Someone just today brought my attention to the Web page full of material that DHEC posted in response to the series that Sammy Fretwell and John Monk down in our newsroom recently did.
The very first item, written by board chairman "Bo" Aughtry, says it "was submitted to the newspaper’s editorial offices Nov. 20." This is the first I’ve heard about it. I’m worried that they might have sent it to Cindi, who is off this week. And here it is 6:23 p.m. on the night before Thanksgiving.
I’m going to try to reach the appropriate people to see whether they had meant to submit it for publication, although I don’t know how much luck I’m likely to have tonight — or any time before Monday. We’ll see.
In the meantime, here’s the full text of that item:
Imagine.
That’s the word The State used to begin its eight-day assault on the Department of Health and Environmental Control. So let’s imagine.Imagine a newspaper that reports only select facts they decide are important.
Imagine a series with misleading conclusions arrived at through
innuendos, dredging up stories from more than 20 years ago, most of
which have been refuted, and reporting them inaccurately again.Imagine a newspaper whose reporters have traded objective reporting
for “gotcha’” journalism and half-truth mudslinging, while at the same
time so enamored with itself that it takes three paragraphs to pat its
reporters and photographer on the backs.Imagine no more. That publication exists as The State and
there are others who obviously work in conjunction with them on
misrepresentation of fact after fact in an effort to make an agency,
its employees, commissioner and board look bad, in an attempt to
advance its own political agenda or to seek some journalism award.If anyone knew all the facts in any of The State’s stories, it would take a very good imagination to accept their conclusions.
Based on my experience and observations, I find these attacks not
only misleading but unjust. Since I became chairman of DHEC’s governing
board in 2006, I have been continually impressed with the diligence,
commitment and dedication of those employees, certainly including
Commissioner Earl Hunter, with whom I have dealt. Is the agency
perfect? I know of no organization made up of 4,200 employees that can
boast perfection but this one is very good.Do not misunderstand, I fully believe that DHEC, like any public
body, is accountable to the citizens it serves. Accordingly, it is
subject to responsible, accurate criticism if it fails our citizens.
Yet, for The State to criticize this agency with articles
that are portrayed as complete fact but which are based only on a part
of the story, is, in my opinion, quite irresponsible.The fact of the matter is that The State and most of
those quoted in their series, need DHEC. They have decided that this
agency is the villain and they are the self-anointed righteous
vindicators protecting the public. Truth is they’re more interested in
protecting their bottom line, billable hours or such political clout as
they think they may possess, seemingly caring not a whit for the truth,
only for what advances their own motives.This newspaper, like others, imposes word count restrictions on any
external responses to their reporting whether it be my response here or
a letter to the editor. Because of those constraints, refuting the many
accusations in this series would require more space than what is
readily available here. For our perspective on this series and the
subsequent editorials that I’m sure will appear, I invite you to our
Web site at www.scdhec.gov.Now here’s a fact you don’t have to imagine. In the midst of state
budget reductions and fewer staff doing more work, we’ll spend taxpayer
dollars laying to rest these ridiculous and self-serving allegations.
Trust me when I tell you the taxpayers of this great state have paid
quite the tab in the last eight months as staff have had to stop what
they were doing to respond to question after question, some of which
were asked multiple times in a thinly-veiled attempt to get an answer
the reporters wanted, not the full facts of the matter. The State’s
reporters spent some four hours with Commissioner Earl Hunter in
face-to-face interviews, only to have things misrepresented to the
majority of readers who never make it past the headline and first three
paragraphs.Imagine? No. I believe this newspaper is doing a disservice to its
readers in casting as fact what is actually subjection, to DHEC
employees and their families through the creation of undeserved public
doubt, and to the taxpayers of South Carolina in wasting tax dollars
through unnecessarily protracted interrogation.Paul “Bo” Aughtry is chair of the S.C. Board of Health and Environmental Control
Related Posts
Well, since I posted that I’ve bothered Cindi on her vacation (third time today) — she had not seen it. She said however that before she left last week someone at Bo Aughtry’s office sent her a mug shot for future use, which she filed (and I just found). But no column to go with it.
I checked with the newsroom, and THEY had not received it. They were aware of the Web response, but of course, what is submitted or not submitted to the editorial department isn’t any of their business.
So I called Thom Berry of DHEC (at home, which is where civilized people are at this moment), who says yep, he e-mailed the piece to me on the 20th — that’s last Friday, and assumed I got it because there was no error message or anything kicking it back. Well, I’ve skimmed back through old stuff going back that far, and through the op-ed submissions I’ve gotten this week that I’ve set aside for Cindi to look at next week. No sign of it.
So Thom’s sending it again. I gave him my personal cell number (as opposed to my work cell) so that he can call me right after sending. So I hope to have it momentarily. But he said it’s the same as the one on the Web, so even if I never get the e-mail, I’ve got the text.
… which I’ll be looking at on Friday morning, for consideration for Sunday or later. The Thursday op-ed is done and gone, and we have no op-ed page Friday or Saturday.
Just got the piece from Thom (at 7:29 p.m.), with this message:
Hey, I believe you. But believe me, this is not only the first time I’ve seen it, but until today, I had no idea such a thing existed.
