Sunday, July 31, 2011

Why Redacting E-Mails Is a Bad Idea - NY Times Warned of a Fracking Bubble or Ponzi Scheme

Yesterday, the Public Editor for The New York Times, Arthur Brisbane, issued an article criticizing the Times for redacting in their reporting on the shale gas industry's so called "Ponzi schemes" to dupe investors. The New York Times national editors, Rick Berke and Adam Bryant, responded by explaining why the newspaper was forced to redact their the emails in their original story. 

Published: July 30, 2011

"TWO weeks ago, I raised questions about a New York Times article that warned of a bubble or Ponzi scheme in the development of shale gas energy. Today I want to look closely at the front page shale gas article that appeared one day later, which relied heavily on documentation with sections blacked out to shield its anonymous provider."

The documents in the articles had been leaked to the Times from government sources seeking to remain confidential. The Times agreed to redact government employee names, however, the paper originally sought to publish in unredacted form. The Times held the story for a month while waiting for The EIA (Energy Info. Admin, a part of DOE) to comply with a request from Congress and multiple requests under FOIA by the Times. But The EIA stonewalled so the paper published the leaked version with redaction to protect sources. 

You can read the public editors column by clicking on the LINK below:

You can read the Times’ response to the public editor HERE or the link below.

Please make comments ASAP if you believe that this type of investigative journalism is worthwhile so the NY Times will continue to report on this critical issue. Comments should be made in the comment section beneath the either of the articles linked above.

No comments:

Post a Comment is a medium for concerned citizens to express their opinions in regards to 'Fracking.' We are Representatives of Democracy. We are Fractivists. We are you.