Questions to Tribune Regarding Distortions, Errors, and Omissions

The Tribune continues to mis-represent the facts on this topic. The latest is an editorial published on October 28, 2005 regarding the Health Commission's GMO Task Force.

To: Maureen Saltzer, Sandra Duerr, Tad Weber, Rick Jackoway, Bill Morem, Silas Lyons

Many of us working for the passage of measure Q feel that the Tribune did not treat us fairly during the campaign.  In order to establish or refute our claim we request a response to the following (numbered for easy reference) questions.

We organized several forums and arranged for several experts to discuss genetic engineering and genetically engineered crops.  We informed the Tribune and other media outlets about these forums so that they could become familiar with our perspective.  We would expect a fair appraisal of our arguments would include hearing what these experts had to say.  For each individual listed, please tell us who from the editorial board at the Tribune was present and if any articles resulted from these experts’ presentations.

1) Jeffrey Smith

2) Miguel Altieri

3) Steven Druker

4) Dan McGuire

5) Bill Wenzel

6) Ron Lee

7) Ignacio Chapela

8) Brian Rees

9) Jeannie Peters

10) Kirk Azevedo

In an article by Silas Lyons he states that measure Q would, "...ban most genetic engineering...".  This seems to be a repetition of the charge made by the opponents of measure Q that it would ban medical research.  The supporters of measure Q vigorously denied that the language of measure Q would do any such thing, pointing out that it mentions the prevention of, “genetic pollution” 3 times and that said pollution cannot occur inside a secure laboratory.  A legal opinion also sited case law to support this interpretation.  Regardless, this was a point of dispute between opposing factions.

11) Please explain why Silas was able to state as a fact the claim by the opponents of measure Q that it would, “…ban most genetic engineering…”

The Tribune’s editorial against measure Q spoke at length about the wording of the measure.  It quoted from two legal opinions provided by the opponents of measure Q that were never made available to the public (at least they were not posted on their web page).  The legal opinion from the supporters of measure Q that said it would not affect medical research (and was available to the public for scrutiny) was not mentioned.

12) How does the Tribune justify mentioning only the “no on Q” legal opinions while ignoring the legal opinion which supported the claim by the proponents of measure Q that it would not affect medical research?

The editorial opinion also compared measure Q to a similar initiative in Humbolt county.  Humbolt’s initiative contained 2 flaws in its wording.  DNA was defined as a protein (instead of a nucleic acid) and, more importantly, a provision for incarceration was included that was unconstitutional.  Consequently, supporters of Humbolt’s initiative pulled their support so they could bring back another version.  The Tribune’s editorial urged supporters of measure Q to pull their support for it as those in Humbolt county had done.  This seems deceptive since measure Q did not contain the flaws that caused the supporters of Humbolt’s initiative to abandon it.

13) How does the Tribune justify comparison of the wording in measure Q to that of the Humbolt co. initiative when the poor wording of the Humbolt co. initiative was not present in measure Q?

After the Tribune editorial against measure Q, we asked for and were denied an opportunity to respond with a guest viewpoint of approximately the same number of words.

14) How does the Tribune justify refusing to provide a comparable space for the “Yes on Q” campaign to respond to the Tribune’s editorial, particularly when the editorial contained misrepresentations and omitted important facts?

We attempted to place a new ad in the Tribune to run on Nov. 1.  Becki Spector had asked Laura Phillips of the Tribune several times regarding the policy for placing a new ad.  At first Becki was told that we could place the new ad as long as it was submitted at least 4 business days prior to the election.  That turned out to be wrong.  Then Becki was told that we could submit a new ad as long as it had no new arguments.  That also turned out to be wrong.  Finally Becki was told that we could only submit the exact same text as a prior ad which had run on Oct. 26^th.  The ad we had planned to run on Nov. 1 was not allowed.

15) Given that the Tribune had at this point come out against measure Q, how does the Tribune explain the misinformation that was provided to Becki?

On Friday, October 29^th the Tribune had a front page headline that linked the “Yes on Q” campaign to a deceptive tactic that was actually perpetrated upon the voters by the “No on Q” campaign.

16) How many people had to sign off on the accuracy of the headline in question?

17) When was the last time that an error of this magnitude was made?

When I asked that a correction be made I was told at first that it would appear on page A3.  I replied that this was unacceptable.  During a subsequent phone conversation with Rick Jackoway and Tad Weber, Tad said the correction would appear on the front page, above the fold.  While the correction did appear on the front page, it was below the fold.

18) Please explain why the promise of a correction above the fold was not kept.

During the discussion with Tad and Rick I asked that the wording of the correction be provided in advance so we could comment.  This was requested because the error was clearly harmful to the efforts of those working for the passage of measure Q and advantageous to those working against its passage which included the Tribune based on it’s previously published editorial opinion which strongly urged voters to defeat the measure.

19) Given that the Tribune must avoid even the appearance of bias and given that the Tribune had committed an error that was clearly advantageous to their own editorial stance, how does the Tribune justify not allowing the “Yes on Q” campaign to review the wording of the correction?

The correction that did appear was totally unacceptable to those of us working for passage of measure Q.  The correction merely stated that the opponents of measure Q paid for an endorsement in a “Voter Information Guide” and that the “Yes on Q” campaign had nothing to do with the mailer.  The correction did not explain that this was a deceptive campaign technique.  A much more simple and clear correction could have been made with fewer words by stating:

“In the headline of yesterday’s article about deceptive campaign practices the Tribune incorrectly stated that the “Yes on Q” campaign had used a slate mailer that attempts to deceive voters.  This tactic was actually used by the “No on Q” campaign as the text of the article made clear.  The Tribune regrets the error.”

20) Please explain why the Tribune’s correction did not include the vital information that the “Voter Information Guide” was an example of a deceptive campaign practice and why the correction suggested above is not superior to the one published by the Tribune.

While there was at least one article about genetic engineered crops that was published by the Tribune (regarding the pollen spread of GE bentgrass) this seems to be the exception that proves the rule.  Several press releases were sent to the Tribune containing important information about genetically engineered crops and food that seem to have been ignored.

21) How many of the stories that were sent to the Tribune regarding genetically engineered crops and food were investigated and resulted in articles?

22) Given that a ballot measure was under consideration regarding GE crops, how does the Tribune justify the lack of articles critical of GE foods and crops?

After the election you ran a story about campaign finances and how much was spent in a few different races.  Included in this front page article was the amount spent by the pro and con for measure Q.  We believe the amount spent by the “No on Q” campaign is significantly in error.

23) Please check the facts regarding how much was spent by the “No on Q” campaign and verify or correct the amount quoted in the article ($195,544).

While no one single incident might be considered evidence of substantial bias against the supporters of measure Q, taken as a whole these various events seem to suggest exactly that.

24) What is the Tribune’s response to the charge that they have been unfair in dealing with the supporters of measure Q and what assurance can the Tribune offer that they will not be subject to such a charge in the future?

At the very least, you can’t complain that we lack specifics.

Sincerely,

Mark Phillips
SLO GE Free