In a counterpoint column in the News & Record today, writer Jo Lynn of Greensboro suggests that if city counselor Mike Barber wants to consider re-opening the White Street Landfill, he should think instead about opening a landfill in his district. Lynn says that she even knows of a perfect site in Barber's district, one that she describes as "actually larger than the White Street site."
Bzzzzzzz! Wrong. Lynn goes on to describe her proposed site as being 24.52 acres in size. The White Street landfill is, in fact, approximately 900 acres.
I've bemoaned the N&R's unwillingness to fact check reader contributions in the past. I'm doing it again. Whatever good arguments there may be for not re-opening the landfill, or opening another one, this is not one of them. It really holds our community back when we have discussions on public policy that start from places of misinformation. While I understand and agree with the N&R's desire not to squelch opinion, assertions of facts should be checked and commentary rejected if it claims something that is demonstrably false by empirical measurement.
While it would be far better for the N&R to exercise their fact-checking in advance, it's not too late in this case. Hopefully, in a subsequent edition, the N&R will offer a correction noting that this article contained an error. Doing so would not only correct the public record and better inform readers, it would send a message to future writers that they must get their facts straight or be publicly corrected.
Roch, nice job of fact-checking.
ReplyDeleteI also noted that the letter-writer did not seem to acknowledge that the existence of the airport adjoining Barber's district can be considered a negative impact already experienced by area residents. There does not seem to be much note made or appreciation of that fact, because it is contrary to the racial victimization theme that prevails locally.
Her statement implying that the landfill affected the "well-being" of area residents is also questionable.
Joe Guarino
It was an absolutely stupid letter and should not have been printed with or without inaccuracies since the lady didn't know what she was talking about. It was however right in line with the N&R's race baiting history. BB
ReplyDeleteN&R was quick to find grammatical errors in a letter from former city manager Ed Kitchen just prior to last fall's city council election, and reprint the letter in its entirety in the following day's edition.
ReplyDeleteIn this letter there is an error that is substantial by its omission of fact: there were two studies done for the city in 2001 by outside consultants regarding the White Street landfill. In one study - apparently the one cited in this letter to N&R - three choices were mentioned for the city, namely: a new landfill; resource recovery; and trasfer. The writer failed to mention another 2001 engineering study that included a fourth option, which was retention of White Street. This study indidcated that the cost per household per month retaining the White Street option was $ 3.60 to $ 4.30. The cost of using an out-of-county disposal option (transfer) was roughly three times greater, not including the abandoned technology and development costs at White Street. Presumably this cost difference has escalated significantly due to increased fuel prices.
It's disheartening to see the N&R print inaccurate information that otherwise suits its own agenda. We deserve better.
Good info Roch and Bill, thanks.
ReplyDelete