Anyway, I’m putting in a queue of things to read Friday morning for Sunday consideration, along with a George Will piece, one from Bob Coble, and whatever else moves Friday morning for Sunday…
Is Aughtrys’ characterization of The States’ reportage on DHEC off the mark or untruthful? I mean, I disagree with him that DHEC is “needed” and doing the Lords’ work. His department is really nothing more than a necessary evil that hopefully prevents even worse environmental catastrophes than we already seem to have too many of.
But my sense is that his long and pointed litany of failures in and dissatisfactions with The States’ coverage of DHEC is probably pretty accurate. The haughty, arrogant, super-agendized and often self-congratulatory natures of editorial, news serial and analytical pieces in The State have forever ended any interest I ever had in this newspaper for anything other than an occasional unfinished crossword I may happen to find at the dentists office.
I get my news faster, better and cheaper on the web. Who needs The State? Bo Aughtrys’ opinion of this paper is very similar to mine.
David
Not my department. See, the misunderstanding that you and Mr. Aughtry have regarding The State is that you lump news and editorial together. The truth is that we have so little to do with each other that I learned Wednesday night that folks down in the newsroom were aware of the Aughtry piece, and just assumed we had it, and of course whether we ran it or not was none of their business.
Thom assumed we had it, too. So did everyone at DHEC. And of course the implication of the passive-aggressive statement on the Web page that "Mr. Aughtry’s response was submitted to the newspaper’s editorial offices Nov. 20" was that we had it and were deliberately sitting on it because we were somehow a part of some newsroom conspiracy to persecute DHEC.
Of course, none of that was the case. So I was pretty perturbed to find out what DHEC was saying about us, when we were in no way a party to any of it.
In editorial, we look at something in the news pages the way any reader would. We read it after it’s in the paper, and make of it what we will. Since the need to restructure South Carolina’s government is paramount to us, what we saw in it was a chance to make that point again, which we did in an editorial Cindi wrote for this past Sunday. For us in editorial, it’s not about Bo Aughtry or Earl Hunter or anything they personally have done or not done (which makes it extra ridiculous for any of them to think the editorial board is picking on them). For us it’s about the Legislature’s ongoing refusal to restructure the executive branch — as well as the fact that lawmakers as a body don’t make clear that they want the environment protected. It doesn’t really matter WHO is running DHEC when there’s no elected person really in charge, so the agency has to keep 170 lawmakers with widely varying agendas happy.
Having made that point, we moved on, unaware that DHEC thought we were deliberately ignoring what they had to say. Oh, well.
Brad… I appreciate the insight you just provided. What people consider mudslinging; I consider fact finding !! Anyway…I have been paying closer attention statewide to DHEC dealings…in particular …LANDFILLS !!
As per this article…
http://www.gaffneyledger.com/news/2008/1128/front_page/001.html
The truth is coming to light between Waste Management, Bob Peeler, Harvey Peeler, Jake Knotts, Wildlife Habitat and others to mislead the public about the NEED for Landfills in OUR state. I have been in contact with Mr. Monk and wish ALL the facts would be published!!
I’m trying to give the people of Beaufort a heads up on what is coming for the OAKATIE Landfill at the taxpayers expense by getting Tom Davis to stand UP and be a Leader on the DHEC “Brass” cleanup and campaign funneling revealed. What is happening in OUR State is NUTz !!
As per Beaufort Gazette post..
http://www2.beaufortgazette.com/blogs/post/24102#comment-68251
Tom Davis…call out Bob and Harvey Peelers deal with Milliken
Mr. Tom Davis…..
Will you stand UP and call OUT the Backslappin’ by BOB Peeler of Waste Management, Harvey Peeler- SC Legislator, Boone Peeler on the Gaffney City Council for the backslappin’ going on behind the citizens of Cherokee Counties Back!!!
COME ON …MAN (Fist POUNDS!) BE a LEADER !!
As per article…
http://www.gaffneyledger.com/news/2008/1128/front_page/001.html
Milliken will be the beneficiary of the METHANE Lollipop and the Citizens ..GET … a LANDFILL !! You know for a fact TOM that we know have technology that makes landfills….OBSOLETE!! Only recycling CENTERS !!!!
TOM …this is grounds for WHAT !!!! Do you know a good lawyer ??!
What do you think the citizens of this state would do if they KNEW about the shenanigans and campaign stash swappin’ …and above all DHEC looking the other way !!!
TOM ..be a South Carolinian …and MAKE SOME CALLS !!! Jake Knotts needs an earful from YOU !!! Harvey Peeler needs to be whipped !!!
ABOVE all….the citizens need to HEAR the …TRUTH !!!
SLAY this …SHARK.!!!!
Tom…I know you can do it !!!!
“Not my department. See, the misunderstanding that you and Mr. Aughtry have regarding The State is that you lump news and editorial together. The truth is that we have so little to do with each other…” – Mr. Editorial Page Editor himself
And you act like that’s a good thing, Brad? When actually news and editorial are together, in the A section, or the D section, or on line. There’s no reason on Earth you and the managing editor or city editor or someone shouldn’t be coordinating what appears in the newspaper so the newspaper presents a united face distinct from that of the individuals who work for it.
But, no, I guess you think you’re better than they are, and they think they’re better than you are, and they probably think op-ed is irrelevant.