Here's another example of an editor being on the other side of the desk.
I was interviewed about an insecticide that could affect local streams after sending a press release out for our volunteer streamkeeper group. It never ceases to amaze me how it feels to be on the interviewee side, and the dismay that crawls up the back of your neck when you feel your comments have been misinterpreted.
It's a good story, and I'm happy that it will raise public awareness about insecticides and creeks, it's just that I didn't say quite what it says I did!
I sent in a request for a correction today:
(NOTE: I'm happy to report that the paper will air my concerns. I'm also pleased that we've patched things up amicably, and look forward to working with the paper in the future -- I certainly appreciate its coverage of local environmental issues!)
-------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the extensive article on the chafer/insecticide issue, however I have several concerns about how some of the information was presented.
1) I never said that there was a "potentially deadly impact of the chemical on spawning salmon...." Salmon enter creeks, they spawn, they die. The key is the chemical has a potentially deadly impact on the bugs in the water that are part of the food chain for hatching fry, resident fish, and other animals.
2) "Cipywnyk said coho salmon fry are especially susceptible to chemicals because they have to live in the local creeks for up to a year...." I never said fry were susceptible to Merit, which is the implication in this statement. Again, the issue is that the chemical is toxic to the bugs in the water, and the fry eat the bugs.
3) I never said "... if the chemical was to enter the storm sewer system, it could flow into streams and kill salmon runs throughout the city." Again, it's the bugs.
4) I never said "... Burnaby's storm drains should be considered aquatic habitat." I said storm drains lead directly to streams and creeks.
I am concerned that these misrepresentations could hurt my credibility as a streamkeeper, and even potentially leave me open to accusations of misinformation from the manufacturer of the insecticide.
I would appreciate it if the paper could publish a short correction or letter to the editor along the following lines:
"Paul Cipywnyk thanks the Burnaby Now for its environmental coverage, however he would like to clarify that he did not say that the insecticide Merit would directly affect spawning salmon or coho salmon fry. The key is that the chemical is known to kill the water bugs that fry and resident fish eat. He also did not say that storm drains should be considered aquatic habitat, but that they lead directly to local streams and creeks, conveying chemical runoff and other pollutants into sensitive aquatic systems."