To: Michael Raine (michael.raine@producer.com); 'Barb Glen'
Subject: Integrity of Western Producer
July 18, 2004
Dear Mr. Raine and Ms. Glen,
As you a very aware, your article on Mark Purdey’s lecture at the Univ. of Sask. Vet College was slanderous and misleading.
In an attempt to correct your false statements, Mr. Purdey, of the UK, sent the Western Producer a letter which they agreed to print in full. They did not. His letter was edited three times and stuck in the Letters to the Editor section. As I possess a copy of the original letter, I am aware that certain details and statistics, which were by no means controversial (merely factual) were omitted with the customary … .
I am repulsed by the pathetic effort by yourselves and the Western Producer to correct the false statements made about Mr. Purdey’s work; and, by the misleading statements about Dr. P. Flood’s CWD (chronic wasting disease report).
Dr. Flood’s research did not test the brain stem of the animals, as your article reported. They tested the “left rostral part of the cerebrum” – this is not a portion of the brain stem. I believe that this CWD report would have no credibility if this fact was made more clear in the report. The Flood report implies with the statement on page 2 (Executive Summary paragraph one), “Of these, 53 proved to be CWD positive on immunohistochemical examination of the brain stem. All the positive samples have been assayed for trace minerals.” Although this statement is not false, is truly misleading as the brain stems of all the positives were examined to determine CWD pos/neg results, however, the samples tested in the Flood report were not portions of the brain stem. I ask you, would the CFIA get away with saying “They tested the brains of all cattle for BSE.” - if the public discovered that they were testing the wrong part of the brain?
The Western Producer and you, Mr. Michael Raine, are liable for the damage done to Mr. Mark Purdey’s reputation and for the spreading of false information regarding the CWD (Flood) Report. If you cannot make a better effort of correcting your article’s false statements, then this matter will have to be given to the authorities governing the conduct of reporters and newspapers for further action.
The slanderous article was a full page article in the May 27, 2004 issue of the Western Producer. The pictures shown at the top implied that Dr. Chris Clark and Mark Purdey held a face to face debate on the issue. Of course, you both know that Dr. Clark did not attend the lecture. The whole concept of debate involves the right of rebuttal. Mr. Purdey was sideswiped with comments made before and after he lectured, with no chance of rebuttal. The Western producer has been playing unfair – I am not sure I wish to subscribe to such a biased newspaper.
The corrections, rightfully, should be in a separate individual article of at least a half page. They should also be admitted to as errors in the initial article, with the words Correction in bold print at the top. I am deeply concerned that my husband’s phone conversations with you after the article was published, which informed you of the mistakes made, were ignored outright. To error unknowingly is one thing, but to error and make no attempt to clarify these false statements after you were made aware of them, is criminal and unethical – especially for a newspaper.
Freedom of the press, does not grant you freedom to lie and mislead. Your article of May 27, 2004 did both.
Your actions to amend this wrong will speak for you.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Kathy Czar
Box 8
Hanna, Alberta
T0J 1P0
Ph/fax: 403 854-2433
Subject: Integrity of Western Producer
July 18, 2004
Dear Mr. Raine and Ms. Glen,
As you a very aware, your article on Mark Purdey’s lecture at the Univ. of Sask. Vet College was slanderous and misleading.
In an attempt to correct your false statements, Mr. Purdey, of the UK, sent the Western Producer a letter which they agreed to print in full. They did not. His letter was edited three times and stuck in the Letters to the Editor section. As I possess a copy of the original letter, I am aware that certain details and statistics, which were by no means controversial (merely factual) were omitted with the customary … .
I am repulsed by the pathetic effort by yourselves and the Western Producer to correct the false statements made about Mr. Purdey’s work; and, by the misleading statements about Dr. P. Flood’s CWD (chronic wasting disease report).
Dr. Flood’s research did not test the brain stem of the animals, as your article reported. They tested the “left rostral part of the cerebrum” – this is not a portion of the brain stem. I believe that this CWD report would have no credibility if this fact was made more clear in the report. The Flood report implies with the statement on page 2 (Executive Summary paragraph one), “Of these, 53 proved to be CWD positive on immunohistochemical examination of the brain stem. All the positive samples have been assayed for trace minerals.” Although this statement is not false, is truly misleading as the brain stems of all the positives were examined to determine CWD pos/neg results, however, the samples tested in the Flood report were not portions of the brain stem. I ask you, would the CFIA get away with saying “They tested the brains of all cattle for BSE.” - if the public discovered that they were testing the wrong part of the brain?
The Western Producer and you, Mr. Michael Raine, are liable for the damage done to Mr. Mark Purdey’s reputation and for the spreading of false information regarding the CWD (Flood) Report. If you cannot make a better effort of correcting your article’s false statements, then this matter will have to be given to the authorities governing the conduct of reporters and newspapers for further action.
The slanderous article was a full page article in the May 27, 2004 issue of the Western Producer. The pictures shown at the top implied that Dr. Chris Clark and Mark Purdey held a face to face debate on the issue. Of course, you both know that Dr. Clark did not attend the lecture. The whole concept of debate involves the right of rebuttal. Mr. Purdey was sideswiped with comments made before and after he lectured, with no chance of rebuttal. The Western producer has been playing unfair – I am not sure I wish to subscribe to such a biased newspaper.
The corrections, rightfully, should be in a separate individual article of at least a half page. They should also be admitted to as errors in the initial article, with the words Correction in bold print at the top. I am deeply concerned that my husband’s phone conversations with you after the article was published, which informed you of the mistakes made, were ignored outright. To error unknowingly is one thing, but to error and make no attempt to clarify these false statements after you were made aware of them, is criminal and unethical – especially for a newspaper.
Freedom of the press, does not grant you freedom to lie and mislead. Your article of May 27, 2004 did both.
Your actions to amend this wrong will speak for you.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Kathy Czar
Box 8
Hanna, Alberta
T0J 1P0
Ph/fax: 403 854-2433
Comment