When Is A Story Not A Story?

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 03:45 AM

It was a classic case where the media picked up some information and then it was blown all out of proportion in their efforts to “get” a story.

We now know that the formaldehyde levels that were earlier suggested in a story were wrong, the methods of taking the same, the time that it took to have those samples tested, and other flaws in the process resulted in the wrong reading.

Many in the community were suddenly standing on their heels, condemning the province, the MOE and the City for failure to tell the people.

The problem was that the media, in their haste to get a story, failed to point out that the whole process was flawed and new tests would likely confirm that.

Instead the MOE got pounded for not releasing flawed results and the province took a hit along with the City, and all for what?

Well the story idea got in the way of the facts of the matter and the recent findings indicate what the people in the know had been saying all along, we do not have high formaldehyde levels in the city.

Now suddenly the story isn’t so sexy and so don’t look for much to be written about it.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: gus on July 14 2010 6:24 AM

I believe I am correct in stating that when one goes back to the original presentation by the MoE to PGAIR there was no indication that the sampling was flawed.

Instead, the MoE presented the information and stated that they would take samples at later dates to determine whether the levels reported were realistic.

We must remember that the original samples were taken on completely different dates. If there was any flaw in the processe, it might actually be because of the conversion of the raw data to the concentration per cubic metre.

I still have not found an article anywhere that clearly identifies not only that there was an error, but, if there was, where the error was introduced.

The real story to me has always been the handling of the case by the MoE and the unacceptable delay in determining what most people, including myself, have thought from the start, that the figures are wrong based on clear information of the cause of the error. Was it in sampling? Was it in data conversion? How can that be determined with 100% certainty?

We are dealing with public safety. One must troubleshoot likely errors!!!

THAT is the story, and a most legitimate one.

Posted by: IAM on July 14 2010 7:50 AM

Nicely stated Gus. I appreciate your feedback.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 14 2010 6:10 PM

Well said gus!

Posted by: Eagleone on July 14 2010 7:15 PM

Yup, I agree. Well said Gus. Better safe on these kinds of issues and an abundance of caution and clear answers should be expected one would think.

Posted by: Dearth on July 15 2010 10:39 AM

IMO the fallout from the formaldehyde rests on all parties involved the news outlets and the environmental groups must imo take the lions share of the blame for blowing this way out of porportion and playing on the fears of people.

The MoE and industry should also take blame for the delay of reporting that the samples taken were corrupted and by the time they reported the findings both the media and environmental groups had taken it way beyond a controllable means and even though the facts started to emerge the media did nothing to curb it as they knew they had screwed up and several environmental groups absolutely refused to consider the information given to them.

The government and industry should of done better to report the bad findings but by the time they got around to it it was in essence to little to late.

Both sides had facts and figures to back their cases up but neither seemed to want to hear the other talk.