Why’s the Missoulian Misleading the Public?
By Matthew Koehler, Unfiltered 4-18-07
 | |
|
The other day I was walking in downtown Missoula when a new ad campaign on the newspaper boxes of our daily paper, the Missoulian, caught my eye. The ad features a businessman silhouetted against a sunrise with the words: "Start your day informed: Missoulian." I got a good chuckle out of that. However, a better reflection of our experience with the local daily would be "Start your day misinformed: Misleadian."
Why in the world would I say this? Well, I've been working on forest and public land issues here in the Northern Rockies for the past 10 years and over that time I've had my share of opportunities to work with media outlets – large and small – all around the country, and even internationally. Without a doubt, the Missoulian has done a remarkable job – particularly over the past few years – of setting itself apart from the rest of the media world when it comes to consistently misleading and biased news coverage and editorializing on forest and public lands issues.
This is seen in not only what the Missoulian chooses to cover in the paper, but also by what the Missoulian chooses not to put in the paper.
I can guarantee you that if our organization was to file a lawsuit against the Forest Service today for failure to follow the law or apply the best science when managing our public lands that the next day's paper would have a superficial news article about the lawsuit on the front page, above the fold. This would likely be followed by an official editorial from the paper blasting us for being "obstructionists" and for filing "frivolous lawsuits." How do I know this would happen? Because it’s happened time and again over the years.
Yet, just last week it was reported by the Associated Press that the Bush Administration and timber industry appealed a federal court ruling that struck down the Bush Administration's gutting of the "Roadless Rule" in their attempt to allow logging and oil and gas drilling in some of the remaining roadless wildlands on our public lands. The article reported that the three-page notice of appeal signed by the U.S. Justice Department “gave no grounds or reasoning behind the appeal."
Did this AP article make it in the Missoulian? Nope. Did the Missoulian write an editorial blasting the Bush Administration and timber industry for being "obstructionists" by filing a "frivolous lawsuit" that threatens 58 million acres of pristine, public wildlands, including over 6 million acres here in Montana? Nope.
I guess the Missoulian never noticed the news-flash that the Bush Administration is having a hard time following the law when it comes to logging, roadbuilding and oil and gas development on public lands, or anything to do with the environment for that matter. Does this really come as a surprise to anyone?
While the term “frivolous lawsuit” is nonchalantly tossed around by the newspaper, elected officials, industry lobbyists and in a consistent flow of letters to the editor the public should know that the term “frivolous lawsuit” is a legal term and any attorney filing a “frivolous lawsuit” could be disbarred and seriously reprimanded. It’s the equivalent of malpractice in the context of doctors and hospitals. Yet, when was the last time you saw the Missoulian write an editorial accusing a local doctor’s office of malpractice, much less making such an accusation without even contacting the doctor’s office directly? Of course that would never happen, yet our organization receives such treatment on a regular basis.
And if our lawsuits are "frivolous" in nature, then why does our organization win close to 80% of our lawsuits? Must be all those "Liberal Judges," right? Hardly! We've had success in front of judges appointed by Bush, Reagan, Carter and Clinton and judges of all different shapes and sizes and interpretations of the law. Clearly, to have such a successful track record, our lawsuits have merit. It sure would be nice for the Missoulian to do an in-depth feature on why the Forest Service, especially under the Bush Administration, is having such a difficult time following the law.
But I won’t be holding my breath. I’ve resigned myself to the fact that the Missoulian might never take an in-depth, un-biased look at the issue. Perhaps this is due to the fact that, more than any other city in America, Missoula is a Forest Service company town. And apparently the Missoulian is comfortable regurgitating the government and timber industry’s propaganda in much the same way that most of the state’s papers did 100 years ago when Montana was ruled by the Copper Kings and Anaconda Copper Company. For a clever look at this issue, check out this letter, Newspaper blames the messengers, which recently ran in the paper.
The Missoulian’s misleading coverage and biased editorializing on forest and public lands issues has come to a head recently specifically in regards to an article and editorial which contained false information that our organization is getting rich filing lawsuits to make sure the government follows the law.
