscription required).”

If you’re not familiar with Noon, you won’t get much help from the Journal in learning more about her. All that accompanied this column was the identifier under her byline, which said: “Executive Director, CARE.”

Which might make you think it was written by someone from the international humanitarian group, CARE.

No, it’s not that one.

This “CARE” is a New Mexico pro-energy group, Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy, the Web site of which says this about Noon:

Since wind and solar are the darlings of the energy world, Marita has moved CARE toward specifically advocating for oil, gas, nuclear and coal and has pushed CARE onto a national platform.

Why is this important? Because Noon’s column in today’s Journal advocates elimination of the Oil Conservation Division – the state group created by the State Legislature to manage and regulate oil and gas development in New Mexico.

Her point is that the state could start tackling the yeoman’s task of cutting the state budget by eliminating redundancy. It’s hard for anyone to argue with that, but she’s saying the OCD is redundant because a few counties have tried to impose even more rigorous rules on the oil and gas industry.

The way Noon puts it, these counties are “usurping the authority given to the division” and therefore there’s no reason to have an OCD. Yet, truth be told, counties are hiring consultants and creating their own regulations because they don’t think the OCD is doing enough to protect their interests, not because they would rather being doing the job themselves.

But Noon cheerfully suggests that by taking over the OCD’s duties, counties will have to hire more people, which she says is a “win-win” because that will create county jobs. “Certainly ‘job creation’ has become a buzzword,” she helpfully adds.

The Journal has done its readers a grave disservice by failing to run an explanatory bio on Noon at the end of this column.

The editors probably didn’t have the space, but interestingly, all they would have had to do to make enough room would have been to edit out some of the redundancy in her column.

But frankly, considering her track record as a columnist and the flawed logic of this anti-regulatory piece, it shouldn’t have been run at all.

Dishonest column calls journalistic standards into question

By Tracy Dingmann

The director of a New Mexico sportsmen’s group says he is having no luck getting a correction issued for an erroneous column that recently ran in the Mountain View Telegraph.

On Aug. 27, the Telegraph ran an guest opinion column on its editorial page that had previously been taken down from two other online news sources – one a blog, one a newspaper site – for inaccurate information. (see ABQJournalWatch, Sept. 2, 2009)

The column, purportedly about the New Mexico Wildlife Federation’s positions regarding whether oil and gas drilling had affected fishing on the San Juan River, was written by Marita K. Noon, who has previously (and since) enjoyed prominent placement on the editorial pages of both the Mountain View Telegraph and its parent paper, the Albuquerque Journal. According to her column bio, Noon is the executive director of the Citizen Alliance for Responsible Energy, or CARE, whose members include New Mexico oil and gas producers.

Jeremy Vesbach is executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, a statewide group of “conservation-minded sportsmen” that was founded in 1914 by famed conservationist Aldo Leopold.

In an interview this week, Vesbach said he asked the editor of the Telegraph for a correction, but was rebuffed. Vesbach also said he was told that the paper “is not interested” in fact-checking the guest columns it runs.

Vesbach said he was told he is welcome to submit his own column for possible publication in the Telegraph.

The editor of the Telegraph did not respond to an email from ABQJournalWatch requesting comment on this story.

“I think its pretty clear that there is no policy of verifying information on the editorial page. No fact-checking,” said Vesbach.  “They ought to develop a policy for what to do when verifiably false information appears in the paper. And it would be nice to know that the same standard applies to everyone.”

Vesbach said much of Noon’s column was based on material contained in the Spring 2009 edition of the NMWF publication, The Outdoor Reporter.

In comparing the column and the publication, Vesbach is able to point out several outright errors.

I’ve looked at both the column and the publication.

From a journalist standpoint, perhaps the most dishonest part comes when Noon skips over 45 words to create a statement that expresses a very different sentiment from the one written in the NMWF publication.

Compare this line from Noon’s column, including her use of ellipsis marks (Boldface added for emphasis):

Later (page 8), a photo caption addresses “Sediment from Rex Smith Wash has been pouring into the San Juan River… from… oil and gas development.“

To this cutline in The Outdoor Reporter from which it was taken. (Non-bolded text indicates what was omitted by Noon):

Sediment from Rex Smith Wash has been pouring into the San Juan River near Navajo Dam after the state Division of Parks built the berm on the right to protect a parking lot.  Many anglers are hoping the state and federal agencies that control development along the San Juan will do more in the future to reduce sedimentation from both natural and man-made sources, such as oil and gas development.

Now that’s just not right.

In addition to being perplexed at the lack of concern from the Telegraph, Vesbach said he’s disappointed that Noon apparently keeps peddling a piece that she knows is dishonest.

Vesbach said he has sent letters to the editorial page editors of a number of New Mexico newspapers to warn them about the piece, but isn’t sure he can reach them all.

“It seems clear that she’s going to keep pushing it,” Vesbach said. “All it’s going to do is discredit her with these publications.”

I Demand a Retraction! (Updated)

By Tracy Dingmann

Every once in a while during my days as a newspaper reporter, a reader would call me up and demand a “retraction.”

I would find out what was bothering them – usually a singular point like an incorrect time or phone number or name – and then explain that what they probably wanted was a correction.

That’s what newspapers print when they want to set the record straight on an outright error in a story – or more rarely, a mistaken or incorrect characterization of something in the piece.

