Correcting My C8 Report Blog

Mea culpa. Here's an example of what happens when I assume, rather than read carefully. I had referred to Ken Ward's article on release of the C8 report last week, noted his statement that the report hadn't been posted on the Science Panel's web site, and inferred that he did not have the report. In fact, he had the report, even before it was up on the Science Panel's website. That may have left the erroneous impression that he made up the information he reported, which I did not intend. I assumed that he had gotten his information about the report in open court, at the time the report was filed. Here's what Ken sent me:



"I always enjoy your blog and learn from it ... But I thought I would
point out a pretty significant error.

You wrote (in this post,
http://wvenvironmental.blogspot.com/2009/10/c8-report-filed-with-court.h
tml) that:

"I have not seen the report, and evidently Ken Ward hasn't seen it
either, although his is the first story on the study."

I'm not sure what evidence you have to support your statement that I
hadn't seen the study. If you read my story, you'll see that I cite
numbers included in it and quoted directly from it. Not sure how I could
do that without having seen it.

And, in fact, I did see it before I wrote that story. I just did not
post it on our Web site, in large part because I was writing several
other pieces for our online editions and our print editions that day,
and did not have time to post it.

Perhaps you misinterpreted this paragraph:

"This latest study on C8 exposure and cholesterol in children was filed
in court, but had not been posted on the Science Panel's Web site or
otherwise publicized by the panel, at least as of late Friday
afternoon."

A careful reading, though, will show that all I wrote there was that the
C8 Science Panel hadn't posted the document on its website. Nowhere
there do I indicate that I had not seen the report. The point of the
paragraph is that the C8 Science Panel had done nothing to notify the
public in the Parkersburg area of this rather significant finding.

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but some readers may have
interpreted your post to mean you were alleging that I simply made up
what was in that story. Of course, that is a serious charge to make
against any journalist.

I would appreciate a correction posted on your blog." [End quotation]



He's right. That statement, though not ill-intended, was incorrect. Ken, consider me apologetic and red-faced.