About a month ago I was called by Perry Backus, the Missoulian’s environmental reporter, who said he was doing a story about how the Forest Service has problems finding money to complete restoration work. I spoke with the reporter about the fact that Congress never provides the Forest Service with the money needed to do even a small portion of the needed restoration work and how our organization for years has urged Congress to increase funding for restoration on public lands. I explained how the new funding mechanism of “stewardship contracting” also has problems because it only funds restoration work through timber sales and given that there is literally tens of billions of dollars of needed restoration work there’s no way we can fund all that restoration work through more logging.
During the interview I also told the reporter about the problems the Bitterroot National Forest has had funding promised restoration work following the wildfires of 2000. The problem resulted because the agency decided to take nearly $26 million in restoration funds set aside to complete this work and instead used those funds to cover costs associated with the 2002 wildfire season. To date, $7.1 million in restoration funds is still missing and the restoration work has still not been completed. Right after the interview, I emailed the reporter with documented figures obtained from the Forest Service via the Freedom of Information Act to verify my statements.
You can imagine my surprise when, on March 11, I opened up my front door and picked up the Missoulian and right on the front page was an article titled, Forest Service struggles to finish restoration.
Nothing in the article talked about how the Forest Service on the Bitterroot is still missing $7.1 million in restoration funding that the agency itself took from the forest. Apparently the paper felt that this fact has nothing to do with the Forest Service struggling to finish restoration work.
Instead, the basic premise of the article was that the Forest Service struggles to complete restoration work solely because when the government is found guilty of violating the law they sometimes pay attorney’s fees through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). In the case of the Lolo Post Burn logging project, which the article zeroed in on, the government paid approximately $175,000 in legal fees to private law firms. It should be pointed out that nearly $40,000 in attorney fees were incurred directly because the timber industry appealed this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fortunately, the Supreme Court – that bastion of “liberal judges” – refused to hear the case.
Nothing within EAJA mandates the Forest Service to take these attorney fees directly out of money set aside for restoration. If the agency did that in the Lolo Post Burn case (something which still isn’t clear) it was 100% the agency’s decision and nothing they were forced to do through EAJA.
It should also be pointed out that the reporter never once asked me any question about EAJA or attorney fees related to the Lolo Post Burn case. Doesn’t that seem strange? I mean, you have the executive director of the organization on the phone and you don’t even ask him a question related to legal fees? Yet that’s basically the whole premise of the article. For the same article the reporter interviewed a logging industry lobbyist who made completely false allegations that our organization gets to keep these fees to “keep their lights on” and “pay their mortgages.”
Two days after the article ran, I wrote the Missoulian reporter an email and said, “I wish you would have asked me a specific question about fees related to our Post-Burn lawsuit, especially because the article includes Julia Altemus’ mistaken notion that WildWest gets money from lawsuit winnings and because Supervisor Austin's implications that attorney's EAJA fees must come out of the Forest Service’s restoration budget.” The email went on to state, “I also think it would be a good idea for you and others at the Missoulian to sit down with us to talk specifically about the legal and scientific issues that affect Forest Service projects as well.”
I got no response, is pretty typical. But the Missoulian wasn’t done misleading. Next up would be a biased and misleading Missoulian editorial. And sure enough, like clockwork, on March 19 the Missoulian erroneously wrote, “the Equal Access to Justice Act has become a self-funding mechanism for environmental groups fundamentally opposed to prevailing national forest management direction.”
That’s simply not true. 100% of the legal fees that we have rightfully requested to be reimbursed through the Equal Access to Justice Act go to private laws firms, not into our organization’s coffers as a “self-funding mechanism” as the Missoulian claimed.
Did Steve Woodruff, the Missoulian’s editorial page editor, bother to call to fact-check and get our side of the story? No. Did the Missoulian’s environmental reporter who wrote the March 11th story bother to share my email on the subject with his colleague? Apparently not, or if it was shared it was ignored. Has the Missoulian published a retraction or correction? No.
You could simply chalk this up to sloppy journalism, but only if these same type of shenanigans didn’t happen so often. Figuring that following an article and editorial, which contained false accusations about our organization, the Missoulian would at least afford our organization a column length piece on the opinion page I set to work writing.