A retraction is something else entirely – a complete repudiation of the entire piece – and most newspapers rarely, if ever, have had to take such drastic action (although The Washington Post circa 1980 does come to mind…Anyone remember “Jimmy’s World” and the Pulitzer Prize the Post had to give back?)

But what happens when a written piece is shot through with so many errors that its entire premise is rendered false?

Two New Mexico online news sites decided that the penalty for that is indeed retraction – and they did it by completely removing a locally written column from their site.

The piece in question was a guest column written by Marita K. Noon, who, according to her column bio in the Albuquerque Journal, is executive director of Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy, a group funded by 250 members including New Mexico oil and gas producers.

(The Albuquerque Journal has run several of Noon’s guest commentaries on its editorial page, including most recently, a prominent piece in the Sunday, Aug. 30 edition.)

On Aug. 6, the online site Heath Haussamen on New Mexico Politics ran a piece by Noon called “Fact Over Fiction On Fishing” that supposedly deconstructed arguments made by the New Mexico Wildlife Federation about whether oil and gas drilling had affected fishing on the San Juan River. A few hours later, Noon’s column was gone and replaced with this statement from Haussamen:

“This commentary has been removed in its entirety because of factual inaccuracies.”

On Sunday, Aug. 23, Noon’s exact same piece appeared in the print and online editions of the Farmington Daily Times. The next day, it was removed from the paper’s online edition. On Aug. 30, the Daily Times carried a guest column from New Mexico Wildlife Federation executive director Jeremy Vesbach, explaining inaccuracies in Noon’s column and laying out what the group actually stands for.

What’s the back-story?

I spoke with Haussamen, a longtime blogger and former newspaper reporter who often features a variety of opinions from local writers in guest columns on his site. Haussamen told me that he published a few columns by Noon in the weeks before and had never had any problems.

Then he ran Noon’s “Fact Over Fiction” and immediately found out there were serious problems with the piece.

“This one had some factual inaccuracies,” Haussamen said. “Basically, once I became aware of them, I pulled it off. I don’t knowingly run things that contain factual inaccuracies. I have a link on my site to my ethical guidelines. The top one is being factual.”

Vesbach confirmed that he contacted Haussamen about the inaccuracies in Noon’s piece.

“As soon as I brought it to his attention, he contacted me immediately,” said Vesbach, who then provided Haussamen with proof that Noon had clearly taken statements from the federation’s Spring 2009 newsletter, The Outdoor Reporter, and distorted them.

“He said he had a retraction policy in place and he implemented it,” Vesbach said.

Vesbach was able to prove that Noon’s piece incorrectly characterized a personal statement made by one person in the NMWF newsletter as the official position of the entire group.

She also “pulled two sentences together to make it seem like we were saying the opposite of what we said. She started quoting one sentence, skipped over 45 words, used dot dot dot and patched together the last half of some other sentence,” Vesbach said.

Other smaller inaccuracies added up to one big false argument, he said.

“What she tried to say was in our publication was the exact opposite of what we said.

We were fortunate, because in our newsletter we had a very clear record of what we were trying to say.”

It is difficult sometimes to score legitimate criticism of a piece when it differs from your opinion, said Vesbach. But this wasn’t just a difference of opinion.

“She was just trying to set us up with a position we don’t have. She was just making things up outright,” he said.

“This is the first time I have had to retract something that I or someone else has written,” Haussamen said this week. He was reluctant to say Noon’s been banned from his site, but added, “I think the fact that I retracted something she wrote and haven’t run anything by her since speaks for itself.”

Imagine Vesbach’s consternation when Noon’s discredited piece popped up in Sunday’s Farmington Daily Times.  He called the editor on Monday and showed him proof of the inaccuracies.

“Before I even asked, they took it down. They pulled it down from the website and offered to let us submit a correction. I asked for equivalent placement in a Sunday edition. (That piece ran in the paper’s Aug. 30 edition.)

For me, all of this  – especially in light of the fact that the Journal continues to run Noon- raises a couple of questions. A columnist the Journal features prominently has now been discredited and removed from two different sites. Did the Journal know about Noon’s problems when they featured her piece on Sunday? Do they care?

It also has me musing on the oft-cited criticism that what you read on blogs is automatically less ethical or reliable than what you find on a traditional news site.

I think Haussamen’s policies and his actions regarding Noon’s piece shows differently.

“Most ethical standards hold true no matter what format you’re working in,” said

Haussamen, who add that his “fairly standard” journalistic code includes being factual, treating people fairly, not plagiarizing and not using anonymous sources. (Note: Haussamen clarifies that he does very rarely use anonymous sources, but only after a following a strict protocol, which you will find here.)

“A lot of blogs don’t have ethical standards or policies for publishing comments. And I think they should have both. I have policies on comments and on verifications and retractions. I do that for two reasons. One, to let people know what kind of site I intend to publish, and two, to hold myself accountable.”

Glad to hear it.

I’m just wondering where Marita K. Noon will pop up next.

UPDATE (9/3/09): Well, I didn’t have to wait long to see where Marita K. Noon popped up again.

Turns out that on Aug. 27, the Mountain View Telegraph ran the very same column that was retracted last month for factual inaccuracies by both Heath Haussamen on New Mexico Politics (now nmpolitics.net) and the Farmington Daily Times.

The Mountain View Telegraph is owned by the publisher of the Albuquerque Journal.

Stay tuned for more soon about what happens next.