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!
-
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
-
Meta
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.
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.
Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » NJ Planners Win The Rip Van Winkle Award