On March 27 I submitted an 857-word piece – well within the word limit that the Missoulian allows for such opinion pieces. Twenty-one minutes later came the response from Steve Woodruff, “I can't accommodate you with a column-length piece…let me put you back to work condensing your thoughts to 300 words.”
Say what? Apparently the Missoulian can “accommodate” itself to printing articles and editorials with completely false information accusing our organization of getting $110,000 in winnings from a lawsuit, but can’t “accommodate” itself to printing a column-length piece in response.
But wait! It even gets more ridiculous because on April 8 the Missoulian did, in fact, run a column-length piece on EAJA, lawsuits and the Lolo Post Burn case. However, it wasn’t explaining our side of the story. Rather, it was over 1,000 words of misrepresentations and mistruths from former Forest Service employee Mike Hillis of the Ecosystem Research Group (ERG). ERG is the company that, behind closed doors and after the public comment period was already over, worked with the timber industry and self-selected conservation groups to re-write the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest plan. Word on the street is that since the Forest Service has refused to accept this behind-closed-doors (and tardy) re-write that the timber industry and others are looking for congress to legislate the forest plan into law.
The next day the attorney who represented our organization on the Lolo Post Burn case, wrote the Missoulian asking, “Is it the Missoulian's policy to spread misinformation and prevent others from correcting it, other than by the occasional marginalized letter to the editor? I have to confess, I've never encountered a newspaper before this one that was so intent on providing a forum for governmental lies and timber industry propaganda while at the same time refusing to provide equal space to those who would have the temerity to dispel the mistruths.”
Our attorney then provided the Missoulian with a point by point response to the misrepresentations and mistruths in Hillis’ piece and challenged the paper to print it as a column length piece. The paper ignored the request, except for this condescending comment from Woodruff: “Tom: Thanks for finding time to offer feedback. – Steve.” All of this information was also provided to the Missoulian’s publisher and editor, but we haven’t heard back from anyone at the paper.
All we are asking for is a fair shake from the Missoulian and for the paper to present all the facts to the public in an unbiased way and certainly, when the paper prints information it knows to be false, that they correct the mistake rather than continuing to print false information. It is my belief that when it comes to reporting and editorializing on forest and public land issues that the Missoulian is failing in this responsibility to the public and our community. The account provided above is just one such example. If our daily paper cannot take this responsibility seriously, perhaps they should at least consider a name change to the Misleadian.
Matthew Koehler is executive director of the WildWest Institute. You can learn more at www.wildwestinstitute.org.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
If the Missoulian is basically lying to the public on Public Lands issues to forward their agenda, why shouldn't we think they are doing the same on other issues? Just how deep does the misinformation campaign at the Missoulian go? Who owns the Missoulian and what is there agenda?
I think WildWest Institute and its employees are doing an exceptional job working on very tough issues. Working for justice in one area like Public Lands Management, leads us to working on justice in other areas, like the media. Just think if more organizations were doing this. We would have a better society in general.
WildWest also does an outstanding job collaborating. I have had the pleasure of working in the woods in Saint Regis, Montana doing private lands fuels reduction with firefighters, locals, enviros, and logging crews, all organzied by the WildWest Institute.
However, I also commend WildWest for maintaining a strong stance when it is clear that the same old extraction tune is being played out, or a new Wrecreation threat looms on the horizon. Because in reality, we have nothing left to compromise. What once were mighty, wild and connected ecosystems, are now fragmented pieces, and occassional glimpses of what once as. Wendell Berry sums it up as, "Compromise, Hell!"
Thanks for the comments. However, it seems to me that you are saying it's ok for the Missoulian to put false allegations in their newspaper because our organization is "confrontational." I don't buy that argument or that rationale and as far as I'm concerned nothing gives the Missoulian the right to have false information in their paper.
Like I said at the end of my piece, the account provided above is just one such example. I have a computer full of examples over the years of the Missoulian misleading the public with their coverage and editorializing on public lands issues. You know what? Their misleading coverage and editorializing has, in fact, made our organization "confrontational" in the eyes of the public, which I think has been the intent of at least the editorial page editor Steve Woodruff all along.
