Monday, March 21, 2011

Video of NYT Reporter Recanting Lax Regulation/Oversight Narrative

See the new video (link below) of the NYT reporter dialing back substantially his February 27th, Oscar night, dire portrayal of Pennsylvania regulation as an "extreme case" of "lax regulation" and "lax oversight."  The video comes as close as you ever get to a reporter saying he made a mistake.

In the March 2nd video interview, the NYT reporter says about regulation of gas drilling that Pennsylvania has done a "good job," made "great strides," and is "strong in many cases."

 He also says that the criticism that his February 27th story excluded a laundry list (34 specific actions) of strong regulation and oversight was a "fair point." 

All that amounts to a totally different narrative from the February 27th story.  It is a different tune.  I am grateful for the belated concessions to truth.

On the matter of radionuclides in the water, this March 2nd interview was done 5 days before the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection released results of in-stream testing at 7 streams showing radionuclide levels at background levels or safe.  See the March 7th blog posting for information about the DEP test results.

For the interview, go to

As this blog has documented at length, this NYT reporter wrote a false narrative that excluded the strong regulation and oversight in Pennsylvania.  In fact, Pennsylvania starting in 2008 implemented 34 specific regulatory and oversight actions that made Pennsylvania's oversight program the strongest in the nation but with more things to do.  The reporter himself in the above video concedes partially this basic point.

Please see the March 5th blog posting entitled: "Pennsylvania's Strong Drilling Oversight Program: The NYT Scandal of the News Not Fit To Print."  This posting is a chronological listing of actions taken in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Also on Sunday March 5th, the NYT published a 250 word letter from Governor Rendell and myself that began to set the record straight.  Our substantially reduced and edited letter listed just a few of the substantial oversight actions that the NYT reporter  excluded to advance his original and now renounced fictional narrative of lax regulation and lax oversight.

Truth has a tough time catching up to a lie but it may be gaining in this instance. 

And more truth is on the way with the release soon of the results of  the testing of the drinking water supplies for radionuclides by Pennsylvania American Water Company and others.

The testing of the drinking water itself will be definitive on the radionuclide issue raised in the February 27th NYT story.

1 comment:

  1. What did you think of the Fracktracker piece that spelled out why the DEP data and the EPA's old data on produced water don't contradict at all:

    I see what you're saying with regard to drinking water, but if there are occasional bursts of high concentration, radioactive water as this piece suggests:

    Don't we have to worry about impacts on fish, aquatic life and the environmental health of streams in general?