You want to know a secret? This year our organization might end up filing 2 or 3 new lawsuits against Forest Service timber sales for failure to follow the law and best science. I guarantee you that these lawsuits will be front page news and we'll get little or no analysis or in-depth reporting about the substance of these lawsuits. If the past Missoulian formula is followed, we'll also see Missoulian editorials that blast us for being "obstructionists." This is "Man-Bites-Dog" journalism at it's best and the public will be left with the impression (manufactured by the timber industry and some within the Forest Service and unquestionably repeated by the Missoulian) that environmentalists appeal and litigate every Forest Service timber sale. Reality is that our organization monitors Forest Service timber sales on about a dozen national forests here in the Northern Rockies and filing a lawsuit on 2 or 3 timber sales is hardly "suing to stop every project," as we're often accused of. We literally will look at a few hundred projects this year.
If the Missoulian is so opposed to groups like ours filing lawsuits to ensure that the government follows the law when managing our public lands, then please explain to me why the Missoulian has failed to report the following fact in the paper?
Over the past few years we have attempted to avoid lawsuits through dialogue with the Forest Service. In fact, back in September 2003 our attorney wrote a letter to the previous regional forester, Brad Powell, that outlined a proposal to “bring the Northern Region into compliance with the Court's legal rulings on old-growth, and thus avoid future and protracted litigation over these issues.”
The letter stated, “It's my client's sincere hope that you will choose a more constructive path, and address our wildlife concerns at this time, rather than continue to argue over what is minimally required to protect species. I am confident that if you choose to work with us, rather than against us, we can get forest management in this region moving in a positive direction that serves everyone's interests.”
Powell was very receptive to this strategy, agreeing to every point in the letter in a personal meeting attended by many of his staff, but two weeks later he was reassigned by the agency. After that, Gail Kimbell became regional forester and any willingness by the Regional Office to work with us to help reach agreements outside the courtroom were stonewalled. Now that Kimbell is Forest Service Chief it will certainly be interesting to see what happens in the near future.
The Missoulian has been provided a copy of the letter numerous times. Has it ever once made it into the paper? Nope. Why do you suppose that is? I mean, don't you think it's a relevant fact on this issue? I had the information Powell letter information in the guest column I submitted to the Missoulian on March 27 that's referenced above, but remember Woodruff couldn't "accommodate" a column length response from us, so the info has never made it into the paper.
At the same time that we're continually beat up by the Missoulian for making sure the government follows the law and best science, the paper (whether intentionally or not) is failing to let the public know about all the community and collaborative work that our organization has been actively engaged in over the past few years. Our goal is to work together with diverse interests to help protect communities from wildfire and be a catalyst for the establishment of a new, sustainable restoration economy in our region. I guess diverse people and organizations successfully working together just isn't quite as interesting to the paper and editorial board as litigation.
For example, you've heard nothing in the paper about WildWest helping to form and serve on the steering committee of the Montana FireSafe Council, which serves as a clearinghouse for homeowners seeking information, resources and assistance on community wildfire protection.
There’s been no article about WildWest being an active member of the Salmon Forest Collaborative in Lemhi County, Idaho and the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition in Lincoln County. Together with community members, county commissioners and business leaders we are seeking to find common-ground surrounding community wildfire protection and restoration projects on the Salmon-Challis and Kootenai National Forests, respectively.
A few year's ago when we joined together with a local restoration company, WIldland Conservation Services, to demonstrate the effectiveness of an ecologically-based approach to community fuel reduction on a small pilot project on the Lolo National Forest just north of Ovando did the Missoulian bother to show up and check it out? No.
In 2003 – following a 2-year bridge building effort between conservation groups, community forestry advocates and restoration practitioners to develop agreement on a common sense, scientifically-based framework for restoring our nation's forests – our organization helped unveil the “Citizen's Call for Ecological Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria." Did the Missoulian report on this new development and coming together of diverse interests? No.
During the whole debate and controversy around the Middle East Fork logging project on the Bitterroot National Forest why didn't Missoulian let the public know about these facts:
Ken McBride, the Bitterroot National Forest's own soil scientist wrote to Bitterroot Supervisor Dave Bull and stated: "... there has been a consistent and deliberate removal of information that accurately portrayed the conditions of the soils and the prescriptions and mitigations needed to address those degraded soil conditions... I am very disappointed that all my hard work has been erroneously reinterpreted, rewritten and changed far from what I wrote and intended by editors who weren't even on the ground doing investigations in the project area! I can no longer say the proposed actions are legal regarding NFMA and other pertinent laws and FS policies.” This document was in the official project file and the Missoulian was provided the information. Did it ever appear in the paper? Nope. Do you think it might be relevant to the project and our concerns about it?
Apparently the Missoulian doesn't feel it's newsworthy to let readers know about the East Fork families who are steaming mad at the Forest Service over this logging project. The Missoulian has repeatedly been provided copies of the official objections filed by these East Fork families, but strangely this has never made it into the paper. So too, the Missoulian has never reported that PhD scientists at the University of Montana's School of Forestry filed official objections against this project.
Sure seems to me like it's newsworthy to have East Fork homeowners telling the Forest Service in official objections: "I object to the heavy-handed methods used to ram Alternative #2 down my throat. Under the guise of getting 'community support' you have used scare tactics, and have hand-picked certain people for 'testimonials' that support the plan you were going to use - no matter what." Why is the Missoulian systematically keeping this truth from its readers and how in the world can this not be relevant to the issue at hand?
How about the economics of the Middle East Fork logging project and our concern that the Forest Service would spend all the money on the logging aspect of the project, but have little left over for the real restoration work? Well, the unimpeachable expert on Forest Service voodoo economics, Bob Wolfe (who used to work for the Congressional Research Service), wrote to Supervisor Bull and stated, “When you lay out expected receipts and costs, this would bring into focus that costs will far exceed receipts. It would be clear that timber sales would not fund your healthy forest goal. You say that selling timber, even at a loss, provides you with funds to partly offset the cost of doing Healthy Forest work on lands adjacent to the logged area. I don't think this is true on the Bitterroot or other Region 1 Forests. Your first responsibility is to restore the sale area after logging. You won't have enough KV Funds to do that job on the land just logged. I can't see how you can fund any part of the off-sale acres you desire to treat under the Healthy Forest Act.” Again, this information was provided to the Missoulian, but they certainly never reported it.
I could go on-and-on and provide example-upon-example, but I hope you and the public get my point. All we are asking is for the Missoulian to give us a fair shake and for the paper to present all the facts to the public in an unbiased way and certainly, when the paper prints false information that they correct the mistake. If making this simple request in a public forum is “controversial” so be it.
But for the Missoulian to the repeat the lie under its own editorial imprimatur, then stubbornly refuse to officially correct it when it's called to their attention, is inarguably unethical and probably also legally actionable (i.e., libel, slander or defamation).
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful reply. I know the Missoulian, like practically every other paper in the country, is doing a miserable, dishonest job on reporting not only these public lands issues, but on the war and most other important issues. This is nothing new, and it is part of a much bigger cultural and national sickness. I applaud your lawsuits, and I am grateful for what you do, but there is a part of me that knows too, that in order to create real, systemic change, we have to somehow open a clear space from which new solutions can spring. All I am asking is that we try to help each other AND the opposition find new ways to interact. The stakes are just too high. And whether justified or not, if the "public" sees you as obstructionist, for whatever reason, it is not constructive. I do support your organization. I am just really really afraid that continual polarization and fighting will not get anywhere. I know this may not be an immediately constructive comment, but I honestly believe that if we can somehow work FOR things instead of always working AGAINST things, more will be achieved. Still your opposition in the courts is valuable and if in your expertise you see it as necessary, go for it.
Thanks for your comments and I agree with what you saying and I attempted to let you know that our organization is, in fact, trying to "clear space from which new solutions can spring" and "work for things instead of always working against things."
Unfortunately, as I point out above in some detail, the Missoulian is systematically ignoring most of these efforts on our part, while appearing to obsess about the few lawsuits that our organization actually files.
However, that doesn't mean that these efforts at finding common ground aren't on-going and yielding positive results. It's kinda like the old saying, "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" One could change that saying to better reflect the situation at hand, "if the Missoulian doesn't let the public know about all the solutions and common ground that WildWest is working to achieve, does it mean it's not really happening?" Of course not.
Also, it should be pointed out that while we are having some successes finding common ground, let's remember that "the other side" we are talking about here is the resource extraction industries of coal, oil and gas and timber. One could easily argue that the resource extraction industries are some of the most powerful industries in the world and that much of our foreign policy escapades has been at the request of these powerful industries and their lobbyists who have much more control over our government than a handful of grassroots organizations. It's hardly a level playing field.
How in the world do you sit down and try and reach common ground with these industries? It's a difficult task to say the least. Yes, there are good people working in these industries, but the higher ups and the lobbyists seem to know no bounds when it comes to expanding their influence on our lives.
Just look at how one logging lobbyist reacted when we told the public about our restoration vision for America's public lands: http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/this_is_very_dangerous_ftuff/
I really did read your entire email! I do get it! I'll simply include here a poem from Margaret Wheatley that inspires me, along with Wendell Barry:
Want to Be a Ukrainian
Margaret Wheatley ©2005
When I come of age,
When I get over being a teen-ager
When I take my life seriously
When I grow up
I want to be a Ukrainian.
When I come of age
I want to stand happily in the cold
for days beyond number,
no longer numb to what I need.
I want to hear my voice
rise loud and clear above
the icy fog, claiming myself.
It was day fifteen of the protest, and a woman standing next to her car was being interviewed. Her car had a rooster sitting on top of it. She said "We've woken up and we're not leaving till this rotten government is out." It is not recorded if the rooster crowed.
When I get over being a teen-ager
when I no longer complain or accuse
when I stop blaming everybody else
when I take responsibility
I will have become a Ukrainian
The Yushchenko supporters carried bright orange banners which they waved vigorously on slim poles. Soon after the protests began, the government sent in thugs hoping to create violence. They also carried banners, but theirs were hung on heavy clubs that could double as weapons.
When I take my life seriously
when I look directly at what's going on
when I know that the future doesn't change itself
that I must act
I will be a Ukrainian.
"Protest that endures," Wendell Berry said, "is moved by a hope far more modest than that of public success: namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one's own heart and spirit that would be destroyed by acquiescence.
When I grow up and am known as a Ukrainian
I will move easily onto the streets
confident, insistent, happy to preserve the qualities
of my own heart and spirit.
In my maturity, l will be glad to teach you
the cost of acquiescence
the price of silence
the peril of retreat
"Hope," said Vaclev Havel, "is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense regardless of how it turns out."
I will teach you all that I have learned
the strength of fearlessness
the peace of conviction
the strange source of hope
and I will die well, having been a Ukrainian.
______________________________________________
Bio
Margaret Wheatley writes, teaches, and speaks about radically new practices and ideas for organizing in chaotic times. She works to create organizations of all types where people are known as the blessing, not the problem. She is president of The Berkana Institute, a charitable global leadership foundation serving life-affirming leaders, and has been an organizational consultant for many years, as well as a professor of management in two graduate programs.
Her newest book, Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time, was released in January 2005. Her book, Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore Hope to the Future, (January 2002) proposes that real social change comes from the ageless process of people thinking together in conversation. Wheatley's work also appears in two award-winning books, Leadership and the New Science (1992, 1999) and A Simpler Way (with Myron Kellner-Rogers, 1996,) plus several videos and articles.
She draws many of her ideas from new science and life’s ability to organize in self-organizing, systemic, and cooperative modes. And, increasingly her models for new organizations are drawn from her understanding of many different cultures and spiritual traditions. Her articles and work can be accessed at http://www.margaretwheatley.com, or 801-377-2996 in Utah, USA.
Bravo!
But I'm afraid you're wasting your time. You see, Matthew likes, above all else, to hear his own voice, including electronically it appears.
Actually, above all else, I like spending quite time in the woods hunting for elk and morels and walking through old-growth forests with my wife. And I also like the fact that Favre is coming back for (at least) one more year and the Brewers are in first place and have a good, young club. Puttering around in the garden growing organic veggies isn't bad either. It sure beats waking up in the morning and reading some non-sense in the Misleadian.